'Glenn Beck': Exposing Crime Inc.

This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," May 13, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GLENN BECK, HOST: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

Tonight, I'm going to share a novel concept with you. Tonight, I don't want to waste any time at all. We’ve got a lot of work to do. Let's go!


BECK: Hello, America.

I want to have a serious conversation with you tonight because we're on the beginning of something that, quite honestly, the more we dig into it, the more things you see in the next week — it's going to explain everything. All of the pieces that we thought we were exposing one-by-one, we thought they were important. But now that we're beginning to see the whole puzzle piece, we're beginning to see the whole picture.

And as I told you last night, when some of these pieces started to come in, one of our producers who gets it, I think it just really hit home with her. And I went over to her cubicle and she had tears in her eyes because she realized, as she said to me, what all of this means. It's one thing to say, "Hey, I think you have cancer." It's another to then get confirmation of it. We are calling this "Crime Inc." You don't want to miss a single episode. And I thank you so much for going out on the Internet last night and finding so much stuff and sending it to us on the tip line.

You will not believe what we're finding and all the thousands of tips we are getting. Please, when you find something on the Internet, please don't send us a link. You've got to burn some of this stuff to a DVD. You can send us the hyperlink, but if it has been scrubbed or if it's been lost off the Internet, we need screen shots and we need the actual video. So, if you find it, please, screen-shot it and burn it to a DVD. Send us the link and we'll contact you if it's been — if it's no longer there.

Now, in the next few days, in the next few weeks, if you know somebody who's on the fence or if you, yourself, are not sure, I'm not asking you to believe anything that I'm saying. I am asking you to think about it. I am asking you to look at it. I'm asking you to explain it any other way — because I'm not — in the next week or so — I'm not going to just roll out in Crime Inc. just one thing. This is beginning to explain everything that is going on. And it is either the most elaborate set of coincidences or it is something else. And if it is indeed what we all believe it is — I asked one of my producers today. How do you expose this and live? And he said, "You better make sure it's right and take it down, because you don't wound this."

Explain it any other way. Tonight, I want to go back a little bit and I want to just show you some of the people that we have talked about in the last year because if — I think people have gotten numb. And we're now able to put actions behind things that people dismissed. But I want to go back to some of the main players.

For instance, a year ago, if I told you there was a 9/11 truther in the White House, or a communist in the White House, or somebody who was running our manufacturing section that didn't believe in capitalism, or somebody who liked Chairman Mao, or somebody who wanted to legally limit free speech, or someone who wanted government operatives to infiltrate any group that disagreed with the administration — government operative operatives. If I told you one of those people existed, it would have been a bad thing and people would have done what people did with Van Jones. They stepped up and Van Jones was not discredited. He was just moved.

But if I told you these things in dribs and drabs because we were figuring it out at the time or spread it out over a year, America might become numb to what it really means. But if you stop for just a minute and you look at all of them, and you have an umbrella that begins to show you what's coming and what's happening, you might have a slightly different view. Let me show you the umbrella, OK?

Well, this — granted, Maurice Strong will say this is for a novel that he was writing but he has never written a novel, and Maurice Strong is a guy who is U.N.-central and surprisingly involved in almost everything. This is what he said in 1990 in an interview. He said: "What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries in order to save the planet, this group decided, `Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?'"

OK, let me just go over a few of these things. So, this is a what-if. And remember, what we're talking about is a novel that has never been written all these many years later. And he's never written on, but it's a good novel. But words have power. We're looking for a small group of people. They've got to be global. A small global group of people. They have to believe — the small group of people — that there is a threat to the Earth, a principal threat to the Earth, which is that rich countries are the problem. A risk to the Earth, and that risk is rich countries. Then they also have to believe that this group, they see this risk and it's coming from the rich countries. And the best thing they can do, the only hope is for the planet to collapse the industrialized civilization,

OK? So they have to collapse the system.
Wouldn't it be our responsibility to bring that about? OK? Why would it be their responsibility to bring that out? Well, if you can't convince people of these things, then you've got to do it a different way. And if you do it in a different way, then that means you need control. This is the thesis for what I'm going to be laying out, a little of it tonight but over the next week. And, America, you are not going to believe how all of the pieces fit. It is terrifying. It is more than Crime Inc. Holy cow!

OK. So let's find the group of people, OK? The group of people that believe in Cloward and Piven because you've got to collapse the industrialized civilization. I mean, I don't even think I need to explain this one. Our deficit for April just came out. It was more than $82 billion. That is four times more than the April deficit one year ago and two times more than what they projected in worst case scenarios. Cloward and Piven. But there's another way to collapse a system, to fundamentally transform it.

If your system that has wealth and understands wealth and the free market, you just stop the free market and take away the wealth. But if you do that, you better do it quickly and you better hope that somebody doesn't begin to expose it. But if somebody does expose it, you better stop it. You better stop anyone, any kind of dissent, control them because you're not just fundamentally transforming the country, you're transforming lives.
Tonight, I want to begin to introduce you to the ones you already know, all the president's men.

And let's see what they all have in common. Let's see what kind of picture all these little puzzle pieces make. Do they fit with each other? This is more than having a few things in common. These are fundamental principles. And some of the things we've told you have been denied or dismissed over and over again. But when they're separate, it's easier to believe the denial. But when you start looking to them as a collection, you start to see — wait a minute, I don't believe that.

For instance, Van Jones. When he was caught on tape, 9/11 truther, and he had a 9/11 truther,

you know, his signature on a list, his excuse, he said he didn't know what he was signing. He was tricked into signing it and he thought he was helping 9/11 families. Got that? John Holdren.

John Holdren — his radical views on forced abortions and sterilizing the drinking water were under scrutiny. His staff said, this is material that's — I mean, it came out in the 1970s and it's all academic. OK, you could believe that, and many senators and many people in America still do. But then we found this guy yesterday who has the same kind of views. OK? When you have Barack Obama sitting in a pew with a pastor for 20 years that was a Jew-hating crazy guy, hates America.

Nobody wants to think that the president of the United States has any of those views. So, he says I wasn't aware of those statements. Now, I find that hard to believe that Jeremiah Wright can open his mouth for 20 seconds without saying something crazy, let alone 20 years. But again, by itself, you believe it. By itself, you might buy it. By itself, you might buy it. When Anita Dunn said, you know, Chairman Mao was the philosopher she turned to most. She said she was joking in an attempt at irony, but it clearly fell flat. OK, if it was one. It was novel, it was smears,

I didn't hear it, I didn't see it, it was a joke, it was just academic, we were just speaking — no, we didn't mean it that way. Oh, it's out of context. All these guys who are saying this are just trying to destroy me. I mean, the people involved it's always the same thing.

See, if these radical ideas are just open-mindedness, well, then, where are all the other ideas on the other side of things? How come the academics aren't wondering what a country with no government regulation would look like or very limited government regulation? It always seems to be a radical progressive giant. I mean, Mao kind of state. I want to see if we can put this together here. Just — we're looking for a group of people — I think we have it — who think there's a threat to the Earth — we have it. They're all global warming people. They believe rich countries are the problem — we have that. Collapse the system — they're doing it. And control. Let's see if we can put this together. First of all, global governance — and I'm just going to use the ones that you've probably seen before, but again, we're laying the foundation of something that you will not believe — global government. Here is Andy Stern. Watch.


ANDY STERN, SEIU PRESIDENT: We created global trade, we created global finance, we created global companies but we forgot to create a global government, or global organization or global regulators that McCarthy is talking about now. Now, I happened to be at Davos and I say they're going to rename this year's Davos as revenge of the country over the companies because, all of a sudden, we realize we let global capitalism run amok and we need global regulation. And today, we began the process in London of actually putting in place those regulations.


OK. So, we have a union guy talking — I mean, the unions used to fight against other countries and the labor. I mean, now they're fighting for global government. OK? Maurice Strong, this is the guy who we've introduced you to, who's s U.N.-central. I mean, this guy, look him up. Spooky dude. Maurice Strong wrote this introduction to a book in 1991, global government. "This interlocking is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. Beyond interdependence." Beyond — what is beyond interdependence? What is it? He also says by the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life. Why by 2012? And he said that in 1991. The global governance advocates seem to settle on achieving their ends through environmentalism — environmentalism.

Remember, hence, we've got almost everybody we find is into global government. I mean, Clinton Global Initiative. All of it — all of it is global now. Now they might say that this is a conspiracy theory because you're talking about a global government, but listen to the overwhelming evidence — listen to any of them. They're all talking about global currency, global governance. Who runs it? Who runs it? Maurice Strong on environmentalism because that's the next thing. You got to have — you got to have a threat to the Earth. He said this: "The real goal of the Earth charter is the fact, in fact, it will become like the Ten Commandments." He also said this — watch.


MAURICE STRONG, ENVIRONMENTALIST: I can say if we continue on our present trend or our present course, it's very likely that in many parts of the world, this will be the case. In fact, we have begun to see it in many areas. Now, licenses to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for, some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point or some, at least some restriction on the right to have a child. I'm not proposing this. I was simply predicting this as one of the possible courses of society would have to be — would have to seriously consider should we get ourselves into this kind of situation.


OK. This is Zeke Emanuel's complete live system. This is John Holdren. I mean, this is not a crazy — now, he says I'm not —- exactly what Zeke Emanuel said — I'm not proposing this. No, no, no. I'm not proposing. I'm just saying in case there is an emergency. So, you've got — OK?

This is — that's Cass Sunstein. Where's John Holdren. Oops. We got John Holdren. John Holdren said it as well. Now, remember, John Holdren is our science czar.
In 1977, John Holdren in his science textbook floated around population control ideas, like a government might require only implantation of a contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual's discretion but requiring re-implantation after childbirth. OK, that is 1977. He said this and he said this. It's the same story. And they're all cross-pollinating here.

Again, not asking you to believe it — just explain the odds of this coincidence. OK? Explain the odds. Science czar, the Earth is on fire. We've got to do whatever we have to do, if we ever get to that point, we have to sterilize people or force abortions. Same thing, neither of them proposing it, but just in case. And they also — wow, look at this — they also believe in the redistribution of wealth. Let's go there happen because that's the next one. There's a threat, a small group of people that believe there's a threat to the Earth, and the rich countries are the problem, OK? And they got to collapse the system.

We already know what they're doing. They're spending money — billions of dollars globally, globally. You and I know the Greece thing is not going to work. The market knows the Greece thing is not going to work. Why would we spend $1 trillion? Why? Why is Fannie and Freddie? Why does Fannie and Freddie have an open door to spending? Nobody even asks us anymore. They can spend whatever they want. Why? Let's go to redistribution of wealth. Here's Andy Stern. He's now on Obama's board of fiscal advisors. Listen to what he says about redistribution of wealth.


STERN: The government has a major opportunity to distribute wealth, through the EITC, through tax policies, through minimum wages, through living wages. The government has a role in distributing wealth or social benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, children's health insurance. There are opportunities in America to share better in the wealth, to rebalance the power. And unions and government are part of the solution.


Workers of the world unite. OK? Understand that we're not talking about giving — taking my money and giving it to the poor here in America. We are talking about taking — this is a group of people that believe in global government. He himself says, "Workers of the world unite." So, it's not just taking the rich man's money and giving it to somebody poor here in America, we're all the richest 10 percent in the world. If you live here, we all are the richest 10 percent. How about Obama himself? What does he say about it?


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. Everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. One of the — I think — the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.


Explain that. If you think we're going to keep America as it is, explain just that quote. With all the things you've seen, explain it. Have your friends explain it now. OK. So, now, let's go to the science czar, John Holdren. You remember, he wants the sterilants in drinking water, you know, in case. And that was just academic. This guy — what did he say of distribution of wealth?


JOHN HOLDREN, SCIENCE CZAR: I think, ultimately, the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down and there's going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume in terms of energy and material resources in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.


OK. So we have to downgrade. Now, let's go to Maurice Strong again — talking about collapsing the economy. I'll show you what he wants and the end of this story next.



BECK: OK, America, I'm trying to lay out the beginning of Crime Inc.
because it's much bigger than even I thought it was two weeks ago. And you'll see it in the coming days and weeks. And I need you to look for this pattern.

What are we looking for? We are looking for a group of people, a small group, global, that they believe that there is a threat to the Earth and that threat is rich countries are the problem. They will collapse the industrialized system — Cloward and Piven. They will collapse the system and they also need to control it, every aspect of it.

OK. So we're at redistribution of wealth with all the president's men, and this is just — these are just the rehash of the things that you know. There are a couple of new ones like Maurice Strong. He talks about collapsing the economy. Of course, he doesn't want this. He's just fantasizing about it again.

Here he is.


STRONG: Paradoxically, the way to remove the threat of climate change is for the economy to continue to degenerate, because as the economy degenerates, of course, there are fewer emissions. And that's actually happening. But to use that as a pretext to say, well, now, we don't have to worry about it, the cost to our economy would be — would we really want to do that?

I want to see climate change corrected. In fact, I believe very strongly in it. But I don't want to do it at the expense of a collapsed economy, but a collapsed economy would produce that effect.


BECK: Right, he doesn't — remember, he doesn't want to do that. No.
No, no. He doesn't want to do that.

Remember, what he pushes for wrecked economies. OK? We know this because of Spain and we also have been doing our homework on him. And you will meet him in coming days.

Now, here is Obama's new nominee for the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid. His name is Donald Berwick. What does he say about redistribution of wealth?


: Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized and humane must — must — redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.


BECK: OK. How about Joel Rogers, the wizard behind the curtain, greening cities in the name of, again, saving the Earth? What does he say?


JOEL ROGERS, EMERALD CITIES COLLABORATIVE: If you do those six things, I think you will be well on your way to actually greening the American economy and you will grow the wealth. And G.E. and Cisco and the other people who are announcing great plan should be relatively happy with that. And any environmentalist who's not concerned about the distribution of wealth should be relatively happy, too.


BECK: OK. Van Jones, former green job czar, green movement. Here it is.


VAN JONES, FORMER GREEN JOBS CZAR: Inside that minimum demands was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1954, 1968, you know, complete revolution was on the table for this country. And I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now, we're saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism where, you know, at least we're not, you know, fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will it be enough? No, it won't be.

We want to go beyond the system of exploitation and oppression altogether, but that's a process.


BECK: OK. Cass Sunstein explains it in this paper entitled "Climate Change Justice." Here it is: "Redistribution from the United States to poor people in poor nations would be highly desirable. But expenditures on greenhouse gas reductions are a crude means of producing that redistribution. It would be much better to give cash payments directly to people who are now poor."

He went on to say: "We agree, however, that if the United States does spend a great deal on emission reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particularly help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable." Got it?

If somebody wants to put together a montage of audio for me of all the people around the president who are crazy capitalists spouting free market ideas, they're just — I got another idea for the free market. Send it to me. Send it to me at BeckTips@foxnews.com. I think we have enough server space to be able to have all of those e-mails come in of all of the audio and video of these people saying how great capitalism is. Impossible to find.

Now, we're going to take this novel plot line about unbridled capitalism when we come back.




BECK: All right. I'm — America, welcome back to the program. I — again, I'm just showing you here some things I know we have gone over this ground, but I need to make sure that you have the foundations of where we're headed.

We are trying to look for people — a group of people, small group, global, that believe there's a threat to the Earth and the best — the threat really is coming from the rich companies. And so they believe it's their duty to collapse the system, collapse those rich countries. But if you do that, you need to have control — control.

Now this one is starting to be a dicey one. And this one is actually — this one should keep you up at night — controlling speech because this one is wherever right now.

The White House, of course, you know called Fox out as illegitimate. You know, I ask you if you've ever heard a White House denounce news networks before, or try to cut them out of press pools, but this one did. Here's Anita Dunn saying a little bit about it.


ANITA DUNN, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Let's not pretend they're a news network. Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.


BECK: OK. We're not — we're not even talking about the Republican Party. We are talking about people who believe in redistribution of wealth, OK? The president, himself, has called me and Rush, "troublesome." You know this.


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I mean, I think that when you listen to the Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, it's...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's beyond that.

OBAMA: ...it's pretty apparent. It's troublesome.


BECK: OK. He has bashed 24/7 cable news and talk radio just this last weekend.


OBAMA: Meanwhile, you are coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of contend and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter.


BECK: OK. He's talking here about sometimes just information, information is confusing and it's troublesome. It's troublesome.

OK, where is he going on this? Well, we'll tell you here in a second. But also, the White House now is completely bypassing the press whenever it can. Even NBC's Andrea Mitchell complained that the White House was crossing all kind of lines — those are a quote — as they keep Supreme Court justice nominee, Elena Kagan, away from the press, except for one interview.

Who was the interview with? This new internal White House media.
Never heard of it? Oh, yes, no. This is one of the first things they set up, an in-house media. They posted this on the Internet.


ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS: But the White House has gone overboard, I think some would suggest, in terms of the control of all of this. They posted a sort of pseudo-interview on their Web site. And it appears that she is speaking in her own words and being interviewed, and it turns out that the interviewer is not a journalist. It's a White House staff member.

Doesn't it seem to you like they are really crossing a number of lines here when it comes to journalism and the proper approach to selling a justice?


BECK: OK. Do you have the — do you have the clip of what they posted online or not? OK. You have to go online now. I guess we're not going to engage in that.

Now, why is she complaining? This is not isolated incident. Do you remember when the White House did their own media report on the visit by the Lady Huskies basketball team? Do you remember this? Here's the video.

OK. They did — they did this whole thing. This is Huskies basketball, OK? But they did cuts, they did interviews with everybody else. No one was allowed to ask a question. But this is the Huskies.

Now, no one is allowed to ask any questions of the nominee for the Supreme Court justice. I mean, we're talking now a lifetime. Well, we got to read a 1996 paper in which she wrote, quote, "If there is an over-abundance of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action, which there might well be when compared with some ideal state of public debate, then action disfavoring that idea might unskew rather than skew public discourse."

So, that's too much — if there's too much dangerous Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or too much talk radio, action by the government can unskew things and balance out the opinions. You see? That is your new Supreme Court nominee.

Oh, and in a completely unrelated story, Kagan happens to be a big fan of Cass Sunstein. She said, quote, "Cass Sunstein is the preeminent legal scholar of our time — the most wide-ranging, the most prolific, the most cited, and the most influential." Cass Sunstein who I maintain is the most dangerous man in America. OK?

Here's Cass Sunstein on banning and taxing certain forms of speech. I know. I know. It's just more academia, but I want you to watch.

"What can the government do about conspiracy theories and what should it do? It might ban for theories, somehow defined.

Two: The government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.

Three: Government might itself engage in counter-speech marshalling arguments to discredit these conspiracy theories.

Four: The government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter-speech.

Five: The government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help."

Gee, that sounds like what she was saying.

Let me go back to the original statement. What if a small group of leaders — I think we have that — small group of world leaders found there was a threat to the Earth and that the only hope for the Earth would be to collapse the rich countries because the rich countries are the problem — I think we have all of this so far. And then they would collapse the system in order to save the planet, the group would decide that the only hope was to collapse the industrialized world.

Read the newspapers. Is that not happening? In Greece, in Spain, in England, in Germany?

What if that small group felt that way? The question was: would it then be their responsibility to bring it all about? That's the only question that remains unanswered here. Or does it?

Again, I go back to their excuses, you know? I had a hard time buying all these excuses, "I wasn't listening at church." The FBI didn't know that he was a truther. Andy Stern, by coincidence, is using global "workers of the world unite" language. I — you know, Maurice Strong was just writing a novel, that's all I was doing when 20 years later he hasn't written anything. But he has laid the foundation for all of this.

Let me put it this way — it is easier for me to believe that these people believe the premise of his novel and do feel they have a responsibility to bring all of this about. How about you? Crime Inc.
Crime Inc. Our search continues.

We'll be right back.


BECK: America, I want to — I want to show you some video that I don't think you've seen before. And I find it — quite honestly I find it disturbing when other people come to the same conclusion that I have, especially people I respect, or I think having a brain cell kicking running around because I really do want to be wrong.

Nobody wants to believe the stuff that I believe. You know that. If you watch this show on a regular basis, you don't want to believe it either. But you're not left any choice.

We are talking about people — again, this small group of people that believe there is a threat to Earth and the rich countries are the problem and so, collapse the industrialized, rich countries. That's the — that's the idea.

Now, the president calls it fundamentally transforming America. But fundamentally transforming America doesn't really happen without an emergency. You really do have to collapse the economies of the world.

Brian Williams was — from NBC — was on David Letterman, I think last week. I don't know if you saw it. I don't know if anybody watches Letterman. I want you to listen to what Brian Williams said and see if it sounds familiar at all.

Here it is.


BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: Our stock market went in a deep decline, a bottomless dive. There are some speculations as we sit here that it was a computer triggers, that it was a glitch. But I'm telling you on every television set at the NYSE this afternoon was the live picture of police beating demonstrators in Greece, one fire on a sidewalk turned out to be three people on fire. The parliament had passed this measure to do some emergency spending.

Here's the daisy chain: Greece to Portugal to Italy. Germany is kind of Europe's bank.

Germany, a lot of this stops at Germany, but we're going to be in some trouble here for a while. The danger is: it hurts the U.S. economy.

As someone said on television this afternoon, as part of the cable coverage, the dirty little secret is: the world has no money and the emperor has no clothes. If I wasn't a tad too close to this, I'd probably not leave the house. But that's how bad it is.


BECK: OK. So it's easy for people to, who have been dismissing, you know, you, because you watch this show, and say, well, you're just — you're just a fearmonger. No, no, no. Would you say that about Brian Williams?

I said at the beginning of the show and — let me just say this first — I said at the beginning of the show that we have to have serious conversations. And I do try to make this show entertaining so people will watch. Nobody wants to watch a drag every day.

And this is what this is, man. This is a drag. You don't know what it's like even finding this stuff. You don't know what it's like.

You will understand in a few weeks when I tell you about the conversation that we had in the hallway of my office today that — I mean, I said everybody better write this conversation down, because this is history. And it is — it's terrifying.

But what are you supposed to do? Are you supposed to run and hide and bury your head? Or are you supposed to do the right thing and tell the truth? Because I know. And you'll see it again tomorrow on the show: faith, hope and charity.

You're going to see faith tomorrow. We can change the world. We can change it. We can fix it — if we are who we really are, not who we have allowed ourselves to become.

Back in just a second.


BECK: OK. America, I just want to show you one piece of video here.

Actually, two pieces of video. And the reason why I'm showing you this is because we're dealing with people who are not the usual faith-based people. They're always the ones that run to the table and say, separation of church and state. And this is the reason why Jim Wallis and the way the progressives are using churches now.

And I want the show you this because this is what you're up against. Listen to this. Here is Nancy Pelosi first talking about immigration. And then John Kerry talking about cap and trade.



REP. NANCY PELOSI D-CALIF., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops, come to me and say, "We want you to pass immigration reform." And I said, "But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your — whatever the communication is — the people, some of whom oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels."

SEN. JOHN KERRY D-MASS.: We have the broadest base of support, as I said. We have faith-based community support for this bill.

We have generals and admirals who believe this is essential for American security. We have major business leaders who believe this will create jobs that make us...


BECK: OK. Enough. OK. I played this for you last night and I showed the connections of their faith-based. I mean, it was one click away into redistributive wealth and socialism. They have duped a lot of people in faith. And just — just need to pay attention on what's going on.

Tomorrow on this program, I'm going to recharge your batteries a little bit. I'm going to teach you something an hour of George Whitefield. Most Americans have never heard of him, but if it wasn't for this man, I don't think there would have been an American Revolution. And he taught a fundamental principle. The individual right, the individual power. Don't miss a second of that tomorrow.

And on the Insider Extreme at GlennBeck.com on Saturday, we're going to have live exclusive coverage of my NRA keynote speech, and then, also earlier in the day, I am going to be meeting at Liberty University and delivering the commencement address, and that is on faith. Don't miss it.

GlennBeck.com, Insider Extreme. Sign up now.

Back in a minute.



BECK: Go to the Web site for Crime Inc., and I want you to learn because this really is the basic. And this thing is going to unleash here in the next few weeks.

Go to GlennBeck.com, look for the Crime Inc. It's on the Chicago Climate Exchange, learn who and what it is. It's affecting our rights and our money; it's happening now. Why? Power and control. Go to GlennBeck.com now.

See you tomorrow with faith and George Whitefield.

From New York — good night, America.

Content and Programming Copyright 2010 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.