I want you to know I'm wearing my fat jacket. This is the last line of defense. This is the last jacket that fits me. This is it. After this, if I keep eating, I'm going to be showing up here in sweatpants.

It's the stress of that phone! That's what it is. It's the stress of the phone! Anita, call me. You can call me, Anita, at any time. We want to have a dialogue. We would like to. Now, I understand you may not want to be on my program because I tend to be a little opinionated, but that's what opinion shows do. But are you telling me that Chris Wallace isn't fair?

I want to show you some sound. This is from Robert Gibbs Wednesday when they asked about Anita watching Fox News. Here's what he said.


UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Specifically, the comment about Anita Dunn about Fox not being a real news network.

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I have watched many stories on that network that I found not to be true.


Wow. I'd sure like to know what those stories are. Call me.

If the White House will please call us back -- we gave them another special number. It's actually to Joe, so you can call Joe. He is the keeper of all the secrets, and you can call him, he'll give Anita a special number. There is going to be a code so we can verify it is who she says it is that will say, you know, "The birds fly at midnight" and then she can be on the other end and she'll say, "And I'm wearing a purple t-shirt" and then we'll know that we're each talking to the right person. And he can verify it and we can put you on the air. I mean, I think this is fair, right?

I don't think the White House actually wants a dialogue. They want to smear, isolate and destroy. They have been doing it since 1965. And they can do this now while the president looks good, and he can say, "I had nothing to do with it."

See, it goes to my theory, the six degrees of Barack Obama, and here is how it works. This is my theory. You can call and correct it. If the President of the United States, Barack Obama, said to you, "You know who I really love? Chairman Mao." We'd say, "OK, that's not really good. He shouldn't like Chairman Mao."

How about if he softens it a little? "OK, well, I really like Hugo Chavez." OK, still not really good for most Americans.

But then if you say, "I just like Van Jones," well, most people don't even know who Van Jones was. They didn't know who he was until we started talking about Van Jones. Everybody was fine with that, but now, oh, he likes Mao and Chavez. That's not good.

So, the president has to distance himself, but they don't really get rid of him. What they do is they send him over to John Podesta's place, the Center for American Progress. Now, John, until America really understands this is George Soros, they still are like, "OK, well, I'm more comfortable with him than him."

Well, I want you to know, he's not actually working for John. He's just renting an office from there. So, what they've done is, anybody who's not comfortable with that, they'll just say, "No, no. How about Valerie Jarrett? She's got a nice face. Don't you like her? She looks like she's smiling and happy."

You forget, Chairman Mao is at the other end. This is how it works. They keep separating him and finding somebody that you will tolerate to put next to him, but this really is the way I think he wanted it, because that's the way they designed it. Oh. Forget about these people over here. No, this is much better. Nothing has changed, except the image, and that's what is happening now with government-run health care, but putting these things together just doesn't work.

For instance, the president wants government-run health care. That's not me saying that, that's the president. Let's make sure we have our facts right:


PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan. A single-payer health care plan, universal health care — that's what I'd like to see.


That's what he'd like to see, government-run, single-payer, government, single-payer health care plan. That's what he'd like to do. But you don't really want that. So, what do they do?

Well, the president, remember, he's got to be appearing like he stands with you, and boy, you don't like that? Well, neither do I, so he puts a workingman in between.

Let's put a workingman in here. Uh-oh, it's SEIU — they want it, but you and the president, no, you're on the same team. But here's a little middleman.

Well, when you start to figure out who SEIU is and what they want, you're not really comfortable. Where is my little picture of John Podesta? Because I think he's involved in this one here — Health Care for America Now. Well, that sounds good. I'm for America now, and I'm for health care in America right now. Aren't you? Why are you such a hater if you're not for health care for America now? Well, when you find out who health care for America now is and who they are all associated with, there is actually SEIU, and the Center for Community Change — oh, and ACORN. Oh, and the Gamma Mu Foundation. You're kind of like, "Oh, OK, maybe I'm not."

So, what does the president do? He pushes this all over just a little bit more and gives you doctors. Look, they're in the white coats and everything and they're for it! Your president with your doctor. How can this be bad? This isn't government-run health care, this is your doctor! Until you find out those doctors are from Health Care for America Now.

Pay attention to what's really going on. The health care plan supposedly will cost over 10 years $829 billion. Wow, that's expensive. I mean, aren't we out of money? Where did I put my American checkbook? I know it's free and everything, but how do we pay for that?

Well, the extra taxes have to come from somewhere. The president knows he can't tax you. That would be crazy! Taxing you — no, no. You wouldn't like that. So, let's go after the employers. Hmm, that's not enough separation because you're smart enough to know you work for one of these guys. Not enough. So, the tax has to get shifted one more step. Oh, who doesn't hate those insurers?

It's called a "Cadillac" tax, which almost everyone is opposed to. According to a senior health policy manager at the Chamber of Commerce: "Employers will have to reduce the wages or the benefits or increase the cost-sharing. Employees will blame that on the employers, and not the government." See, it's all about image. I'd like to call it white coat-gate.

Maybe you call me if you don't like that. You want a president that's actually listening to you and your doctors to get the input on what's best for the plan. But he's not, because his doctors that he's listening to are down with these people. So, what does he do? He goes and talks to doctors, doctors from these progressive activist groups, and John Podesta.

See, forget about having an honest debate. Forget about debating health care on the merits of private versus government health care. That ship has sailed. Hillary Clinton already proved that's a losing battle. They know it will go down in flames if it's not re-imaged, repackaged. So, what we're getting now is the re-gifting, the re-gifting of Hillary Care. Obama knows he can't come out and say what he means and means what he says, because I just showed it to you. He's already said what he meant. And here it is again:


OBAMA: I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal health care plan. A universal health care plan, universal health care plan — that's what I'd like to see.


So now, what does this mean and how do we solve it? We'll give you that here in a second. But first, let's go to the president of the United States:


OBAMA: The fifth and final committee responsible for health care reform has passed a proposal that has both Democratic and Republican support. This effort was made possible by the tireless efforts of Chairman Max Baucus and the other members of the Senate Finance Committee. It's the product of vigorous debate and difficult negotiations. After the consideration of hundreds of amendments that includes ideas from both Democrats and Republicans, which is why it enjoys the support of people from both parties, and I want to particularly thank Senator Olympia Snowe for both the political courage and the seriousness of purpose that she's demonstrated throughout this process.

Now, this bill is not perfect, and we have a lot of difficult work ahead of us. There's still significant details and disagreements to be worked out over the next several weeks as the five separate bills from the Senate and the House are merged into one proposal. But I do believe the work of the Senate Finance Committee has brought us significantly closer to achieving the core objectives I laid out early in September.

Most importantly, this bill goes a long way towards offering security to those who have insurance and affordable options for those who don't. It reins in some of the worst practices of the insurance industry, like the denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions. It also sets up an insurance exchange that will make coverage affordable for those who doesn't currently have it. And as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has certified, it will slow the growth of health care costs in the long term, and it will not add a penny to our deficit.

The committee's progress over the past several weeks is the culmination of work by all five committees and numerous members of Congress over the better part of this year. We've reached out to stakeholders across the spectrum, doctors and nurses, businesses and workers, hospitals, and even drug companies, and we've considered a wide variety of ideas and proposals in an effort to find common ground. As a result of these efforts, we are now closer than ever before to passing health reform, but we're not there yet. Now is not the time to pat ourselves on the back. Now is not the time to offer ourselves congratulations. Now is the time to dig in and work even harder to get this done, and in this final phase, I hope that we will continue to engage each other with the spirit of civility and seriousness that has brought us this far and that this subject deserves. I commend the chairman and the committee's members for their achievement and the example that they have set and look forward to continue to work with Congress in the weeks ahead. We are going to get this done. Thank you very much, everybody.


OK. There he goes. Let's be real serious. He said he wants to engage in seriousness. I have been, Mr. President. I have been, but, see, we've also been honest about our agenda, my agenda here at least.

I'm an opinion guy. My agenda is to honor what our Founders put together in the Constitution. I believe yours is about a fundamental transformation, which I don't think the American people are for.

So, let's just go over what you just said here. You said you talked to doctors. You did. But those doctors are part of Health Care for America Now and SEIU and ACORN and Center for Community Change and everything else.

You talked to insurance companies and drug companies. Actually, you made a deal with drug companies. You're not going to ask them to reduce the cost of their drugs if they just go along.

And then you also said you talked to employers. Boy, my company, we have about 30 employees. You talked to employers that I know, and employees, and none of them want that "Cadillac" tax where the company is going to be taxed up to 40 percent if they're giving you too much. Wow! I can give my employees too much? I'm sorry, I didn't know I need to bow to you. I can give my employees too much.

So you talk to all of your friends here, and John Podesta and Van Jones -- he's, of course, still there -- and we'll get it done, the government-run health care, which will turn us into that.

I'm waiting for the White House, the phone. I'd love to have a serious conversation with serious-minded people on how this system is not what's going on! How this isn't about image only. I'd like to know.

They're not going to call, because they're all too rooted in their own ideology and in winning to ever care about telling the American people the truth. You see, they're convinced that they're right and you're just not smart enough to figure it out, so they make it about image. See, they're the radicals. You aren't. The best they can do now is bury the truth in a thousand pages of legalese and then play dumb.


REP. JOHN CONYERS, D-MICH.: I love these members that get up and say, "Read the bill!" What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?


That doesn't make sense to me. Does that make sense to you? That just doesn't work for me. That's why we need a telephone here. I want people to understand that the White House can call and correct anything on this program, but not just correct it. I would like an explanation. Please explain this. In all of this, where exactly do you fit? It's awfully crowded. Where do we fit?

For the sake of the country, I hope I'm not right. I hope this is wrong. But I'm a fairly intelligent man, and I can't see any other way to make it out. This administration listens to radicals and revolutionaries who extol the virtues of Chavez and Mao!

Oh, that's not un-American. You can be an American and love these guys, you can. There is nothing un-American.

Say what you want. But doesn't extolling the virtues of revolutionary radicals and doing it in the cover of darkness and not discussing it out in the open, but hiding it all: Does that strike anyone else as anti-American?

That's why I want the hotline here. And the reason why the White House will likely never call the number is because they can't explain all of this. They don't want to have a dialogue. They cannot have a dialogue!

I'm not asking for me to be right or for them to be wrong or anything. Let's have that debate out in the open, not buried in 1,300 pages of bills. Bills that they're voting on today that haven't even been written! But they can't do that.

You see, America wants a dialogue, not a revolution. What was it he promised us? Transparency, that's what it was.

Look, America, you don't want government health care. This, you don't want. You don't want car companies that are now owned by our government. You don't want anybody else bailed out! You don't want the government taking over our financial system and the banks! What you want is a government that gets the hell out of your way, because we can fix it! The individual will fix this.

We do want to provide a safety net for those who are most vulnerable — the old people, the sick people, the people who can't work. Not handouts for anybody who slightly makes below average salary or drives a Kia instead of a BMW! You want a government to stand up and guard the Constitution, not talk about its flaws and how to circumvent it.

The administration has declared war on this network because of what they call a smear campaign. Let me tell you something, they've even gone after the liberal bloggers this week, because some of them are questioning things. Not the same things — no, no, no, the administration wants to control everything they can: the message, the debate, the country — the world?

It is a mark of the progressives. They know better than you.

I want to tell you about this book. It's actually the last progressive book that I could read. It's from 1925. I couldn't read it anymore. I stopped reading it — I mean, after I highlighted it and dog-eared it. I couldn't read it any more because I thought it's just too bleak. I don't want to live in a world where these early 20th century progressives lived. They want to control everything -- the message, the debate, everything.

Progressives believe they know better than you do. That's what they believe. Before I go to this old dusty book, let me show you a modern example. Bill Maher says you're too stupid to decide for yourself:


BILL MAHER, TALK SHOW HOST: You're talking about 60 votes they need -- forget this stuff, 60. They can't get Americans to agree on anything 60 percent. Sixty percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country. He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they're stupid.


Just drag them to it. It's this kind of arrogance that will cause the progressives to implode, because I got news for you: We share this country. It is not the progressives to control. It is not up to the progressives to drag us into anything, to parent us, to micromanage our lives, to tell us what to eat, what to do. That's not their job. That is up to "we, the people."

This book — I actually had to buy it in a rare bookstore. This is a guy who was a journalist and a progressive, and it's "The Phantom Public." I mean, who are these little people out there and how do we get them to do what we want?

In chapter two, he said, "I've tried to imagine how the perfect citizen could be produced. Some say he will have to be born of the conjunction of the right germ plasms and in the great books written by Madison Grant, Lothrop" — blah, blah, blah — "and other revivalists. I have seen many prescriptions as to who ought to marry whom to produce a great citizenry. Not being a biologist, I can keep an open but hopeful mind on this point, tempered, however, with the knowledge that certainty about how to breed ability in human beings is on the whole inverse proportion to the writer's scientific reputation."

So, in other words, he is hopeful that we can figure out how to breed better people. That's fantastic. Let me tell you something. Let me give this message to the White House and to the revolutionaries there and as a gift to Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show," let me give them the sound bite, the stupid people are about to stand up:

The stupid people are not stupid. They know what is going on. They haven't been able to figure it out because they're busy working and paying taxes for the people who are just getting 1,800 degrees and never actually doing anything -- just going to college and then going right into the White House, where they've never actually worked in the real world, and then try to tell us how to raise a family and everything else.

Let me show you one more thing. This is the way society goes: "People go from bondage to spiritual faith." Well, I would say that's the Mayflower. We are in spiritual faith. We were bound. We had to listen to others tell us, so we went to spiritual faith. "From spiritual faith to great courage" — I would say that was 1776. "From courage to liberty" — that was 1791 — signed the Constitution. "From liberty to abundance" — what would you say, anywhere from 1900 to 1960? "From abundance to complacency" — well, we started saying, "Hey, dad doesn't know best." I would say 1960 to 1980. "From complacency to apathy" — I don't know, 1980. "To apathy" -- probably 2000. "From apathy to dependence" — that's where we are right now, dependent, 2000. Because after we finish this one, there is only one left -- "Back into bondage."

I think there is a way to short-circuit this, but we have to be aware of it. I think if we became people of great spiritual faith again, and we stood up for what we believed in, and we looked for the principles that were in the Bill of Rights in 1791, maybe we could hold on to our liberty and restore the abundance. But we would have to immediately go back to these things to be able to do it, otherwise, we're going to end up on the next great emergency. We're going to end up there.

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel