ANNOUNCER: Three, two, one -- Beck!
GLENN BECK, HOST: Welcome to THE GLENN BECK PROGRAM.
Tonight -- our liberty is at stake. What more do your neighbors need before they stand up shoulder-to-shoulder and say, "I don't think I want to take this anymore"?
Also -- are farmers going to be told what to grow? Could the farm bill kill the farm industry -- and your garden? And I'll tell you how
politics is destroying our financial system.
If you believe this country is great but the government is clamping down on your freedom -- oh, time to throw the shackles off. Come on, follow me!
(MUSIC)
BECK: Hello, America. It's Friday. And I just have to tell you that after this program tonight, I'm going down to see Mr. Bill O'Reilly, and I got him a little gift.
When I was -- I was doing the Children's Miracle Network last week in Orlando, Florida, and I thought of him. And so, I had it made for him, Billy. And I'm going to see if Billy will put the hat on. I mean, for the children. You don't want to miss tonight's "O'REILLY FACTOR" or whatever. It's a new show, give it a whirl.
Here's the Hot List tonight. These are the stories that the mainstream media is covering.
The U.S. Navy is armed in the Pacific with 15 ships capable of shielding a missile if North Korea decides to launch one. Oh, good.
State of emergency has been declared in North Dakota after severe flooding has caused the Red River to rise more than 40 feet.
And Brazil's president blames the credit crisis on, quote, "white people with blue eyes." Oh, crap, I think that's me.
Here is the one thing. It's about time our government stops hearing from us and starts seeing us. It's about time, I think.
With all that's going on -- quite frankly, I was driving in today and I am -- I am shocked that more people haven't ditched the letters and the e-mails and the phone calls for something else -- a good old-fashioned march on our nation's capital. I mean, for anybody who is watching right now and they're not really even at the e-mail stage, you know, of anger, they're like, I don't know, I'm pretty pissed but doing this is an awful lot of work.
I mean, how much more do you need to see to be convinced that you're being ignored and some of our freedoms are kind of going out the window? Our treasury, which wasn't exactly weak in the last few months of the George Bush administration, is now unbelievably powerful under President Obama. Tim Geithner is now asking for authority to shut down non-financial companies even if he gets a whiff that, you know, it might harm the economy. I don't know, that one kind of seems like a problem.
At least a couple of lawmakers are asking honest, non-politically motivated questions and expressing the outrage that we all should be feeling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R) MINNESOTA: What provision in the Constitution could you point to to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of '08? Here in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to to give authority to the Treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken?
REP. DONALD MANZULLO, (R) ILLINOIS: Do you realize how radical your proposal is?
TIMOTHY GEITHNER, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: It's not a radical proposal.
MANZULLO: Oh, this is absolutely -- you are talking about seizing private businesses, and you don't consider that to be radical?
GEITHNER: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: No. I like the look on his face. What part of the Constitution? Constitution -- what -- it wasn't in my notes!
On top of that, Geithner is now waffling on something that should take about half a second to say no: the world reserve currency to replace the dollar. First he said, we're not going to trash the dollar. Then he said, hey, I'm open to it. I mean, you know, why do we need that thing laying around?
And then later he said, (LAUGHTER), I don't know what I was thinking. I might have been -- the world's currency is the dollar. Then also, we have the debt. Since Bush took office, the size of the national debt doubled.
And in just the last six months, they put us on the hook for another $9 trillion to $15 trillion. Democrats and Republicans alike have picked up the shovels. You know, they're doing the hard work -- what are you doing, Bill? I'm just burying the grandkids, yes, that's all I'm doing -- in obligations that I believe is now impossible to repay.
But they're not just destroying the economy or -- they're destroying the big hearts, you know, by hurting charities. They're destroying trust as well. Yesterday, the Senate passed a watered-down version of the AmeriCorps bill, a.k.a. the GIVE Act, which apparently we have problems with now. It basically indoctrinates your child into community service through the federal government.
And now, as if all of that wasn't enough, I get up this morning and I'm driving in my car and the Obama administration is set now to release 17 Chinese-Muslim separatists from Gitmo -- and not just release them, but they release them on to the streets of America. That's -- that is because no other country will take them. Who are these people that we're about to grant the greatest golden ticket in the life to? Does anybody know? I mean, do you know?
I told my team this morning when I met them in a meeting -- about 7:30 this morning, I said, I want to find out who these guys are. And don't you dare come back to me with some guest who's like, oh, no, they're great, give me all the sunshine and lollipop stuff. I mean, we're talking about giving these people welfare and putting them out on the streets.
I said, I want somebody -- I want some -- you know, some big conservative, even with fangs, I want somebody, the only I'll believe that says, oh, no, we can release these people, they're not going to be a harm, is somebody who is a conservative that's not sunshine and lollipops. Well, unfortunately, I couldn't find any of those people. They all said the same thing.
So, I found somebody else who's also -- and about as far away from sunshine and lollipops bill as you can get: John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador.
How are you, sir?
JOHN BOLTON, FMR. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Good to be here.
BECK: Good to be here with you.
OK. So, tell me about these guys that we're now thinking about releasing on to the streets?
BOLTON: Well, they were picked up in Afghanistan or nearby, and we believe that they were terrorists. They were brought to Guantanamo, and after a lot of investigations, it's been concluded by our military that they don't qualify as being enemy combatants. So, naturally .
BECK: Let me -- let me just speak English here. (INAUDIBLE). Are they terrorists or not?
BOLTON: Well, our conclusion -- our conclusion .
BECK: All right.
BOLTON: . is that they are not. But the normal thing would be to give them back to China, which is their country.
BECK: Right.
BOLTON: The Chinese still view them as terrorists and the military says that if we give them back, they're subject to all kinds of unpleasant things.
BECK: OK.
BOLTON: So we don't want to do that.
BECK: Why .
BOLTON: Here's the thing.
BECK: OK.
BOLTON: Just because we've concluded that these people are not barbarians doesn't mean that they should be eligible to come into the United States. There's a little bit of a gap between being declared not a terrorist and somebody fit for admission into the U.S.
BECK: OK. I don't think we care -- we're not checking anybody who comes in the U.S. I mean, you know what we can do? We can send them to Mexico and they can just come over in the middle of the night.
BOLTON: That probably would be the easiest way to do it.
BECK: Yes, it would be the easiest way.
I'm sorry. I'm just seeing -- I'm just seeing the -- I'm so tempted, I wish I had one that's a Johnnie on it, but I don't.
(LAUGHTER)
BOLTON: Not yet.
BECK: Here's the problem I have with this. You say that no other country will take them. Why is that our problem? And I don't understand why they were in Gitmo for as long as they were if -- I mean, where did we pick them up? Were they at the playground with their kids -- where?
(CROSSTALK)
BOLTON: No. They were found -- they were found in and around Afghanistan. And I think we had perfectly good reason to pick them up. I don't think the details of how we concluded that they weren't terrorists have come out. But they weren't on the playground.
So, here is the point -- we have been detaining them in Guantanamo because we don't know what else to do with them. That may be unfortunate. It may even be unfair. But that doesn't lead you to the conclusion inevitably that you just release them into the United States.
BECK: So, what do you do? What do you do with them?
BOLTON: I think you look hard for other countries that might be willing to take them. Some people have talked about Albania. There maybe other possibilities, other Muslim countries, for example, and I think we ought to explore that. But even then -- even then, you have the risk, as so many others from Guantanamo have done, that they get out into the general population and they return to terrorism.
BECK: I'm just stuck (ph) on -- who thought Albania was a real country. Is that where the albinos come from?
BOLTON: No, but they are Muslim. And that's one reason they might be .
BECK: All right. OK. Here's the -- I mean, here's the problem with this -- if you release them on the streets, do we -- Gresh, do we have pictures of these people?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No pictures available, sir.
BECK: No pictures available. I'm stuck on this stuck on this one because, I talked to myself, I asked for pictures, see if there are pictures available, and then I said, wait a minute, hang on just a second. Would it be a irresponsible of me to put pictures of these people that are going to be released out into our population or would it be the ultimate thing in responsibility to put these people -- their pictures out on the streets?
BOLTON: The International Red Cross would probably come after you for violating their rights under the Geneva Convention.
BECK: I don't really -- I don't really care what the Red Cross.
BOLTON: Because you're not supposed to take .
BECK: So, they're not going to let me give blood.
BOLTON: Because you are not supposed to take pictures of POWs.
And here's the fundamental point. The people who are arguing for release are trying to convert this into a law enforcement exercise as opposed to a war. This is where we picked them up, not at a crime scene on a battlefield. And the rules that apply to a person detained for a criminal offense simply should not apply in this case.
BECK: So, what happens to them, Ambassador Bolton, when they are released on to the streets? If they released these on the streets, we should, as -- if they released them in my town, I want to know -- how dare you, America, release these people without telling me who they are?
BOLTON: Well, it may be a little bit out of his jurisdiction, but I understand that Danny Blair, the director of national intelligence had said, maybe we need to provide a stipend for, maybe it will come out of the intelligence community's budget.
(LAUGHTER)
BOLTON: But there is another idea out there, that perhaps member of Congress should vote on what state they are to release them.
BECK: Oh, absolutely. I'm -- Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco is a nice town. I love it.
OK. Hang out for just a second because an exclusive here on FOX News about the United Nations and coincidentally we have -- OK, they are now working on a plan that could redistribute money, businesses, jobs all across the globe. The plan falls under energy reform.
FOX's Brian Wilson is live with us in Washington with the exclusive.
Hello, Brian. How are you?
BRIAN WILSON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Glenn. It's good to be with you on your show for the first time.
Hey, imagine the U.N. in charge of the world economy or at least parts of it. If that's a scary thought for you, listen up. FOX News has obtained, right here in my hot little hand, a 16-page United Nation documents, a deluge (ph) of rather stunning and radical ideas into the U.N. global climate change talks that are about to kick off in Bonn, Germany. Now, according to the Obama State Department, the stated goal of these talks is to .
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See if we can come together on some kind of an effective framework. And that's the real important word is "effective," so that we can deal with the question of, you know, global warming.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILSON: But, you know, the document outlines some of the things that will be under discussion though written in rather bland bureaucratic language, the authors of the document contemplate ideas that if agreed to, that among other things, dramatically alters world economies, force the relocation of U.S. industries to foreign countries and decimate what is left of the airline and tourism industries around the world.
Now, the U.S., as you know, does not follow the terms of the last global warming agreement, known as the Kyoto Accords, because it was thought at the time the agreement put the U.S. economy at a disadvantage. Well, the difference this time around is that the Obama administration will enter the talks sort of predisposed to make some big moves on the issue of global warming. And some are concerned.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That would give the U.N. much more control over the economy. I don't know if anybody thinks the U.N. should have much more control over anything, certainly not something as important as the economy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILSON: Well, if you think I've blown this all out of proportion, you get the chance to make your own decision about that. You can look at this document at FOXNews.com, which has posted the document and done some additional reporting on it.
BECK: Brian, why are you such a fear-monger?
WILSON: I'm not a fear-monger.
BECK: Why are you such a -- yes, this is crazy talk, a conspiracy theorist. What's going on here?
WILSON: I'll tell you. When I looked at this document, Glenn, the first thing I did was almost fall asleep because it is written in such stultifying language. It almost puts you under.
BECK: You know .
WILSON: But when you really focus on what's in the language and the way it's -- what they are proposing, these are pretty radical ideas.
BECK: You know, hang on, Brian, just a second because I want to bring John Bolton into this conversation because he sure had -- I don't know how he did it, I mean, it's like -- did you ever have to take sleep medicine when you worked at the U.N.? Were you like, I can't sleep, I got to read another document?
(LAUGHTER)
BECK: It is stunningly boring language. But is Brian right here on this? Have you read the document?
BOLTON: I've read parts of it. And look, this has been something that's been going in different places in the U.N. for decades. People who believe that government, national government should have a much larger role in the economy and who believe that international organizations have a much larger role over all, have used a variety of different excuses over the years. This year's flavor is the environment and they're taking concern about global warming and turning it into a blueprint for massive government reallocation as well.
BECK: OK. So, it seems to me -- because Brian, do you know, in Washington, isn't support for the cap-and-trade thing kind of just going out the window right now?
WILSON: You know, it depends on what day you check in. And it seems to be a variable moving target on any giving day. There are a lot of things that are sort of up and down in this town right now. But, look, if there is a predisposition among the people in the Obama administration to make a really big game-changing move on global warming, climate change, what better way to do it than to sign on this accord.
BECK: That's what I .
WILSON: Remember, the United States was completely lambasted around the world for not being a part of the Kyoto Agreement.
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: . rest of the world.
OK. Here is the --- here's the thing I want to address with you. This is the way it always seems to work. You can't get it done -- you know, you can't get it done bypassing laws so then you go to the courts. If you can't get it done through the courts, then you move it up to the international realm, right?
BOLTON: Right. This is a pattern I think we're going to see over and over again in this administration. And climate change is a perfect example of how it works. The people who want, whether it's cap-and-trade or carbon taxes or any of a variety of ways that can be use to have greater control over what businesses decide and what consumers do, this is the perfect opportunity.
BECK: And this has in it that you can -- you can actually -- if a company isn't playing by new international law, they can come and close the company down and say "Sorry," and then that has to be produced elsewhere in some other countries?
BOLTON: Yes. These are some of the consequences. As Brian said, and I can assure you after having read thousands of pages of U.N. documents, it doesn't say it in those terms, but it's for the people to negotiate. And remember, they're pressing very hard to wrap all this up by December.
BECK: Can we ever get out of these things?
BOLTON: Now, once you're in it, it's very hard. And that's why it's important to the extent the Obama administration is willing to do it to protect American interests at the negotiation stage.
BECK: So -- wait a minute -- so, all the stuff, all the crap that's gone on in the United Nations, we can never get out, we can never go, well, you know what?
BOLTON: It's very hard to roll back anything at the U.N. It's better not to agree to it to begin with. But I'll tell you, they have been making the non-alliance (ph) countries, the U.N. secretary have wanted for years to shift power into the U.N. away from the IMF, away from the G7, this is -- this is another opportunity for them.
BECK: Now, I asked the question if we can ever roll these things back. But let me ask you a different way. If we wanted to and they didn't want us to, they'd send the blue helmets, right?
BOLTON: Well, they got to get us to agree in the first place. And that's why .
(CROSSTALK)
BECK: Let's just play this out because I think -- I think Ben & Jerry, not the entire state of Vermont, I think Ben & Jerry could take the guys in the blue helmets.
BOLTON: Well, maybe they didn't listen to the blue helmets. You never can tell.
BECK: Yes. They're already -- they're already in it.
BOLTON: But it is -- it is a matter that many Europeans would also like to see power shifted into the U.N. It satisfies a lot of the desires they've have to get more controls over the U.S. economy. We're going to see some of these arguments play out at the G20 meeting in London in just a few days.
BECK: OK. Thank you very much, Ambassador. I appreciate it.
An update now on a story that we brought for -- a report that basically gave us how to spot a domestic terrorist. You remember this story? It came out of -- where was it -- Missouri? The Missouri Department of Safety has now completely killed the militia report and say they're going to change the review process. All that stuff we said, you know, about, you know, people like to listen to talk radio or FOX viewers or something (INAUDIBLE). They're great.
Yes. Now, they're going to change the report and change how things are reviewed before they're distributed, you know, to local law enforcement agencies. Really? Like that's going to fix it? Oh, I get it.
Earlier, they scrubbed the references to third party political organizations -- you know, people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin. They said it was just too easy to misinterpret, you know, the report and to say that, you know, that would indicate support of those candidates would make you a militia member. And that's just -- they didn't mean that at all. Great.
Now, a farm bill, the government is going to tell you what you can grow on your farm, how to grow it, but could they tell you how to grow your garden? Really? No big deal or yet another sign the government really doesn't know its boundaries -- next.
BECK: I just took a -- I just took a poll of this -- how does this look, oh, just convoluted -- I just took a poll of the staff a few minutes ago, because I'm on the "Bill O'Reilly Show" tonight. I got this form when I was doing the Children's Miracle Network last weekend. And just took a poll. One hundred percent of everybody on -- say there's no way I can get him to wear this hat. Oh, go ahead. Doubt all you want.
(LAUGHTER)
BECK: We'll see tonight. Don't miss the Bill O'Reilly program.
A number of food safety bills are circulating in Congress now. And I have a lot of phone calls on this on my radio program. This happened after the peanut scare. One of them threatens to wipe out small farmers and you could even be in trouble for growing a tomato in your backyard. That's what some people are saying.
It's the Food Safety Modernization Act.
With me now is Tim Wightman, he owns a small dairy farm in Ohio. Also, Debbie Stockton, she's with the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.
Debbie, let me start with you. People are calling me up left and right saying this thing is a nightmare for anybody with a farm, even a garden down the road. Is any of that true?
DEBBIE STOCKTON, NAT'L. INDEP. CONSUMERS & FARMERS ASSOC.: Yes, sure, it's absolutely true. The way the bill is written, it has very broad language, and it says that a food production facility shall be considered to be every farm, ranch, orchard, agriculture facility, vineyard or confined animal feeding operation.
Well, what the bill does not exclude explicitly, it includes implicitly, it does not define farm. It doesn't say a farm is this, that or the other. It simply says every farm.
BECK: OK.
STOCKTON: Well, a farm can be construed -- go ahead.
BECK: Well, hang on, Debbie. I mean, my grandfather had a dairy farm.
STOCKTON: OK.
BECK: My uncle still lives on the same street and he still has the farm. And it's only, you know, a few acres and he grows corn and everything else, but he shares the corn with his neighbors and everything else. That could be regulated now?
STOCKTON: Absolutely. And just -- if they say, well, it's not our intent, that's absolutely meaningless, because intent has no bearing on what is actually the language of the law. And like I said, if it does not explicitly exclude something, then it implicitly includes them.
BECK: OK. Let me go -- let me go to Tim.
Tim, you're a farmer. You're actually a dairy farmer, right?
TIM WIGHTMAN, OHIO DAIRY FARM OWNER: Correct.
BECK: OK. Big dairy farm, little dairy farm? A couple of cows, couple .
WIGHTMAN: No, little dairy farm.
BECK: Little dairy farm?
WIGHTMAN: Yes.
BECK: And do you -- do you .
WIGHTMAN: Yes, six cows.
BECK: Six cows. So, it is all by hand you're doing, right? I mean, I assume you .
WIGHTMAN: No. I got machines as well.
BECK: You have machines to do it for just six, huh? Wow. OK.
WIGHTMAN: Yes.
BECK: All right. So, now, do you sell the milk?
WIGHTMAN: Actually, I sell the cows, and people pay me to do the work. It's called the herd share program here in Ohio.
BECK: What is that? How is this going to hurt? How is this going to hurt you?
WIGHTMAN: As with most foods in these new bills, everything is considered hazardous, raw milk is always been vilified for a long time. So, now, I will be producing a hazardous product and if I don't follow the rules the way the government says, I should follow the rules, they can shut me down.
BECK: So, what is this .
WIGHTMAN: And kill my cows, take them away.
BECK: What is this going to -- well, they wouldn't kill your cows because a lot of people in the administration now are PETA lovers, and so, they'll just -- they'll free your cows. They'll open up the gates and go, you're free now, go, go back to the jungles or wherever these cows came from.
What is this going to do -- I guess, Debbie, what is this going to do to, let's say, the price of milk?
STOCKTON: Well, if they do as you say, which they have every authority to do, it could drive the price of milk way high. It could drive a lot of dairy farms out of business.
BECK: Wait. Why wouldn't -- why wouldn't they do it? Why are they passing this law if they're not going to do some of these things?
STOCKTON: Well, they will. They're just not going to do all of them all at once. I man, what they're going to say is, oh, this isn't going to affect the small farmer. This is for areas where we feel that there is a genuine food safety hazard and they're not going to go after small farmers right away, but they will eventually.
BECK: OK.
STOCKTON: And it will simply put small farmers out of business.
BECK: Now, is there do either of you know there's like all kinds of paperwork going with it, too -- like if I go in and buy groceries from, you know, vegetables from a farmer and I'm supposed to fill out paperwork, right? And, say, I bought -- I bought a carrot and some strawberries and here's my information in case something goes wrong?
STOCKTON: Yes, and that's what it's supposed to accomplish.
WIGHTMAN: Exactly.
BECK: Go ahead, Tim. You first.
WIGHTMAN: Well, what they want is -- yes, they want total traceability, which in our local food markets they have the bar codes so they can trace that right back to the production facility, even farther back if they want to. What they want is total traceability which means if I take my products to a farmers market, you, Mr. Beck, will have to fill out a form telling me what you bought and when you plan to consume it so I can keep it on record if something should happen and they trace it back to the farmers market, they can call you and say don't eat that stuff because it may get you sick.
BECK: Hey, Tim, I grew up -- on the summers I spent on my grandfather's farm, we used to walk around with just an evil shotgun that he used to have open the whole time. We would walk around, and yes, and he would, once in a while, shoot a bird. And you know, so I still have a little bit of common sense in me.
If you said to me, Mr. Beck, you got to fill out this paperwork and tell me when you're going to consume it so I can keep it on record, you know what I'd say to you? Not your damn business.
(LAUGHTER)
WIGHTMAN: Exactly.
BECK: I mean -- Debbie, what happens to us if I don't want to fill out the form, or if the farmer says he's not going to fill out the form?
STOCKTON: Well, good question and that is going to happen. I mean, I can pretty much guarantee it, because you're talking about hundreds of thousands of farmers. I mean, small farms are the fastest growing economic sector in the country. They're growing by an order of about 10,000 a year. And they are simply not going to allow this to happen, for the federal government to come on to their property and tell them what they can and cannot do.
BECK: I have to tell you, we are so incredibly stupid right now, you're doing everything. And, you know, who's going to -- you guys tell me if I'm wrong -- who is going to benefit from this? Big farm.
STOCKTON: Oh, major corporations, that's right.
BECK: Absolutely.
WIGHTMAN: Major corporations.
STOCK: That's all this is, is a vehicle. That's exactly what this is. It is a vehicle for increasing -- that's right -- increasing markets for the large corporations in industrial agriculture. That's exactly what this is.
BECK: It really amazes me, for the party of the little people how -- and Bush started it, don't get me wrong, he started all kinds of stuff - - how we are only saving those too big to fail. We don't care anymore, it seems, about the little people.
Both of you -- thank you very much and I appreciate it. And, Tim, I'm just glad that your hands, I mean, because that gets tiring after a while.
Now, stay in touch with the program by signing up for my free e- mail newsletter at GlennBeck.com. And don't forget to set your TiVos and DVRs to watch the show all this week.
Tim Geithner, close to getting new powers, superpowers! They're breathtaking. My next guest thinks his control of the non-financials might hurt the banking industry even more. No. Next.
PATTI ANN BROWNE: Hello, everyone. I'm Patti Ann Browne. In the headlines - U.S. Navy ships are monitoring the he potential launch of a long-range missile by North Korea. Fifteen ships capable of ballistic missile defense are now sitting in the Pacific Ocean.
The military says they're prepared to respond appropriately should a crisis situation occur. New pictures emerged today of the site where North Korea says it plans to launch a communications satellite, not a missile, early next month.
And today President Barack Obama unveiled his new policy for Afghanistan. He's sending 4,000 more U.S. troops and hundreds of civilians to the country to train and support Afghan forces. Glenn Beck returns in a moment, but first, Bret Baier has a preview of what is on "SPECIAL REPORT" tonight. Hey, Bret.
BRET BAIER, HOST, "SPECIAL REPORT": Hi, Patti Ann. Coming up, are Democrats preparing to push an assault weapons ban in the wake of the violence in Mexico? The nation's top intelligence official on letting Gitmo detainees loose on U.S. soil. Join me at 6:00 Easter for "SPECIAL REPORT." Now, back to Glenn Beck.
GLENN BECK, HOST: All right. This E-mail has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the news. But I just had to answer this because it has been on my desk for a while.
Tammy in Michigan has written and she writes, "Dear Glenn, I was just wondering if you have a dog at your show. We watch all the time and we always hear this dog barking. At first we thought it was our dog and maybe we left her outside, but no. We know it's from your show. Do you have a dog that you take with you to work?"
Oscar. No, I don't have a dog. You know, hearing dogs and smelling smoke - first sign of insanity. Now, we go to another super adventure of our super-regulator. Do we have that super-regulator? Can he fly across? I love this. There he is. There's Tim Geithner, flying across to save the day.
Why politics are taking over our economy and ruining our financial system, you know, is beyond me. Tim Geithner has a new plan for more oversight now.
Joining me now is Yaron Brook. He's the president of the Ayn Rand Institute. Yaron, how are you?
YARON BROOK, PRESIDENT, AYN RAND INSTITUTE: Good, good. Thanks for having me on, Glenn.
BECK: So Ayn Rand - I think she is spinning around like a lathe so fast that you could actually make chair rails on her. This is unbelievable. They are now talking about being able to go into private industry and say, "You look like a threat," and shut you down.
BROOK: Absolutely. I mean, the way all this is worded - it basically is going to give the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the Treasury, all these powers to basically decide that you are a systemic risk, "Glenn, you are a systemic risk to the U.S. economy. We're going to shut you down."
Nobody defines "systemic risk." Nobody knows what "systemic risk" means. Nobody has proven that any of these institutions have systemic risk. But we're going to have a super-regulator that can shut down any company in the financial services and beyond because they fear they might be systemic risks.
BECK: Right. OK. Yaron, I mean this sincerely. I have been talking about the economy since it was like at 13,000 and still going up. When it hit 14,000, I said, "Good god almighty, people, get out of the stock market, it's coming crashing down!"
And at that time, I heard it from the left. I heard it from the right - Republicans, Democrats, everybody saying, "You are hurting the economy by talking it down." Why couldn't they make that case? Oh, and they will. Why couldn't they make that case about me and shut me down?
BROOK: Oh, exactly. I mean, we're seeing here an attack on you hurting the economy coupled with the general atmosphere in the country with there's a general attack on free speech. And you combine the attack on free speech and you combine the attack on private property, which is really what this new regulatory regime and old regulatory regime is.
When you combine those two, you're in very dangerous waters to the freedoms that exist in this country. When we see freedom of speech go and when we see freedom of property go, what is America all about at the end of the day?
BECK: Nothing.
BROOK: Those are the freedoms that this country was founded upon. This is what this country is really about.
BECK: At that point, it's only about giant global corporations and power in Washington. Let me give you something from President Obama's town hall meeting. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When can we expect the jobs that have been outsourced to other countries to come back and be made available to the unemployed workers here in the United States?
BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: A lot of outsourcing that was referred to in the question really has to do with the fact that our economy, if it's dependent upon low-wage, low-skill labor, it's very hard to hang on to those jobs.
That's why it's so important to train our folks more effectively. And that's why it's so important for us to find new industries - building solar panels or wind turbines or the new biofuel that involve these higher value, higher skilled, higher paying jobs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: OK. Yaron, help me out on this one. When are those jobs coming back from overseas? I don't know. I'm busy taxing those companies and driving those jobs out. But we need to find solar panel jobs.
BROOK: Notice the premise, the premise both in the question and the answer. The premise is that government creates jobs. The premise is that government ships jobs overseas and then brings them home.
BECK: Right.
BROOK: Private enterprise creates jobs. Capitalism - free markets creates jobs. And when you restrict freedom, when you restrict capitalism, when you restrict markets, you destroy jobs. And that's what the Bush administration did for eight years and that's what Obama is doing now.
We're taxing, regulating to death American industry, American free markets, American capitalism, and there are not going to be jobs anywhere. The jobs in China are being destroyed at a faster rate than here because of our regulations.
BECK: Well, I mean, anybody thinks that those great solar panel jobs are - wow, they got millions of those waiting. Those great solar jobs are going to stay over here once we make the solar panels. Those are going to be made in China. That's the way the world works. This is ridiculous.
All right. Yaron wrote two articles for my magazine, "Fusion." They are absolutely - I love this issue. It's springtime for Bailout and Germany. It is a comedy and news magazine. He wrote a couple of great articles in the May issue.
You can read them. It's on sale now at "GlennBeck.com" or you can call and order "Fusion" magazine, 888-GLEN-BECK. Very funny magazine. Smart magazine as well. News and humor. "Fusion," see.
Coming up next, this guy had the guts to call Tim Geithner - his plan radical - say it right to his face. One of the good guys, next.
BECK: Tim Geithner's financial overhaul plan would be the single largest expansion of government authority over the financial system since the Great Depression. But does Geithner think it is a big deal? No.
I was actually watching the testimony the other day. This congressman comes on, and I'm like, "Go get him. Go get him, congressman." Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DONALD MANZULLO (R-IL): Do you realize how radical your proposal is?
TIM GEITHNER, COMMERCE SECRETARY: It's not a radical proposal.
MANZULLO: Oh, it's absolutely - you are talking about seizing private businesses and you don't consider it to be radical?
GEITHNER: No, this is a prudent, carefully-designed proposal that protect our financial system from (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
MANZULLO: If it's prudent and carefully designed, Mr. Secretary, do you have the answers to some of my question such as what size business would be subject to this?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Geithner never wanted to answer the congressman's questions. Not once did he answer. Listen to this from the day before.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANZULLO: I'm asking the question - do the people who took out insurance with AIG to ensure their retirement plans get reimbursed 100 percent so they suffer very little loss - yes or no?
GEITHNER: It depends on the nature of those specific contracts. It depends on the nature of those contracts but what the critical thing is, the damage to the average American (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -
MANZULLO: No, you did not answer the question. The average American person has already lost 40 to 50 percent of their insurance plan. You can give me a yes or no, anybody there, please?
GEITHNER: You said it was the purpose. That wasn't the purpose -
MANZULLO: I've got 14 percent unemployment back home. We could lose lots of factories. People are desperate, and half the people have lost half their retirement or most have lost their retirement and not one of you three can give me a yes on that answer - or no.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: It was absolutely amazing to watch him. Republican Congressman Don Manzullo. Congressman, they never did give you an answer - not once. Not one answer.
MANZULLO: No.
BECK: Yes. And really, your question was so logical. It was, "Wait a minute. Didn't you take money from my constituents to give it to AIG so somebody else's constituent could not lose their money in this insurance company? Why are my people losing money for your people?
MANZULLO: Actually, it is worse than that, Glenn. What we found out is that AIG issued insurance policies to some pension plans to minimize the risk of loss in those pension plans. So most Americans have lost 40, 50, 60 percent in our pension plans. Then we have to bail out AIG so they can make whole others in their pension plans.
BECK: We can play this game all day. I can make you even worse than that. They also took over half of that money and sent it to foreign countries, so our U.S. tax dollars went to AIG and then hopped across the pond to foreign countries. Beat that one.
MANZULLO: And now, what we're finding out, Spencer Bachus from Alabama, the ranking Republican minority member in banking is discovering that AIG's people overseas - positive to 100 percent. But now, they negotiated with local banks that had stocks at AIG that paid up 10 to 20 cents on the dollar. It gets worse and worse them more we examine what goes on at AIG.
BECK: All right. Congressman, why aren't there more Democrats and Republicans - I mean, I was for the Democrats that were saying, "Hey, corporate welfare, corporate welfare, what are we doing?" You know, in the last administration - we're not doing corporate welfare now. We are making state-run companies. Only the giants are going to survive with the help of the country and the taxpayer dollars. Why aren't there more people on the Hill that are outraged by this? What's going on?
MANZULLO: Well, you know, I think what's going on, Glenn - there is so much going on. The war in Afghanistan, the Iranians and the North Koreans threatening with additional nuclear capabilities, cap and trade, socialized medicine. I think it's an effort by the administration to put so many things on the table at one time, overwhelm the people, the American Congress, that bad things get through.
BECK: Yes.
MANZULLO: I mean, we found out we were given a memo that was circulated by the chairman of our committee, Barney Frank -
BECK: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hang on, because I have to take a break. Oh, don't - we'll wait for it. Oh, we need a few minutes to savor this memo from Barney Frank. We'll share it, next.
BECK: You know, you don't want to miss "THE FACTOR" tonight. I'm going to be on it. I know. I know. It's crazy, but then - what are the odds - I got this last week from Bill O'Reilly. I was down in Disney World for the Children's Miracle Network. What are the odds - everybody in the studio says, no way - 100 percent of everybody on the show says no way you can get him to wear it. Really? We'll see. Tonight, don't miss "THE O'REILLY FACTOR."
OK, Republican Congressman Don Manzullo is with us. And you were talking about - I'm going to read it, but you tell me how you got this from Barney Frank. How did he pass this out, Sir?
MANZULLO: Well, it is a memo that Chairman Frank passed out to the members of the Financial Services Committee. I'm a member of that committee, and it talks about the regulators worldwide scrutinized bankers pay and it implies that he wants to move towards a worldwide regulation for the compensation paid to executives of American financial capitals -
BECK: That's fantastic.
MANZULLO: American financial companies.
BECK: Here it is.
MANZULLO: It is so radical I couldn't even pronounce it.
BECK: I love it. I love it. I love it. If I may, Barney Frank - create an internationally coordinated effort to restrain compensation packages for employees of companies that have received assistance from their government.
MANZULLO: It's more than that. It's broader than that.
BECK: Really?
MANZULLO: It's to create international standards of compensation for any company in the world involved in financials if that company is big enough to have an impact upon the economy of a country. It is broader than a company receiving assistance.
BECK: Congressman, have you ever thought, in real moments of frustration, with all of the stuff that's going on in the world, just taking Barney Frank by the lapels and going, "What is wrong with you, man?" Have you ever thought of that?
MANZULLO: Not really. I get along with everybody, Glenn. The issues are so intense that you look at them. I look at Mr. Geithner and say, "You know, I respect you but I don't understand where you are coming from."
I've got this testimony in front of the committee yesterday. He says regulators must issue standards for executive compensation practice across all financial firms, period. And then, that ties in with the article that Mr. Frank passed out talking about international regulation.
And then, that ties in with the so-called faux pas that Mr. Geithner said a couple of days ago about getting rid of the green buck as international currency of exchange and accepting some international currency of exchange. This is frightening, Glenn.
BECK: Congressman, I'm with you and I appreciate it. You keep fighting hard and we will keep covering it. I will tell you this - the only thing that keeps me going is the fact that I think Timothy Geithner looks like one of the elves from "Lord of the Rings." And Barney Frank - he seems like comic relief sometimes.
More and more people are throwing tea parties. We have a special look at one of the best invite videos I have ever seen. News on the tea parties, next.
BECK: Americans are fed up with the nonsense in Washington. And a lot of this audience, at least, are 9/12ers. They're holding tea parties to let politicians know that they're through with the games.
On April 15, Tax Day, there are going to be tea parties all across the country and this program wants to be part of it. Check out this invitation from Texas. Watch this.
(VIDEO INVITATION FOR THE TEA PARTY IN TEXAS)
(CAPTION READS: December 16th, 1773, the Boston Tea Party happened to send King George III a message, "No taxation without representation. February 23rd, 1836, the Battle of the Alamo started to send Santa Anna a message, "Don't mess with Texas." Sometimes, history must repeat itself. On April 15th, 2009, the home of the Alamo will again raise her voice with other cities across the United States using our free speech to send a four-word message to Washington. Join us as we tell Washington, "Don't tread on me.")
BECK: I think that is absolutely fabulous. I saw that this morning in my office. It's on the "912Project.com." And I don't know - I'm just thinking just out of the box - I'm thinking, the Alamo, right behind us, live on April 15. I'm just saying.
One of the places we're considering on April 15 - tell us where we should be, not where we should go, because I know that trick. Where we should be on April 15. Check out the "9/12 Project." Join the weekend program tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. Eastern. From New York, good night.
