Chapter 5 is titled “The Cancer of Progressivism”. It’s exactly what you think it is, except that instead of any actual, solid definition of ‘progressivism’, he just uses it to stand for ‘a very bad thing that I don’t like!’ Throughout the chapter, he never actually defines what ‘Progressives’ are or what they believe that’s in any way consistent with the people I know that call themselves progressives. For example, he claims that “One of the hallmarks of Progressive thought is the concept of redistribution: the idea that your money and property are only yours if the State doesn’t determine that there is a higher or better use for it.” Uh, what? He can’t be complaining about eminent domain, because that’s written in the Holy Constitution, Peace Be Upon It. So I’m guessing he’s conflating (probably intentionally) progressivism with Communism, which is absolutely disingenious and reminiscent of McCarthyism. He then goes on to rant about how Teddy Roosevelt believed property is “subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.” Again, this quote strikes me more as Teddy Roosevelt saying that just because you own something, it doesn’t mean you can do whatever the hell you want with it. People who own factories don’t have the right to dump their shit into the air, people who own houses can’t set up a nuclear plant in their backyard, etc. It’s not entirely unreasonable, yet this strikes Beck as being the worst thing in the world.

So now we move on to the environmental movement. He asks whether “[environmentalists] honestly believe that the environment can really be “saved” through government intervention”, despite two pages earlier stating that “[progressives] love their country and genuinely believe that this is the best way forward.” He throws out the old “global cooling/warming” canard, first noting that (supposedly) scientists believed the earth was cooling in the 1970s, and so we can never trust them again on anything ever. The problem here is twofold: first off, the scientific papers of the time were merely reporting that temperature was on a downward trend over a timescale on the order of decades, as exemplified by this quote:

However, there is no physical basis for predicting either the timing or magnitude of such changes because we do not yet understand the underlying causes. Likewise there is no real basis for the alarmist predictions of an imminent ice age which have largely been based on extrapolation of the 30-year trend of falling temperatures between 1940 and 1965.

Second, serious scientists have never really called it “global warming”; again, this is a popular phrase picked up by the press because it’s easier to remember than “anthropogenic climate change”; yes, some parts of the earth will get colder, and some will get warmer, but the point is that it’s changing beyond normal parameters.

He then brings up the mercury level of CFLs; four milligrams of mercury per bulb, compared to .12 milligrams in a can of tuna. I’m not entirely sure what the point of that comparison is; does somebody need to tell him that you don’t eat CFLs? You might as well complain about the levels of mercury in your dental fillings, or your thermostat (which, according to the EPA [PDF], can contain up to 3000 milligrams of mercury.)
He then assaults the reader’s intelligence with this quote, which is probably one of the dumbest:

Isn’t it amazing that the law does not require one human being to save another human being from injury or death? if you see a stranger, or even a relative, drowning in a pool, the law doesn’t impose any obligation on you to save them, even if you could do so without any risk to yourself. Yet the same legal system requires you, under threat of penalty, to recycle, to avoid letting your car idle, and to put CFL bulbs with poisonous mercury into your homes—all to save the environment.

So wait. Glenn Beck thinks that the government interferes too much in our lives, and yet simultaneously thinks that we should be legally obliged to save other people’s lives? I mean, what? Seriously, what? Does he really want people untrained in first aid trying to ‘rescue’ people from car accidents, accidentally paralyzing or breaking something because they equate “car wreck” with “must remove person immediately!”, thinking that they’re about to die even when they’re in no further danger? And for that matter, if we were required to aid other people in danger, wouldn’t being legally required to protect the environment follow? After all, if we fuck up the environment, it would lead to the deaths of millions of people. But thinking things through to their logical conclusions isn’t exactly Glenn Beck’s strong point.

Another thing Beck really seems to be freaked out about is the mandatory testing of newborn infants for certain genetic diseases. I mean honestly, what’s so bad about that? Testing for genetic diseases can save lives if they’re caught early. But no, he’s worried about some future dystopia where “those accused of murder and rape have their blood and DNA protected more than innocent newborn babies.” Innocent until proven guilty? What the hell is that? Whenever you’re accused of something, you lose all your rights, end of story. He’s also conveniently ignoring genetic patenting, which hinders research and effectively grants corporations exclusive rights to research into certain areas.
On another privacy-related note, he brings up the DHS report titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” (available on Wikileaks). From my reading of it, all that it seems to be saying is that Obama’s stances on various issues, both perceived and actual, have been inciting various extremist groups; Beck’s claim that the report states “veterans of the armed forces pose a heightened security risk to the country” is a (likely intentional) misreading of the section on disgruntled military veterans, which notes “DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat.” I mean, noting that people who already have combat training would be valuable targets for extremist recruiting is kind of common sense. He then goes on to insult every single congressperson who spoke out against Bush’s warrantless wiretapping by noting that since they didn’t say anything about a report that suggests that further action might be advisable sometime in the future, without actually putting any action into place, they’re “cockroaches who care nothing about liberty and freedom.” Really? Fuck you.

This is already the longest section of the review, and I’m not even done with the chapter yet. Coming up on part 7, Glenn Beck rages against the public schooling system, and intimates without saying it that only Christians can possibly be moral.