Skip to main content
Search
Services


 

Return to Transcripts main page

GLENN BECK

Why are National Guard Powerless on Border?; Congress Holds Global Warming Hearing; More Trouble for Air America

Aired January 30, 2007 - 19:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY GRACE, HOST, "NANCY GRACE": Glenn Beck has an issue he`s passionate about tonight. Watch him now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN BECK, HOST: Boy, you ain`t kidding, Nancy. Tonight, outrage on the border. The National Guard troops have been forced to retreat from armed illegal aliens.

And Congress held its first hearing on global warming. Wow, really? You`ve solved all the other problems already? That and more, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by the 700-mile fence. You know, the fence Congress approved. Hey, weren`t they supposed to build a fence? Someone`s in a lot of trouble.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Why don`t you listen closely to this story? It starts with our soldiers.

You know, it has been said that a soldier commits only one act of bravery, and that is choosing to enlist. Serving your country takes great courage, and those who do so deserve our unwavering support and respect. When they perform above and beyond the call of duty, they also deserve praise and recognition.

But when we start honoring those in uniform for doing nothing at all, you know what? I`ve got to question the reasoning, the sanity and the resolve of those in command.

So here`s the point tonight. You know what? Talk is cheap. And it is insulting for Washington to babble on about national security when those in Washington refuse to back up their words with action.

Here`s how I got there. Yesterday, the National Guard honored four of its men for the way they handled a situation while patrolling the border earlier this month. The troops were on patrol when suddenly they were approached by a group of armed men. What did they do? How did they react? What military tactic did they employ to contain the situation?

Well, the National Guard withdrew without confrontation. They did nothing. And was it because they lacked training or courage? No. They pulled back because that`s what they`ve been ordered to do by the suits in Washington. This, even though one of the guys had an automatic rifle with a bullet in the chamber and came within 40 feet of our troops. At that range, death comes at a fraction of a second.

Where did this action all take place? Did it happen in Iraq, Pakistan, on the border of Iran? No. Try Arizona.

According to a National Guard spokesperson the soldiers did exactly what think mission mandated: pull back if they`re approached by armed personnel coming across our border and then contact the Border Patrol who will come and "investigate" the situation. Are you kidding me?

Our strategy for battling illegal aliens armed with machine guns centers around a cell phone. Hmm. Somehow now I don`t feel so safe. Thanks Cingular for all your help.

Let me get this one straight. The National Guard, those guarding our nation, are not allowed to engage armed men crossing the border illegally. May I ask a question? Have I gone completely insane, or have the boobs in Washington that we call leaders gone insane?

Were these men that were unidentified, were they Mexican fugitives? Were they arms dealers, drug lords, terrorists? Hell if I know. You know why we don`t know? Because the men charged with patrolling our borders were ordered to sit on their hands while the bad guys walked away.

You know what? I don`t blame the individual guardsmen. I feel bad for them; I really do. Being part of a good and effective soldier is following orders. I have nothing but admiration for anybody who puts on a uniform and picks up a gun in the service of our country.

Let me ask you. Can you imagine how these guys felt? Standing there watching these guys, and they had to pull back, doing nothing to protect our country? I would imagine I would feel, "I joined up for this?" I`m guessing they thought they would have a little more authority than a security guard at the Gap.

Washington wants men and women on the border as a show of force so we can feel secure. You know what, Washington? Sometimes in order for us to actually be secure, you actually have to use force.

Until September 11 we were spoiled. We lived with a sense of false confidence. It hasn`t even been six years, and while most of us haven`t forgotten, it seems most of Washington has. They`re more interested in "American Idol" than American safety, so tonight here`s what I know.

I am sick and damn tired of just hearing about the war on terror, on hearing about the war on drugs, about hearing about border safety. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Federal and state politicians, they preach about strict border security. Then they hand out medals to soldiers who are forced to wear their own handcuffs! It`s time to put up or shut up, Washington, and you know what? When you`re involved I`d settle for a little of each.

I also know our country is on fire, and the fuel is illegal immigration. There are about 12 to 15 million illegals in this country, and that number is growing by 500,000 every year. Recent investigations showed that in Los Angeles 95 percent of all warrants for homicide targeted illegal aliens. They put a strain on our Social Security, our education, our health care and, yes, national security.

Remember, at the rate of half a million illegals streaming across our border every single year, it is naive at best to think that all of them are just looking for jobs as busboys.

You know what? I am no xenophobe, even though after this monologue I`m going to be painted as one, but I do fear the consequences of foolish and irresponsible political correctness.

What I don`t know is when we`ll pay the price for our arrogance and our negligence. I think we`re drowning, and politicians don`t seem to care how high the water is rising.

Ward Nichols is a representative at the Arizona state legislature.

Ward, you are -- you`ve got to be on fire about this and fed up.

WARD NICHOLS, ARIZONA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: We are. We are completely shocked at the situation that happened on the border, that we have National Guardsmen there to help protect our border, retreating from armed illegals coming from across the border

BECK: This is -- you know what? This is Washington at its best. This is let everybody just feel safe. They have taken the National Guard, and I think humiliated them, putting there -- them there. They are less effective than the Minutemen.

NICHOLS: It is. It`s terrible. We have men and women in the National Guard that are putting their lives on the line on the border, and because of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and a lack of action, their hands are tied. They can`t even engage properly when they see armed men coming across the border. They basically -- their rules of engagement are basically they cannot fire until fired upon, so one of their friends has to take a bullet before they can return fire.

BECK: Unbelievable. This is all part of Bush`s Operation Jump Start where he got in front of the American people and, again, this is before the election and he`s like I -- we`re tough on the border. We`re really doing something because it`s on fire. I`m going to send those National Guard troops down there, and this is what they`re doing? This is it? What is the point?

NICHOLS: You know, I`m not really sure. I look at the National Guard based off of our hearings that we had yesterday with General Ratochek (ph) as basic window dressing. They`re just there so the politicals (sic) in Washington, D.C., can say we`re doing something about the border, when indeed they`re not.

BECK: OK. So these border national security, or I mean National Guardsmen, they get medals.

NICHOLS: Yes.

BECK: I don`t mean to be insulting, but for what?

NICHOLS: You know, I`m not really sure. General Ratochek (ph) stressed in the hearing yesterday that they did exactly what they were trained to do. They did exactly what they were supposed to do.

And if I`m a soldier and I`m following orders, fine, but what about the 1,700 plus or minus other National Guardsmen and women on our border that are doing what they`re supposed to every day also that didn`t receive any medals?

BECK: You know, I have to tell you, again, man, I don`t want to sound like I`m coming on -- coming against the National Guard, because I`m not. I feel for these guys. I got to tell you. I would question my service if you put me into this situation.

Here these guys are sitting there. It`s almost like this medal is -- is a bribe to shut up. I don`t know what it is. Explain, somebody in the National Guard, how it is they get medals for doing what? For putting up with the incompetence in Washington?

NICHOLS: Yes. You know, I don`t really know what to say. I was as shocked as you are, that, again, they`re getting medals for supposedly carrying out their duties on things that happen every day across the Arizona-Mexico border.

BECK: By the way, here`s the Border Patrol spokesman. He said -- and I`ll put this up on a full screen so you can see it -- "The National Guard troops did exactly what they were trained to do. They evaded the threat and moved to a safer location and called the Border Patrol."

Good God in heaven, what the hell is wrong with us?

You have been dealing with this for how long, in Arizona? This -- I mean, this is the busiest point for drug smuggling on the entire border, is it not?

NICHOLS: Absolutely, yes it is.

BECK: OK.

NICHOLS: And what we fear is that we don`t know who these men were. They were -- they were basically in tactical military gear, Kevlar vests, carrying automatic weapons, and we didn`t apprehend and detain them. It`s unbelievable.

And we let them go back across in Mexico. We have no idea what they were doing here. We don`t know if they were testing the resolve of the National Guard. We don`t know if they were carrying drugs across the border or smuggling human beings. We have no idea.

BECK: OK. The No. 1 question I get from everybody who watches and listens to my radio show is this. Why are people in Washington not doing anything? You`ve been dealing this for a while. Why don`t the leaders in Washington solve this? It ain`t that hard.

NICHOLS: I think political correctness has gone too far.

BECK: Good God. Ward, thank you.

NICHOLS: Thank you.

BECK: Coming up -- want to talk with political correctness -- global warming or climate change? What are we supposed to call this thing now? The Senate holds hearings on the subject today. We`ll talk to a few guys who know both sides of the story.

Also, talk ain`t cheap, especially when it comes to liberal radio. Air America is getting another multi-million dollar bailout and its top star headed for the exits.

And digging the pork out of politics. Here`s an idea. "The Real Story" tonight. Whether we can expect Congress to actually act responsibly with our money. Gee, what do you think? Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Tell me what your thoughts are on Iran. These are the guys who are now in bed with the Army of the Mehdi, the army of the messiah.

GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I was in Israel last week and spoke at the Herzliya conference. I outlined a five-point plan to keep Iran from developing nuclear technology and a nuclear weapon.

BECK: Real quick, can you run down those just real quick? Just...

ROMNEY: Sure, sure. First of all, much tighter economic sanctions. We`ve begun those. They have to be tighter.

No. 2, diplomatic isolation. When their leaders travel the world they shouldn`t be welcomed.

No. 3, we`ve got to enlist the moderate Islamic nations.

No. 4, we`re going to have to make sure that the Iranian people understand that there is a down side to having a nuclear weapon and that is that the military option is still on the table.

And then finally the fifth step is that our effort with regards to Iran will have to be part of the context of a global effort to stop the jihad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: More with Mitt Romney coming up later on in the program.

Today, the Senate held its first global warming hearing of the year. I don`t know about you, but I`m sick of this whole global warming thing. I almost can`t put the damn thing into words.

In case you haven`t seen this program before, let me say -- let me tell you where I stand on global warming. Yes, something is happening with the weather. The globe is getting warm in some areas, colder in others. It`s been crazy. Something clearly is going on.

I`m just not convinced that it`s man`s fault. It might be, not so sure. Some studies suggest that cows are responsible for more globally harmful emissions than man. Is that so? I don`t know. What do you say we have a steak and talk about it?

What I am sure about is it makes no sense for America to sacrifice in the name of global warming when a nation like China will pump more carbon emissions into the air in the next 15 years than three billion Ford Expeditions being driven for a total of 45 trillion miles. I am not kidding, and that`s just from coal alone.

California Senator Barbara Boxer is in charge of these hearings. I wish her luck. You know, not only the questions about the science, but think about this. Congress used to be controlled by moderate Republicans. Now it`s controlled by moderate Democrats. A wash or a nightmare?

Senator James Inhofe is a Republican from Oklahoma.

Senator, how was your first day with these Senate hearings?

SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: Hey, Glenn, we talked about this once before.

BECK: Yes.

INHOFE: And I chaired that committee for four years, and now Barbara Boxer is chairing it. And you know, there`s just -- there`s just a euphoric attitude that somehow, because they`re chairing things, people are going to believe this hype out there that`s coming from the liberals.

And by the way, you mentioned this thing about livestock emitting more of the greenhouse gasses than manmade gasses, and that came from the United Nations, the same ones who have the fourth assessment coming up on Friday of this week.

So here they come up, and they also said that the -- and this is, again, the people who are responsible for this whole thing were the United Nations. And they`re now saying in this report that the -- that they`ve downgraded the contribution that is made by man to -- to the greenhouse gasses by 25 percent.

BECK: You know, this is what kills me is you can`t question this at all. I mean, I was called -- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called me last week or two weeks ago a fascist for questioning global warming.

INHOFE: I`m glad I`m not the only guy. They`ve been calling me everything.

BECK: That guy is incredible. Senator, help me out. I must have mislearned the definition of the word fascist.

INHOFE: Yes.

BECK: But I`m questioning, and you`re not even allowed to question these things anymore.

INHOFE: Right. You`re not allowed to question it, and I`ll tell you what. The reason is -- you may not have really gotten onto this -- the scientists in the last four years have been coming over in droves, saying that there is no scientific evidence.

Let me give you one example, because your listeners a lot of them have heard a guy named Claude Allegra. He`s a French geophysicist, a member of the -- both the French and the American Academy of Sciences. He was one of them marching in the streets talking about global warming, it`s all man`s fault.

But he has studied it now, reversed his position and listen to his one-sentence statement. He said, "The cause of warming it unknown. The proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming are being motivated by money."

If you -- and if you look what happened last week with Heidi Cullen, sure she`s motivated by money. What happens to her ratings if all of a sudden people realize that there`s some -- a lot of doubt as to the science behind this thing.

BECK: I will tell you, Senator, that John Kerry was out, you know, overseas this last weekend, and he was saying, you know, we`ve done more damage because we wouldn`t sign the Kyoto treaty.

It wasn`t -- the Clinton administration didn`t put that one through. He was part of the Senate at the time when nobody, you know, wanted to be involved with the Kyoto treaty, because it`s -- we`re not on par with other countries. China wouldn`t have had to change their behavior.

INHOFE: See, China in the year 2009 will pass this up as the No. 1 emitter of CO2, and they -- they`re laughing at us. We`re the laughing stock of those countries that are developing nations. They say we have no intention of doing it.

Let me give you one statistic. And you`re talking about Barbara Boxer out in California. I don`t believe there is one coal-fired generating plant for electricity in California. The Chinese are cranking out one every three days. Now if you want to find ourselves in a position where we no longer have any energy over here, that`s -- that`s the motivation behind a lot of these people.

BECK: Senator, is it true that man is responsible for only 2 percent of the CO2s that are floating around us?

INHOFE: That`s consistent even with Al Gore`s -- his own scientist. His name is Tom Wiggly (ph). He said that in the event we all comply with Kyoto, all the developed nations for the next 50 years, it will only bring the temperature down 6/100 of 1 degrees Celsius. That`s not even measurable. So the answer is yes.

BECK: Senator, we`re going to do a special on global warming soon. How dead are we when we put that on the air? Will I have a job the next day?

INHOFE: Well, you stopped and look what`s happening on the Weather Channel. I don`t know.

BECK: I don`t know. Senator, best of luck. Thank you very much.

Now those U.S. fighter jet parts that were making their way into the hands of President Tom. We talked about it in "The Real Story". We`re going to talk to somebody on Capitol Hill that is going to stop it. Don`t miss it. It`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Mark your calendars. February 14, yes, it`s Valentine`s Day, but it`s also Al Franken`s last day on Air America. I know. I`ll give you a moment to collect yourself.

Struggling liberal radio network is, I mean, it`s had financial problems from the very beginning. It has declared bankruptcy a few months ago. It announced it has been officially bailed out by a New York real estate mogul, Stephen Green, just in time for its biggest star -- and really that`s a statement in and of itself -- but he announced that he`s possibly leaving, maybe to pursue running for the Senate. Great.

So things are constantly looking up for us in America and liberal radio.

Michael Harrison is the publisher of "Talkers" magazine.

Michael, I`ve got to tell you this kills me because I haven`t seen the headlines everywhere on this. If this was Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, and we went out of business, this would be on the front page everywhere, saying this just shows America doesn`t accept the conservative point of view.

MICHAEL HARRISON, PUBLISHER, "TALKERS" MAGAZINE: Well, maybe that`s the case, but it would be news because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are successful on radio. So then we`d say why is it going out of business?

But Air America has not been successful on radio, as evidenced by their debt, their bankruptcy, and the fact that they mark success by being bailed out as opposed to generating revenue the old-fashioned way, and that`s earning it.

BECK: Now, do you think, Michael -- I have my own theories on this. I mean, first of all, their whole idea is to be -- is to win elections, and who wants to listen to a three-hour political commercial?

HARRISON: That`s it.

BECK: That`s not the way to run business, is it?

HARRISON: It`s certainly not the way to run the radio business. The radio business can be informative and it can be political, but it`s primarily -- has to be compelling and entertaining, and it has to have listeners.

And then as it has listeners, it can sell advertising. That`s the way the industry operates.

They ran Air America kind of like a political campaign, where you based it on how many contributions you get, either in the form of investment or just backing. And that is not the way you run a business in radio. You have to sell advertising.

BECK: Who is -- who is the guy -- I mean, I know who he is, but who - - who in their right mind would buy this business and say, you know what, that`s a good investment? Why -- why not just unplug this damn thing?

HARRISON: Well, I think anybody at this point who puts money into Air America wants the attention that comes with it, because Air America has gotten a disproportionate amount of attention in the media than its numbers or the reality of what it`s been would warrant.

So now the Greens are going to be the champions of the so-called liberal cause that is saving America from conservative talk radio.

BECK: You -- see, this doesn`t make any sense to me. I mean, you`ve got NPR on the radio, and they have been in business forever. You have CBS.

Let me ask you this question. I`m a conservative. How many conservatives are sitting here at CNN? Come on, Jack. I mean, you`ve got the voice of liberals everywhere in the media.

HARRISON: You make a good point, and that`s been the biggest myth about Air America, is that somehow all of radio is conservative talk radio, and it`s dominating American political activity. Untrue.

Conservatives are very successful in talk radio, and they`ve gotten a tremendous buzz in the larger media, but the fact is, if you step back and you look at radio, NPR is moderate to liberal. You have urban talk radio, which is predominantly Democratic.

BECK: OK. Michael, thank you very much. And the upside is for liberals they didn`t lose that much, only 41 million. Back in a minute with the "The Real Story" on political pork. Don`t miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Welcome to "The Real Story."

I want you to remember all the way back to last Tuesday. Now, yes, it was the day that Al Gore`s film strip finally got the recognition it deserved from the academy, but more importantly it was the day that President Bush said at his State of the Union this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Next, there`s the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour. The time has come to end this practice, so let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress, and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Oh, that is -- no. Stand up. Stand up. Come on. All you guys, you deserved it. It was great. Look at all the pork-hating politicians there. Good for you, little politicians.

Real story tonight: Actions speak much, much louder than any standing ovation. The very next morning, the senators in that audience had a chance to actually prove how much they hated pork by voting for an amendment called "A Second Look at Wasteful Spending." Take a wild guess how many people voted for that: 46 Democrats voted against it; 47 Republicans voted for it. It needed 60 votes to stay alive.

Just do me a favor. If I ever forget why I hate politics so much, remind me about this story.

If common sense had somehow snuck its way into Washington, this amendment would have given the president the ability four times a year to highlight earmark spending items, then send them back to Congress. Once Congress got the pork back, then they could vote on it, the entire group, yes or no, majority rules. I know. Sounds really unfair, doesn`t it?

The real genius of this proposal and the reason why it didn`t pass is that it would have actually forced every member of Congress to put their name on the record next to their vote supporting the pork. But isn`t that exactly the light of day that you just heard the president talk about and everybody clapping like little clowns? But now they hate the idea. Oh, yes. No, they hate it, because now they had to stop clapping and start voting.

It`s really just another example of how these guys are playing politics with our money.

In 1995, a very similar amendment was brought up in the Senate. Twenty Democratic senators, who are still senators today, voted for that one back then. Not one of them voted for it this time. Then, three years later, the Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto, which was similar but more powerful than this idea, they said it was unconstitutional. Hey, thanks, judges. The Democrats went ballistic over that, because Clinton had lost his power to cut pork.

During the 1995 vote, the 197-year-old Senator Robert Byrd, oh, he loved the idea. In fact, the line-item veto, he said, quote, "I`m 100 percent behind it." Yes, this time? No, not so much. He stood on the Senate floor last week calling this one "garbage," saying it was, quote, "an assault on Congress and the Constitution."

Gee, I guess old age can make you say stupid things. Then again, so does your former membership in the KKK. Last year, Congress spent a record $29 billion on pork projects that were just slipped into bills through earmarks. That, Mr. Byrd, is an assault on our Constitution.

Next, this crackpot show has been talking for days about the theory that Saudi Arabia is intentionally driving down oil prices to cripple Iran`s economy. I`m convinced that it`s happening, and yesterday it finally made the big time in Washington. A reporter at the State Department press briefing asked spokesman Scott McCormack (sic) if, in fact, it could be happening.

I want you to listen to this answer. No, more importantly, I want you to watch the smirk on his face and how uncomfortable he looks as he`s dodging the question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN MCCORMACK, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: ... you can talk to the Saudis about how they view the oil markets. And the markets are the ones who set the prices. I`m not going to jump into commenting on commodity markets, thank you very much, at least.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: No, no, thank you very much, Scott (sic). No, really, your non-answer says volumes. But if I could just ask a follow-up: Will low oil prices actually hurt Iran`s economy?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCORMACK: You`ll have to talk to the Iranian minister -- ministry of finance about what sort of squeeze lower oil prices will put on their spending.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Oh, oh, so I`ll just talk to the Iranian ministry of finance? Yes, thanks. Didn`t know it was that easy. Do you happen to have a phone number handy or anything?

The real story? Watching the spokesman squirm his way through those vague answers confirms, at least for me, chief conspiracy theorist, something is happening, and it`s working. That`s why the last thing we can do right now is listen to the U.N.`s idea of taking a time out, something that is also advocated by Iran`s new best friend and arms supplier, Russia.

When you have your opponent boxed into a corner, you keep throwing punches, man. In fact, you keep throwing them harder and harder and harder until the guy goes down and doesn`t get up. You don`t stop throwing punches.

Now, one guy who gets that idea is John Bolton, former ambassador to the weasels at the U.N. Notice I said "former ambassador," because if you advocate any plan other than sitting in a circle and singing "Kumbaya," you`re no longer allowed to play at the U.N. club.

But the good news is, Bolton can finally speak his mind. And yesterday he took a jab at the rampart of peace by saying that, "Time is not on our side, and the only real solution in Iran is regime change."

So with all of this news as a backdrop, I want to bring you a follow- up on that story about our government auctioning off surplus military parts to our enemies, specifically, military was transferring a mountain of F-14 Tomcat fighter jet parts to an agency that handles auctions. Only one problem: the only country on Earth still flying the F-14s is, oh, my gosh, Iran.

I know, I know. We`re just mere paupers and citizens, and we`re not privy to the sensitive CIA data or homeland security reports, but at least to us lowly, ignorant sheep that makes no frickin` sense whatsoever! Why wouldn`t you just destroy the parts?

Now, at the time, I asked you, please, help me end this nonsense by calling your congressman. Well, apparently you did, because Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has now proposed the Stop Arming Iran Act, to end these auctions once and for all.

Senator, the name says it all. Please tell me that this bill doesn`t have a chance of actually failing in Congress.

SEN. RON WYDEN (D), OREGON: Well, I just talked to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and that`s pretty much what he indicated, Glenn. Our policy just defies common sense. You`ve got a situation where the Iranians have meddled in Iraq. They`ve funded Hezbollah. They`re seeking nuclear weapons. We shouldn`t have policies that make it easier for them to get these F-14 fighter jets off the tarmac.

BECK: You know, why is it that we -- it`s not that hard to figure out who our enemies are in the world. Why is it, it seems in Washington we just can`t identify threats to our nation?

WYDEN: You`re being a little bit too logical, given what`s been going on here.

BECK: Right.

WYDEN: And I`ve got to tell you, Glenn, the Department of Defense has been kicking this around for several years now. They always say they`ve got it fixed. Then the Governmental Accountability Office sends investigators out, and they find out it`s still going on.

BECK: OK.

WYDEN: So the reason I`ve introduced this legislation is, I want to cut it off permanently, once and for all.

BECK: OK. And God bless you, a Democratic senator I could stand behind. Thank you, sir.

WYDEN: Thanks for having me.

BECK: Now let me ask you the reality of the thing. In the bill, you say anybody who has already purchased these parts are also prohibited to selling them to Iran. How are you ever going to enforce that?

WYDEN: There`s going to need to be much better oversight, because that is a key question. Clearly, that oversight has been lacking in the past, both in terms of the Pentagon and other executive branch agencies.

I sit on the Select Committee on Intelligence. I can`t obviously get into classified information, but there is going to be a new focus on oversight and making sure that we actually can enforce these new rules.

BECK: OK. And I know you`re in a delicate situation, so I`m just going to ask you some questions. If you can`t answer, you can`t answer. I don`t want to blow anything for our side. Do you believe that we and the Saudis are putting pressure on Iran by the collapse of the oil prices?

WYDEN: I would say that I still think we need to have a whole host of countries, and particularly the European countries and others, helping us deal with Iran. We need to have a concerted effort, in terms of economic pressure.

We just learned, for example, this weekend that Royal Dutch Shell is looking at a multibillion-dollar investment that could help the Iranians. So we need a full-court press right now to deal with this very serious challenge from Iran.

BECK: How are you going to be able to do that? You can`t get Europe to agree on that. You`ve got Russia who is arming these people. Russia, not our friends by any stretch of the imagination. How are you going to get them involved?

WYDEN: What we`re going to have to do is show Europe, Russia, a number of these other countries why they, too, will be at risk with these kinds of policies. They don`t seem to be getting the message, because they somehow think that making money today is what is really going to be in their interests.

We`re trying to make the case that the whole world is at risk when you have people like the Iranians in a position to secure these very dangerous nuclear weapons.

BECK: You know, real quick, we`ve only got a couple seconds left. I fear an Archduke Ferdinand moment, that we`re close to one with Iran, that somehow or another something is going to happen and set the whole thing on fire. Do you think we`re close to that?

WYDEN: Well, frankly, there`s a tiny, tiny bit of positive news. You look, for example, at those elections in Iran in the middle of December. I get the sense that the person on the street in Iran is getting pretty dissatisfied with their government. Let`s keep the economic pressure on, Glenn.

BECK: I`m with you on that. Thank you very much. That is the "Real Story" tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: You are known as somebody or are now starting to be known as somebody who is pro-abortion. I`ve heard you`ve changed that point of view. Have you flipped on abortion? And if so, what was the pivot point?

MITT ROMNEY (R), FORMER GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS: Well, I have changed my view on abortion, and that happened a couple of years ago. And the pivot point was, we were having a discussion with people at Harvard University who were responsible for stem cell research.

And at one point, one of them indicated that a practice known as embryo farming and somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning really wasn`t a moral issue, because they said they killed the embryos after 14 days. And it struck me that we have so cheapened the value of human life in this country, through our Roe v. Wade decision, that someone could think that`s not a moral issue, to have racks and racks of living human embryos, and then destroying them at 14 days.

And I said to my chief of staff as I came out of that meeting, I said, "I want to make it very clear that I am pro-life."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Yes. I want to make it very clear right now that I am very pro-movie. And I`m not going to flip-flop on that. I mean it: I`m pro- movie. You know, one of the best parts about working here in New York City, besides the random smells and the constant fear of death, is actually being able to, you know, watch movies be filmed right outside your office.

There`s a new Will Smith movie, "I Am Legend," that`s filming right now all over the city. It`s amazing to watch them transform a few blocks into something that looks like it`s something from another world. In fact, New York City loves movies so much that we have an entire government office built just to work with the production companies. But apparently not everybody is such a big fan.

In North Carolina, a state senator wants the government to approve the scripts of any movie being shot there, if the filmmakers want to be eligible for the 15 percent tax break. I`m guessing that`s just every script writer`s dream, you know, not to mention a sure-fire recipe for straight-to-DVD blockbusters.

Phil Berger is the bill`s sponsor. Mr. Berger, why the need now for this bill?

PHIL BERGER, NORTH CAROLINA STATE SENATE: Glenn, what we`re seeing is that, with the controversy recently over the movie, the "Hounddog" movie, we`ve had a lot of questions about, why would the state of North Carolina be subsidizing that movie to the extent of $600,000, when we`ve got all kinds of other needs in North Carolina, mental health needs, education needs, transportation needs?

And the movie itself deals with a controversial subject, and it`s not exactly something that most people here in North Carolina would want to see their tax dollars spent for.

BECK: Gee, I don`t know. If I were a taxpayer, I know I`d love my tax dollars to go to a Dakota Fanning rape film. So who`s going to read these scripts?

BERGER: Well, most states that have film incentive programs. All of our neighbors, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, they have a pre-production script review, according to the information that we have. Here in North Carolina, there`s no reviews such as that, and we need to put in place some kind of control to make sure that the taxpayers don`t get embarrassed.

BECK: But, again, the question is, who reviews it? I mean, how do you decide, you know, what`s bad and what`s not? For instance, would the state have given a tax break to Al Gore on "An Inconvenient Truth?"

BERGER: I don`t know. And that`s part of what we need to work through, as far as the legislation is concerned. We need to see what the other states are doing. We need to try to put together something that will make sense and certainly make sure that we`re good stewards of the taxpayers` money.

BECK: You know, I have to tell you, here`s my problem with this. Look, I love movies. And you want to make movies, you want to make any movie you want, you have a right to make a Dakota Fanning rape film if you want. I think you`re wrong to do it, but, you know, to each his own. I wouldn`t spend a dollar on "Mary Poppins" or the rape movie. Why is the government involved in subsidizing movies?

BERGER: Absolutely, Glenn. And that`s exactly the way I feel about it, and I voted against the incentive program, but it`s here. It`s something that a majority of the members of the legislature want. And so I think what we`ve got to do is make sure that, if we`re going to have such a program, we do it in a way so that the taxpayers` money is not being wasted.

BECK: So let me go back. So if you didn`t -- this is relatively new that you`re handing out this 15 percent tax cut, right, it`s like two years old?

BERGER: That`s correct.

BECK: OK. You guys are already number three on the list. It is New York, then it`s California, then it`s North Carolina. Why was this tax break even brought in? You guys were already cashing in.

BERGER: Well, because we were told, at least the folks that voted for it believed and were told, that North Carolina was suffering as far as its relative position in terms of making films, and that it was something that needed to be done for economic development. You know, that`s one of the great problems we`ve got now, is everything seems to be worthwhile, so long as you can tie it to economic development.

BECK: I`ve got to tell you. You know, every member of government needs to re-read "Atlas Shrugged." It`s time for our politicians to read, "Hey, government, stay out of business and let business do the work." Phil, thanks.

BERGER: Well, Glenn, just briefly.

BECK: Quickly.

BERGER: But if business wants government money, then business shouldn`t complain about government being involved in business.

BECK: Great, thanks. Back in a minute with your e-mail.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right, let`s get right to the e-mail.

"Glenn, you`ve spent more time talking about a dead horse and a fat, retired model than you have about our troops in Afghanistan. Please let us know when you plan to show that you care." Albert, come on, man. We talk about our troops and the heroic things they`re doing around the world all the time.

You`re right, Afghanistan doesn`t get the front-page headlines that Iraq gets. For one, the media seems to think that, you know, there`s not enough explosions to cover. Afghanistan isn`t Disneyworld, by any means, but the death toll has been much, much lower, and the operation has gone much smoother by comparison. Journalists think that bad news sells, and there hasn`t been much of it or at least there`s been much more of it in Iraq.

That`s sad. But Afghanistan is mentioned almost solely now as a political tool, and at this point it has affected America`s view of the effort. A CNN poll taken just a few weeks ago showed that only 44 percent of Americans support the war in Afghanistan. What? Not Iraq, Afghanistan. Obviously, people have turned on the Iraq effort, and that`s dragging the numbers down in Afghanistan, as well.

But, dear heavens, people, let`s remember the reason we`re there. This was the obvious and direct response to the worst attack in the history on our country. You might not be perfectly happy with the way it`s being fought or you might think we need more troops. Maybe you`re just bored of it. But that`s not the question. The question is: Do you support the war in Afghanistan? Either way, don`t forget the troops fighting over there.

Next, Marilyn. "I thought I`d finally found somebody in the media who had honesty and courage to say what`s true and not just what is deemed to be PC. This week, you said, `Islam is a religion of peace,` and I realized that you, too, had either sold out or lost your mind."

You know, I can`t take this frickin` argument one more second. I get beat up by nut jobs on both sides of this issue. I haven`t sold out, and I haven`t lost my mind. I`ve done my homework, and I truly believe that Islam is a peaceful religion. I`ve been saying it for years and years. And if you don`t like it, then go find another frickin` show.

It`s the extremists that are twisting it, and they are the ones causing the problems. But if all Americans, Muslim or not Muslim, neglect to regard extremism as the threat to this civilization and the civilization of man, then it is only going to get worse. But, please, let`s not operate on politics or rhetoric or fear. Let`s face the truth: Extremism is going to be the death of us.

You can e-mail me now at GlennBeck@CNN.com. And we`ll see you tomorrow, you sick, twisted freak.

END

Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines