Return to Transcripts main page
Economic Race Against the Clock; Hillary Runs into Trouble at Polls; Anti-War Movies Failing at Box Office
Aired November 7, 2007 - 19:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, the secret war on America`s economy. I`ll tell you what`s at stake with oil near $100 a barrel and red China making plans to sell dollars.
Then, more proof that hit squads from Mexican drug cartels are operating right here on U.S. soil.
And Rosie O`Donnell may be coming to a news network near you. Why I believe her return to TV would actually be a good thing for America.
All this and more, tonight.
BECK: Well, hello, America.
Before we get started tonight, please, let me take a moment and congratulate some of our good buddies on reaching a milestone. Congratulations on Iran for their 30th -- their 3,000th centrifuge.
(SINGING) Happy 3,000th centrifuge, Iran. Happy 3,000th centrifuge to you.
By the way, I did send them a 3,000th centrifuge cake, and I put your name on the card, so don`t worry about sending them a gift.
In case you don`t know, experts say 3,000 centrifuges are enough in theory to create a nuclear weapon within one year, but Iran isn`t going to stop there. They plan on bringing over 50,000 centrifuges online.
Now, even before this news a recent Zogby poll showed that 52 percent of voters would likely support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. I`m here to tell you, that needs to be our last resort. War with Iran would not be good. What we need to do is turn up the pressure on tough sanctions and collapse their economy. We need the rest of the world to do that.
It would render them toothless without our ever having to put a plane in the air or a boot on the ground. It will be good for the environment.
It was part of Osama bin Laden`s strategy to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It`s how we defeated the Soviet Union ourselves under Ronald Reagan. You drag it out, and you bleed them dry economically.
But here`s "The Point" tonight. We are in danger of our enemies doing the same thing to us. And here`s how I got there.
I want you to take a look at just how shaky our economic foundation is at the moment. This isn`t CNBC, so we can tell you the truth here.
Oil is approaching $100 a barrel. That is making gas prices go up. We`re already over $3 a gallon nationwide, and they could go much higher.
Seventy percent of our real gross domestic product is based on you, the consumer, spending. Seventh percent. The less you have, the less you spend, the weaker our economy becomes.
Then you`ve got the sub-prime loan problem. You can`t go a day without another expert saying, "Gee, it`s a lot worse than I originally thought." So what happens? The Fed lowers the interest rates to help out. Unfortunately, that causes inflation.
Now, gold has more than tripled in the last eight years. The dollar has lost 40 percent of its value against the euro since 2000. All of this geeky economic talk means you`re spending more on the same stuff to buy exactly the same stuff that you`ve been buying for a while. And our enemies are watching all of this very closely.
So America, here is what you need to know tonight. It is a race against the clock: who can economically destroy the other first? Happy news, huh?
To help me find out exactly where we stand in that race is James Hedges. He is the president and chief investment officer of LJH Global Investments.
James, first of all, you`re not a bear. You`re generally a bull.
JAMES HEDGES, PRESIDENT, CIO, LJH GLOBAL INVESTMENTS: I am generally a bull. But I tell you what, even in preparing for today`s interview, I started thinking about the multitude of things that are going wrong. It`s a perfect storm waiting to happen, and there are a lot of problems out there.
BECK: OK. I don`t want to hear that from you, James. I`d like a little ray of sunshine. I`ve been saying for over a year we are entering a perfect storm where everything is just coming together, the things that you just don`t want to come together.
Explain for the average person why $100-a-barrel or $120-a-barrel oil affects your salad.
HEDGES: Because one of the biggest costs for manufacturers and farmers and all the people that supply our economy is, of course, transportation. And so if you`ve got to spend more for truckers or shipping or aviation to get the goods to the grocery store, as an example, then your milk is going to cost more.
Everything that you encounter at the gas pump, at the grocery store, every part of your life is going to be impacted by higher transportation, higher oil costs. And that`s ultimately going to put a drain on your finances. The consumer isn`t going to be able to step up to the plate anymore and continue to spend above their means.
BECK: And then we also have the problem of the Fed keeps lowering -- because I think this -- this banking crisis is a lot worse than anybody is telling us, because everybody has a vested interest in making sure that it doesn`t go bad.
The Fed keeps lowering the interest rates, which makes dollars more available, which causes more inflation and helps our dollar to drop in value. Add to that China coming out today and saying that they`re going to start selling some dollars. What does that mean to us?
HEDGES: What that means is that China is going to start buying U.S. assets with all of the bonds that we`ve issued to them for the past five, ten years. And so that means that all the people that own dollars today, like the Chinese, the Indians, as well as the large oil-producing companies, they`re going to own the United States.
They`re going to buy our financial services institutions, our factories, and all of our core businesses and industries. It`s going to be a real threat to the security of the United States.
BECK: Why do you say that? Because I remember everybody got up in arms -- I do my radio show from Radio City in Rockefeller Plaza. And when it sold to the Chinese everybody said -- or the Japanese, they said, "Oh, the Japanese are taking over." It didn`t affect anything.
HEDGES: Well, it`s not a question of whether or not that one isolated incident impacted change in the overall economy. It`s a cumulative effect. Because you`re talking about the fact that we have got trillions of dollars of institutions owning dollars, owning our bonds. And with that being the case, they`ve got a lot of buying power in the United States.
So it`s not just, you know, one company or one asset. For instance, Bear Stearns was recently -- a large stake was sold to part of the Chinese government, their investment arm. It`s the cumulative effect of all these things coming together that, again, creates this notion of a perfect storm.
BECK: OK. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. You know, I`ve been reading the Founding Fathers an awful lot, and Thomas Jefferson talked about this. He said you`re beholden to these countries if you allow this to happen, and it`s what`s happening now.
I want to return now to another financial issue that hits home literally. It`s the bottom falling out of the housing market.
Robert Schiller is a professor of economics at Yale University.
Robert, you are not just a professor at Yale. You are half of the Case-Schiller Home Price Index, which is probably a fairer look at what`s happening with home prices, because you`re not beholden to the government or to the National Real Estate Association.
What is really happening with home prices in America?
ROBERT SCHILLER, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS, YALE UNIVERSITY: Yes, we construct our indexes to be the basis of financial contracts settlement. And the Chicago Mercantile Exchange now has a futures market on single- family homes based on our indexes. And these markets are predicting further declines, another 5 to 10 percent a year, depending on city over the next year.
BECK: OK. Now, help me out on this. Because why does that make a difference if -- as long as you hang on to your house? I mean, there`s always swings in the housing market. Just hang onto your house. We went through it in the `80s. Why not do that?
SCHILLER: Well, that`s what I plan to do. And actually, just about everyone would plan to do.
The question is, though, whether at least for marginal buyers, whether it`s a good investment at this point in time. Because home prices have gone up more nationally than ever before.
This was the biggest boom ever, and we`re starting to see a correction. They`re down about 4 percent from the peak. But they`re still going down. That is -- at this point. So if a short -- or even moderate run investment. We don`t know.
BECK: Here`s the problem that I see, Robert, is that people will psychologically look at their home value going down, and they`ll think that they have not as much money, that they`ve lost money, that they`re poorer. Even though it`s just a psychological game, really, if they`re not planning on selling their house. And so they`ll spend less.
Foreclosures will start to happen with some people that won`t be able to make it because of the oil prices. The Fed starts to drop interest rates again, and it`s just -- it`s like our last guest said, a perfect storm. Possibility of that?
SCHILLER: Well, I am worried. I thought I was a big worrier. I guess you are, too.
BECK: There`s nobody a bigger worrier than me.
SCHILLER: I mean, home equity lines -- see, you don`t have home equity anymore, you can`t get a home equity loan.
BECK: So the average person, if I`m just a regular schmo at home, what is the advice you would give people to prepare for some sort of a troubled future?
SCHILLER: Well, most people will stay in their home. People who own two or three homes, you know, they might consider selling. You don`t want to get overexposed to a market that looks like it could be in a serious crisis.
BECK: OK. Robert, thank you very much. Appreciate it. We will have more on this.
Now, coming up, Hillary`s lead over Barack is shrinking. Did the other Clinton have anything to do with it?
Also, Rudy Giuliani gets an endorsement today from Pat Robertson. And Rosie O`Donnell talks for a prime-time show on a news network? Believe it or not, I don`t think this is necessarily a bad idea. You`ll have to wait for my explanation, however, later on in the show.
And just a reminder, tonight`s show is brought to you by the Sleep Number Bed by Select Comfort. Find your sleep number today at a Select Comfort store near you.
BECK: The more we look into Laredo, Texas, the more I ask myself what the heck is going down on the border and why is no one telling you the truth? Hit squads are now being sent out by Mexican drug lords, and they are turning the streets of some American border cities into bloodbaths.
It is a problem that you have not been shown. If you don`t think it`s a problem, oh, I`ll show it to you in just a minute.
But first, big news for both Republicans and Democrats today, and it`s probably not really an exaggeration to suggest that it may change the face of the presidential race.
Rudy Giuliani got a surprising endorsement today from Pat Robertson, opening the door to previously withheld support from the Christian right. We`ll get to that here in just a second.
But the other side got some news today. Hillary Clinton. We`re going to start there.
It is rare that somebody gets the opportunity to point to a date in the calendar and say, "Here is the day where it all horribly, horribly went wrong." Luckily, for Senator Clinton, that`s not the case. It`s around October 30, the night of the debate, the most recent primary debate. Unfortunately, for her, for some reason people actually watched the debate and her evasive non-answers, and they have now come back to haunt her after everybody in the media`s been pounding them into the ground.
Now, the most recent polls, which translates into voters, according to Rasmussen, he released this today. It shows that Clinton has dropped a full six percentage points in her lead for New Hampshire. The Maris (ph) poll shows the national support slipped from 352 percent before the debate to 43 percent right after it. And CNN`s own polling of Democratic voters shows that Clinton slipped to 44 percent from 51 percent in October.
But Hillary`s loss is Barack Obama`s gain. For some perspective on all of this and Rudy Giuliani, I`m joined by "Congressional Quarterly`s" John Allen and Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports.
Scott, let me start with you. Do these polls actually mean anything at this point? Why pay attention to this?
SCOTT RASMUSSEN, PRESIDENT, RASMUSSEN REPORTS: Well, first of all, only about nine weeks away from the New Hampshire primary. So we`re starting to get to the point where people are paying attention and you`re learning something about the candidates for the first time.
The big news in this poll is not that Hillary Clinton had a bad moment in the debate because not that many people watched the debate. The bad news is -- or the real news is the issue has been lingering for a full week, she can`t put it behind her, and her challengers may be getting some traction.
BECK: Yes. John, I have to tell you, I don`t think I have seen the media go after the Clintons like this in quite some time. Last weekend -- you read "The New York Times," and they were just butchering her on this. Have you seen this, or have the Clintons seen this kind of turning by the press ever?
JOHN ALLEN, "CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY": It`s been about nine years, Glenn, I think.
ALLEN: It`s 2007 now, right? So go back to `98. I think that -- look, the Clintons are the leading Democratic family, and they get a lot of media attention. They get a lot of scrutiny. They always will as long as they`re in public life.
The interesting thing, I think, about this debate and the polls that you`re seeing after it is that, for the first time, someone`s laid a glove on Hillary Clinton. The other combatants seemed happy to dance around the ring with her and finally realized that wasn`t working for them. This is her first real challenge to see if she can recover from it.
I think that she probably gets a little bit less -- a little bit less sympathy from voters. There`s -- she`s had an issue in terms of people connecting with her sometimes, and so it may be a little harder for her to recover from this than it might be for other candidates. We`ll have to see if she`s -- she`s able to do so.
BECK: When it comes to the media, though, you know and I know that they`ve been scrutinized before, but generally it`s a two-day cycle with these guys. They`re on it and then they`re off it. I mean, the Sandy Berger nonsense, the Chinese story. Just -- it appears and then a couple of days later it`s gone.
Are either one of you guys surprised that Barack Obama is not doing better in the polls than he is?
RASMUSSEN: I`m not at all surprised. What`s happened so far is people are having some doubts about Senator Clinton for the first time. She`d been steadily gaining support month after month, building a campaign that appeared set to claim the inevitable nomination, but now there`s something that`s causing people to reassess.
And by the way, it`s mostly causing men to reassess. So she lost more support among men than among women over the last week. And those are -- that`s a demographic that`s tough for her.
ALLEN: But the problem, I think, Glenn, for -- for Barack Obama is that Hillary Clinton, from a policy standpoint, has such a large space on the domestic spectrum.
I mean, if you ask Democratic voters about every domestic issue: health care, education, et cetera, they largely agree with her. Obama`s got to find something to run against her on. He`s chosen foreign policy, but you know, he`s going to pound that as long as he can.
BECK: But you know, I mean, when it comes to Barack Obama, at least he`s telling you where he stands. Hillary Clinton occupies so much space. And I think, Scott, it wasn`t really the debate. It really was more of the trying to cover the tracks of the debate that really hurt her. You don`t know where she stands on any issue.
RASMUSSEN: Well, and it`s a fact that we`re still talking about the same thing seven days later. Just yesterday on CNN she answered the same question about Spitzer`s program for driver`s licenses, still couldn`t give an answer that resolved the question.
And I would have thought that the campaign would have had a quick response to that, put the issue behind them. But right now, we`re seeing that the potential for some lasting damage because the issue has lingered.
BECK: Either one of you guys surprised at Pat Robertson today, that here he is, a guy who has been leading the Christian -- the Christian movement for many Christians. And he comes out and he says that`s secondary stuff now, pro-life and all of these other issues, that`s secondary to war. Is this a surprise?
ALLEN: I don`t think so. Pat Robertson is somebody who is -- the Republican Party is high up in his heart. His father was a senator. He`s never been real far from politics. So to see him try to give a little bit of credibility with the Christian right to a candidate who has won the hearts of a lot of the Republican establishment isn`t terribly surprising to me.
I think Pat Robertson would rather see Rudy Giuliani in the White House than, say, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
BECK: Scott, going to make any difference in polling numbers, do you think?
RASMUSSEN: I don`t think it will show up in the polling. It may have an impact longer term. But right now the Republican race has five guys polling in double digits, and I can give a convincing reason to why all five of them can`t win the nomination, but one of them has to.
BECK: All right. Thanks, guys.
So now where am I wrong? Pat Robertson`s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. I say it speaks volumes that a religious leader has put national security ahead of traditional Christian values. Agree or disagree? Go to CNN.com/Glenn right now and cast your vote.
Coming up, a blood war is going on right now in Laredo, Texas, and it is coming from Mexican hit squads. What can we do about it, and why isn`t anyone in the media actually showing you the truth? That`s tonight`s "Real Story."
And when will Hollywood finally get it? We don`t want anti-war movies. A staggering lesson at the box office. Next.
BECK: I love this one, because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I believe we can now confidently say that Hollywood is officially insane.
According to "USA Today," 26 movies with substantial political themes have been wide released over the last 20 years and, adjusted for inflation, four of them have made over $100 million.
Apparently, nobody in Hollywood cares. They care more about their message than money, because they`re back this weekend with Robert Redford`s "Lion for Lambs." Oh, I wonder how our soldiers are going to look in this one. It`s a U.S. film about the U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. It`s likely going to make "Fahrenheit 9/11" seem balanced.
Scott Bowles, he is the "USA Today" movie editor.
Scott, what does it take for Hollywood to get the message that we don`t want to see movies that America sucks?
SCOTT BOWLES, MOVIE EDITOR, "USA TODAY": Well, you know, the irony of all of this is that the messages that are in a lot of these movies mirror, to some degree, what we`re seeing in polls. I mean, certainly "Lions for Lambs" is taking a look at the war and whether we should be there, and that`s a question that Americans are asking.
What they don`t seem to be able to gauge is America`s appetite for that subject matter, which is waning. I mean, if we are watching it 24 hours a day on news channels like CNN, people are going to be a lot less likely to spend ten bucks...
BECK: I think you misread it here, as well. Look, America doesn`t want to be in a losing war. America -- we`re not losers. We`re winners. And when you show us, "Oh, my gosh, look how evil we are. We`re fighting this evil war and we`re all losing. And we`re going to -- you know, body bags are going to start" -- nobody`s interested.
I mean, I want to have popcorn. I want to enjoy myself. I think -- try this on for size. There`s no difference between good and evil in the war that we`re fighting right now and "Spider-Man" or "Transformers." That is about good and evil. But the good guys win. What`s the difference?
BOWLES: Well, the difference is that you`re talking about real issues here. The same way that, when you do a movie about someone`s child getting hit. We have a lot of depressing movies that come out, and people don`t go to see them...
BECK: Then explain the success of "24."
BOWLES: "24" is a thriller. The same as "The Bourne Supremacy," which also touches on terrorism and touches on some of those issues but does well because it puts entertainment ahead of -- ahead, essentially, of news events.
BECK: OK. Maybe that`s what it is. Maybe we can agree. Maybe we could agree on this -- that it is -- it is entertainment above message. Nobody wants to see a message, whether it is a good message or a bad message. We want to be entertained. And we also would like to see the good guys win and occasionally us to be the good guys. Will you agree with that?
BOWLES: Well, certainly people do want to see that. But that doesn`t mean that that`s the only message that has to be sent out there. I mean, come on. If you`re looking at Hollywood films, 95 percent of the good guys win. That`s why Hollywood makes the kind of money that it does.
But that doesn`t mean that that`s the only message you have to write about. I mean, just as we have the right to say whatever we want on this show, Hollywood has the right to make any kind of other movie that it wants to.
BECK: Oh, nobody`s saying that they shouldn`t be doing what they`re doing. I`m just wondering when anybody who cares about the almighty dollar in Hollywood is going to say, "You know what? Maybe we should stop this." But...
BOWLES: If you look at those numbers, 26 in 20 years is not many.
BECK: Yes, I know. But the ones that are coming out now are being beaten by the Rock. But that`s a different story.
BECK: Scott, thanks a lot.
Now, NBC has gone green this week. So I figured we should do something special for the environment here on the Glenn Beck program. Stick around. Find out.
BECK: Hey. Welcome to the "Real Story." If I look a little brightly lit today, I apologize. Don`t adjust your set. It`s part of coal week here on the Glenn Beck program because we take our responsibilities to educate the public about the importance of carbon-emitting fossil fuels to our economy seriously.
So the little banner that you see right there on your TV screen, along with the extra completely unnecessary lights that we have on the set today are our way of reminding you that CO2 omissions and household wealth go hand in hand.
Remember, the more you burn, the more you earn. Now, if all of this pointless waste of excess electricity really motivated you to run into your kitchen and start needlessly running your dishwasher, then maybe you`re the type of person that`s not having blood shoot out of your eyes every time you see the little green logo from NBC, where NBC is targeting people like you, I guess, with their "green is Universal" promotion.
That`s so clever. Green is Universal. Universal Studios. Get it? They`ve got the parent company`s name and the word "green" right there in one slogan. But the consequences of this go way beyond the new green logo and the Web site.
The "Real Story" is that NBC is doing far more harm than good for two reasons. First of all, this one really pisses me off because it`s fluorescent. First, the campaign makes people think that they can solve an environmental crisis like climate change by driving a hybrid or taking a shorter shower.
That is a complete and total lie. Real activists know that it`s going to take trillions of dollars and a complete change in the way we live to even make a small dent. Secondly, if you really believe that global warming is the biggest problem that we face, then you should be absolutely outraged that NBC increased their carbon footprint just so they could tell you ho reduce yours.
It`s Live Earth all over again. For example, "The Today Show" sent out correspondents to the North Pole, the South Pole, and the equator apparently, to show you how hot it is there. But that little sweeps month stunt entailed over half a million miles of travel, which will release over 3,000 tons of additional CO2 into the atmosphere.
Sure, they`ll buy the carbon credits to avoid criticism, but please, planting a few trees doesn`t make up for the burning of thousands of gallons of jet fuel if you really believe in this bull crap.
Then you have NBC`s "Sunday Night Football" telecast where they were broadcasting via candlelight. It was great during the halftime show. Just to show you how energy conscious they really are, all the while did anybody notice the ginormous TV screen displaying their sponsor in the background?
Let me ask you something, NBC, is that some sort of new wind-powered TV that only you and the sponsor have access to? None of this is really about public good. It`s about public relations. It`s like when McDonald`s came out with a line of salads. You really think the clown was really, you know, all into that whole salad, healthy eating thing? No.
It was about a PR campaign geared toward moms. If NBC was really concerned about the environment, the best thing they could do is maybe stop broadcasting. I mean, that would make the world a better place in more ways than one. Sayonara. Patrick Michaels is a senior fellow in the Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.
Where am I wrong, Patrick?
PATRICK MICHAELS, CATO INSTITUTE: You`re just a cynic. Let me give you the jaded, faded Washington point of view.
BECK: Come on. I mean, NBC Universal, owned by GE, General Electric. I mean, it seems to me almost like this is an indulgence.
MICHAELS: General Electric has been trying to position itself as the greenest company in the world for a couple years now. I believe all this stuff that went on came down from the top. Now ask yourself another jaded, faded Washington question. Why?
Well, there`s lots of legislation in congressional committees right now on global warming. And, you know, whatever companies might want a favor or something like this.
BECK: So in other words.
MICHAELS: . oh, look what we did on the TV for you. We got everybody all riled up.
BECK: Right. So in other words, if -- do you remember all the great things we did when we had everybody on candlelight? Remember all that? Maybe you should have a special exemption for washers and dryers. I mean, is that too cynical?
MICHAELS: It`s hard to be too cynical on this issue, frankly, Glenn, especially in Washington.
BECK: So let me ask you this. Does this actually make any difference at all? I mean, here`s -- "Deal and (sic) No Deal," they have the models wearing parachute -- what is it? Their dresses made out of Army parachutes.
MICHAELS: I`m glad you watch so much TV.
BECK: No, no. Somebody told me about this.
MICHAELS: It will give you such a great attitude, you know.
BECK: Yes, I know. They made the dresses out of used Army parachutes for the women, which I think is about as close as NBC has gotten to supporting our troops.
MICHAELS: This is really quite an amazing story. You know what I really would have liked is when their reporter -- their "Today" reporter was down at the South Pole.
MICHAELS: If she would have shown the history of the temperature at the South Pole. Because it doesn`t show any warming. Or she would have mentioned that just a couple of months ago the amount of ice measured around Antarctica reached its all-time maximum ever since the satellite went up.
BECK: Here`s what I would also like, I mean, you can talk.
MICHAELS: A little fact wouldn`t hurt.
BECK: You can talk about the consequence. You talk about global warming. You can say it`s happening. But nobody is talking about the trillions of dollars to try to even begin to make a dent in this thing. It will collapse economies if you actually spent this money. Right or wrong?
MICHAELS: People used to say -- I used to hear people say, if gas went up a dollar or so -- this is a few years ago, then people would use so much less of it that we could meet the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.
MICHAELS: Well, gas is $3 a gallon right now. We don`t see major changes in consumption. That`s for sure. And that hybrid car that you buy, well, the beater you traded in just got picked up by somebody else. It`s still on the street.
BECK: Thanks a lot, Patrick. I appreciate it.
Now a quick programming note. Tomorrow we change gears. We are airing a special show on the border crisis, and it will be unlike anything you`ve ever seen before. No extra lights, however. I`ve got stories of kidnappings and rapes and drugs and murders. This is like "CSI" except all of this stuff is true and is being hidden from you. The "Real Story" about our border, tomorrow.
And the "Real Story" tonight is that there are people in this country, powerful people, who don`t want you to know the "Real Story." They realize that if you knew what was really happening on our border you would ask -- no, no, no, you would demand that our leaders build a fence that would make the Great Wall of China look like a chain link fence around your swimming pool.
For example, this past summer in Laredo an American citizen confessed to being an accomplice to murder. At first it sounds like any other heinous violent crime, but it`s this guy who is actually a member of a hit squad for a Mexican drug cartel. You will not see this story on the front page of The New York Times because sometimes the truth doesn`t have an agenda.
But in the last two years rival drug cartels have killed at least seven people in Laredo. Not Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, but Laredo as in Texas. These are planned -- well-planned, systematic executions and authorities say that hit squads of assassins are living right here in the U.S. among us while they wait for their assignments and their cartel leaders to call them up back in Mexico and tell them who to whack.
The truth is, the violence cannot be held back by a river. Most of the people who are in the know on this are afraid for their own safety to talk about it. Fortunately, we have people to talk about it at great length tomorrow, and tonight we found one person who isn`t afraid to speak out, yet. You will hear the unvarnished, unedited truth in 60 seconds.
BECK: All right. Welcome back to the "Real Story." Hit squads made up of Mexican drug cartel assassins have carried out executions right here in America, and nobody knows the gruesome details better than the man who obtained guilty pleas from two of the hit men. Assistant District Attorney and chief prosecutor for the Laredo area, Jesse Guillen.
Jesse, tell me how these are different than your run-of-the-mill gangland slayings.
JESSE GUILLEN, ASST. DIST. ATTY., WEBB CTY., TEXAS: Well, typically, Glenn, with the typical gangland slayings you have individuals who are moving and transporting drugs or aliens within the Texas area. But here you have what we termed as cells that were operating and were funded by and trained by and armed by the Gulf cartel.
BECK: OK. So what do these guys do? They followed people around. And, I mean, they`ve gotten rid of all the mob boss stuff where you don`t kill families -- I mean, they`re killing children as well.
GUILLEN: Right. Well, there were two instances, one where a target was taken out, and also his 14-year-old nephew as well. That was perhaps the most brutal of all four of these separate slayings in that -- I mean, here you had a car that was something straight out of the movies where one car pulled up beside it, just sprayed it from back to front with high- powered weapons, and then another car came on the other side and two people came out of the bed of a truck and started spraying it as well.
BECK: These guys are being trained up in Mexico, right?
GUILLEN: Well, one of our detectives, Detective Robert Garcia (ph), actually obtained information where one of the individuals, the youngest of them, was actually trained in Mexico at a military-type camp that they have.
BECK: OK. I`m concerned, and I`d love to hear your thoughts on this. We`re getting more into it tomorrow on our special. But we`re giving $550 million, including helicopters and listening devices and everything else to the Mexican military. Are you concerned at all that we`re arming a military that we`re not really sure if they`re clean themselves?
GUILLEN: Well, I mean, I don`t profess to be a politician or nor do I, you know, follow these things too deeply. My primary concern is in just carrying out the cases that I have there. And it just so happened that these past couple of years, these cells were operating. As to how they got funded, what equipment they got, I mean.
BECK: And the two guys that you had, they`re in jail. Did you have problems with jury tampering or anything like you used to see on "The Untouchables"? Were these people, who were testifying against, safe?
GUILLEN: No, we didn`t have any problems with the jury at all. We did have problems with witnesses who were obviously reluctant to testify. In a sense it`s like our sheriff says, that the war on terror starts at the border. And that`s -- these individuals operate on terror and fear and, you know, here you have a defendant who is all of 16, stands about 5`2", 5`3", and, you know, there was a grown man in there terrified to testify against him.
BECK: Amazing. Jesse, thank you very much. That is the "Real Story" tonight. And again, a reminder, tomorrow`s program, we`re spending the full hour bringing you stories like you have not seen before. If you care about getting past the politics of illegal immigration and really talk about the truth of what`s happening on the border, you can`t miss tomorrow night`s program. Again, that`s tomorrow night, a full hour on the border crisis right here at our usual time.
Now, coming up next, when you run for public office, no question is off the table, right? Apparently not. I`ll let you know what you can and cannot ask, next.
BECK: Well, Rosie O`Donnell reportedly is in talks to get her own show on MSNBC. And to be honest with you, having her big, loud, American- hating mouth on cable television may actually be good for us. And I`ll explain later on in the program.
But first, I want you to listen to this audio clip from a local radio show in Minnesota as host Andy Barnett questions two candidates for city council.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
ANDY BARNETT, FMR. TALK RADIO HOST, KNSI-FM: Question number two. And we`ll start with you, John (ph). Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pro-life.
BARNETT: OK. And Karen?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Andy, you know that has nothing to do with city council in St. Cloud, Minnesota, and I am extremely unhappy that you would bring that in.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That doesn`t speak very highly of this radio station.
BARNETT: Actually, it would deal with city council for two reasons, possibly. Number one, I think this is a very important character question, and I think a lot of people agree with me. Number two, in the case where perhaps the city was to offer a health plan that would cover abortions, it could become a very big issue.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Actually, it was an issue several years ago, and it was taken care of, and it will not appear again.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BECK: Just minutes later Barnett was pulled off the air and he was fired. Why? The station`s owner hasn`t given us an answer. But my guess is it`s a lot simpler than that. He dared ask a question that made somebody a little uncomfortable. And in today`s feel-good, offend no one, sugar plum and lollipops world, that`s just unacceptable. Andy Barnett is the former host of "Hot Talk" on that radio station.
Now, Andy, how does this radio station define hot talk if this is too hot for them?
BARNETT: That`s a great question, Glenn. I`m not sure I was told I wasn`t being Minnesota nice, which is a term they use up here.
BECK: I don`t understand, why did they say you were fired?
BARNETT: I was told that I had brought up a nationally divisive issue that had no place in local politics.
BECK: Well, what -- I mean, what does -- what does talk radio do? I mean, that`s what -- who else is on the show? Rush Limbaugh is on the station, right?
BARNETT: Yes. We have Rush Limbaugh. We`ve got Laura Ingraham. We`ve got Michael Savage, for crying out loud.
BECK: OK. So that`s what talk radio -- talk radio listeners can handle it. How is this too divisive? I mean, it wasn`t like you were saying baby murderer to anybody. You just asked a simple question.
BARNETT: Well, that`s one of the things that I find so strange about the whole thing, is this is a very opinionated talk show that I hosted and this was one of the few times where I wasn`t giving an opinion, I was simply asking a question.
BECK: Do they -- is this the kind of place that has diversity training?
BARNETT: That`s a great question. It seems like anybody who has a difference of opinion with the prevailing progressive thought now is being silenced.
BECK: So what are you going to do now? I understand that you have engaged an attorney. Do you really want to work at a station like this?
BARNETT: You know, Glenn, I look at this as a much bigger issue than just something that affects me personally. I look at two things. If I can make a difference on talking about the issue of sanctity of life, if I can make a difference in standing up for conservative voices being able to speak their mind, so be it.
If that`s what this is all about, so be it. I`m very convinced that, you know, God glows closes a door and opens another, and we`ll see what happens.
BECK: Is this a big issue on your program, pro-life? I mean, is this something.
BARNETT: You know, we talk about a variety of issues. Inside this debate with the city council members, I prefaced it by saying, look, I`m going to give you 10 questions, hot topics that we`re going to talk about that matter to people, that will tell us a little bit more about what your political philosophy is, what your worldview is shaped by, what your moral compass is set to.
And we talked about everything are from illegal immigration in sanctuary cities to taxes to bigger government and smaller government to pro-life, pro-choice, and the issue of traditional marriage.
BECK: Andy, thank you very much.
A new reminder. My new book is coming out here in a couple of weeks, "An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World`s Biggest Problems." It has an entire eye-opening chapter on where political correctness really came from. It will amaze you when you know the history. It hits bookstores everywhere in just a couple of weeks. But you can pre-order -- sorry, pre-request, I wouldn`t want to offend anybody with ordering them around. Get your copy right now at glennbeck.com.
Well, let the 9/11 conspiracy theorists rejoice. Rosie O`Donnell could be back on the air spreading some of the craziest nut job jibber jabber that the world has ever heard. I say bring it on. Find out why, next.
BECK: Well, Rosie O`Donnell is reportedly coming back to fill up your entire TV screen again, very soon, perhaps on MSNBC. Some people find the rumored move to be controversial. I guess because NBC News would be putting on such a left-wing crazy person. But I mean, they are really going out on a limb on that one, aren`t they? Thinking out of the box there.
I think after Keith Olbermann, Rosie would actually represent a move to the right. I mean, compared to Olbermann, Rosie is a female Ronald Reagan, isn`t she? But you won`t find me complaining about this move. I actually think this is a victory for the First Amendment. I actually want more voices, not less voices. Phil Rosenthal is the media columnist for The Chicago Tribune.
Good stuff for NBC, wouldn`t you say, Phil?
PHIL ROSENTHAL, MEDIA COLUMNIST, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Yes, I think so. I mean, she knows how to do a program. She knows how to do a broadcast. I think the question is to what extent she`s willing to throw herself into it. You know, these things don`t work that well when they`re part-time endeavors.
BECK: OK. She`s actually -- I think -- this is what I said when everybody was complaining about her on "The View." I said, I don`t want her thrown off television. I`d either like her balanced in a real significant sort of way, or put her on MSNBC, put her on at nighttime in a talk show. But she will have to answer for her views.
If she is on -- doing a talk show against Larry King and Hillary Clinton comes on, does Hillary Clinton have to address at all the things like World Trade Center Number 7 wasn`t blown up by our government?
ROSENTHAL: I don`t know. You know, it depends on what she is asked. She might get held -- I mean, you could ask her about that on any show. If that`s what Rosie O`Donnell wants to ask her, frankly, it will be sort of interesting to see the response.
BECK: Right. But it`s not that, Phil. I mean, you know, people said, we`ll judge every guest on the Don Imus show to find out if they`re a racist or not. Couldn`t that litmus test be held to the opposite end of people?
BARNETT: Of course, it could. But I don`t put a lot of stock in it. I don`t think that`s necessarily fair. I think you judge the people by the shows they do, not necessarily what they`re trying to do.
I think you`ve got to get -- I think you`ve got to judge it by whether it can draw an audience. Because ultimately, that`ll determine whether it stays around.
BECK: Yes, I don`t imagine that she -- I mean, she has proven time and time again she can draw an audience. It will be a Hollywood audience. So it will be interesting to see, I mean, how long you stick around just to hear the bashing of the right. But there`s a lot of people that will dig into that. Phil, thanks a lot.
Don`t forget, if you want to know what`s on tomorrow`s show or if you`d like a little more in-depth commentary on the news of the day, you can sign up for my free daily newsletter at glennbeck.com.
From New York, good night, America.