Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Gunman Opens Fire at Northern Illinois University; Romney Endorses McCain; Sharpton Speaks Out about Florida, Michigan Delegate Controversy; Cindy Sheehan Protests on Behalf of Radical Muslim Group

Aired February 14, 2008 - 19:00   ET

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

LINDA STOUFFER, HEADLINE PRIME ANCHOR: Hi, everyone. Glenn Beck is coming up in one minute. But first, I`m Linda Stouffer with this breaking news Headline Prime newsbreak.
A gunman opened fire at a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University Thursday afternoon. Right now, we hear 18 people are injured, four of them critically injured. One hospital says most of them were shot in the head.

Now, the school is south -- it`s about 65 miles west of downtown Chicago. This is what we`re hearing. The shooter, according to the latest information, was not a student. Police say he committed suicide on the stage in front of the lecture hall.

He`s described as a white male armed with a shotgun, perhaps, and perhaps a pistol. One student says he just entered the classroom. He might have been wearing a black ski mask, and apparently, that didn`t bring attention. It`s so cold there, many students wear that kind of thing. The shooter says the shooter just opened fire, did not say a word, firing at least 20 rounds.

Please stay with Headline News for the very latest on this campus shooting. I`m Linda Stouffer. GLENN BECK is next.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, a shock for the GOP and conservatives. Mitt Romney endorses John McCain? Is Mitt being a good soldier, setting the table for a future White House run, or does he actually believe John McCain`s the best candidate?

Plus, the Reverend Al Sharpton issues a warning to the Democratic National Committee. At stake, crucial delegates in Florida and Michigan who could decide the race. I`ll explain.

And, this is Congress on steroids.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re one of my heroes.

BECK: Oh, please. Four hours of starry-eyed congressmen living boyhood fantasies on your tax dollars. So how much will this Clemens fiasco cost us?

All this and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: OK. America, sometimes -- by the way, hello. Sometimes the news makes my head hurt. Today is one of those days. Former candidate Mitt Romney, formally endorsed Republican frontrunner John McCain. Here`s "The Point" tonight.

I have been racking my brain. I`ve been trying to figure out. There are only three possibility reasons for this. There`s -- one, there`s Romney is just saying, "Oh, look at me, I`m a good elephant. I`ll tow the party line for another shot at running in 2012."

Two, the economy is on the brink of collapse and Romney knows it, and he knows he`s the guy who can fix it. Maybe he if endorses McCain he can have a shot at the VP and he can help fix things from the inside. I`m grasping at straws here.

And three, he actually believes that John McCain is now the best remaining candidate? Really?

No matter which one it is, as a true conservative, I got to tell you, there`s nothing that will make me feel better about saying President McCain, unless it`s President Obama. And here`s how I got there.

It`s been a couple of weeks since I had a dog in this fight. Once Romney and Giuliani dropped out of the race, I`m a man without a candidate. I really am. And I don`t -- I don`t want to keep beating a dead elephant, but the Republican Party was built on conservative values. They lost their soul. And if there`s any doubt left in your mind, try and explain to me how John McCain, Mr. Open Borders, can be in the lead for the Republican nomination for president. Please.

He`s strong on national defense, but I think that`s where his conservative credibility really ends. Across the board, he`s more moderate to liberal, so much so that the "New York Times" has endorsed him. Kiss of death. Next thing you know, he`ll be playing squash with RFK Jr.

Now (AUDIO/VIDEO GAP) country, I believe he was running to give something back. I believe he really believed it. And now, Romney, perhaps the most conservative candidate out of the front-runners that we had in this election, has endorsed McCain, arguably the least conservative. I don`t get it.

So, tonight, here is what you need to know, America.

Actually, maybe there`s a fourth reason Romney would dedicate -- you know, decide to back McCain and dedicate his -- his what do you call them, delegates to McCain. Money? Maybe?

From an economic standpoint, you know, it looks like we`re going to be in $260 billion in the red of spending of Barack Obama, $210 billion from Hillary Clinton, $54 billion from Mike Huckabee, and only $7 billion from John McCain. So, I guess McCain`s priced to move. But I still don`t think I can afford to pull a level for John McCain in November.

Chris Wilson is a Republican strategist, CEO of Wilson Research Strategy.

What happened today? What does this mean?

CHRIS WILSON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think it`s a continuation on Romney`s speech to CPAC that the top issue facing America is the war on terror. And if you look at the candidates that are running for president right now on the Democrat side or the Republican side, there`s no question.

You have John McCain who understands the challenges created by 9/11. Let`s call him a September 12th American. Whereas on the other side, you have Obama, Hillary Clinton, that are really September 10th Americans.

So if you want to look at it from the standpoint of Mitt Romney`s speech to CPAC and the important issues facing America, the most important issue, then let`s face it. It`s a lot easier to live through a bad economy than it is a terrorist attack. You can rationalize why it is that Mitt Romney made this decision.

BECK: I think the Republicans just stand in line. I think that`s the problem. They`re just like, OK, next, yes, you were the front-runner last time. You, you`re the candidate this time. I think it`s -- they`re just all standing in line.

WILSON: Well, there is some of that. And I think this was Mitt Romney`s way of getting in line. Now, he is the front-runner going into 2012 or 2016. And he had to do this. So, now you look at...

BECK: That`s the point. That`s the point. That`s what America hates about these parties. I mean, everybody seemed to hate Mitt Romney. All the other candidates. They dog-piled on him. You could feel the hatred between John McCain and Mitt Romney. Mainly coming, I think, from McCain, and the shock and just -- just disbelief from Romney. That`s what they hate about it, is, they hated him because, well, he hadn`t paid his dues. Come on.

WILSON: Right. And this is his way of paying his dues. What other choices exist? You endorse Barack Obama? You endorse Hillary Clinton?

BECK: I might endorse Hillary. I might. I`m serious.

WILSON: Well, I think from that standpoint, if you`re going to take it seriously, that the war on terror and the fight against Islamic extremist is the primary issue facing America, moving forward. Hillary Clinton is just really not an option.

BECK: Come on. Hillary Clinton -- here`s why -- first of all, America, I won`t insult you by endorsing any candidate, like you care who I endorse, but I might endorse Hillary Clinton. You know why? Because they`re the opposition, and her husband triangulates things.

You know, Barack Obama is just going to run with it. And name the time that John McCain has ever reached across the aisle and grabbed -- grabbed Ted Kennedy or some liberal by the collar, said, "I need you to help conservatives on this movement." He`s always reaching across the aisle to move us the progressive way.

WILSON: Well, you`ve got to look at what McCain did on judges and say that`s why we ended up with Roberts and Alito. I mean, it was -- he had a lot to do with putting two very strong conservatives on the Supreme Court.

John McCain has -- has moved to the right in a lot of areas. And I think he has -- he`s also pointed out -- you mentioned the tax cuts. He said that that was the wrong decision. He would have voted for those now. He`s talked about learning on his issue on immigration. He`s moved his stance there.

BECK: It`s a game, Chris. I think Americans are tired of playing a game. It just turning into a game. All right, I got to run. Thank you so much, Chris.

WILSON: Thank you.

BECK: Let me turn now to outspoken McCain critic, author of "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They`d Be Republicans."

Ann Coulter, welcome to the program.

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "IF DEMOCRATS HAD ANY BRAINS, THEY`D BE REPUBLICANS": Thank you.

BECK: I heard this news about Mitt Romney today, and I thought, I don`t even know what this means. I don`t know what to do now. I really don`t know what to do.

COULTER: Well, I think it means he wants to run for president again. And you and I don`t want to.

BECK: Right.

COULTER: So we aren`t required to endorse whomever the nominee of the party is.

BECK: OK. Because that was my first. I thought, oh, look who`s the happy little elephant. You know what I mean? Look, I can play the game. Everybody hated him because you know, he -- well, he hasn`t paid his dues. OK, he`s doing that.

COULTER: Right.

BECK: The other side of it is, I spent time this week actually looking at Barack Obama`s economic policies...

COULTER: Which we did finally get.

BECK: It`s suicide. And so, maybe Romney`s looking at it, going, I mean, out of the three that are left, this is it. Is there a possibility?

COULTER: Perhaps. But I do think -- I mean, Reagan had to endorse Ford after campaigning heavily against him in `76. If you want a future in the Republican Party, if you want to run for president as a Republican, you have got to endorse whomever the nominee is. It could be Josef Stalin.

BECK: What do you do as a conservative? What do you do? People call me up and ask me all the time. And I`m looking at -- I mean, I think Obama is going to sweep like Reagan swept against Mondale. I think he`s going to sweep. Unless facts actually come into play.

COULTER: Right.

BECK: Sweep against. They`ll take this as a giant liberal, you know, progressive time to strike.

COULTER: Right. Right.

BECK: Nightmare.

COULTER: Well, on one hand, if you look at it, you know, issue by issue, Hillary is clearly more conservative. In fact, I think she`s more conservative than our candidate. We`d have to oppose Hillary by saying, you know, Hillary voted for bills introduced by our nominee.

BECK: Right.

COULTER: So I would go for Hillary over McCain.

As for Obama, yes, he`s very, very left wing. On the other hand, the advantage is, he`s young and inexperienced and probably wouldn`t be able to get much done, whereas Hillary, she`s a woman with an agenda. She`ll get stuff done.

BECK: Forget about -- you know as well as I know, Hillary, I mean, those people, the people who have been, the whole time, bashing you, bashing me, saying, "Look at you bashing good old Bill and Hillary. And they`re just good Americans." They`re just throwing them under the bus like crazy now. That`s over.

COULTER: Yes.

BECK: So, it`s going to be Obama and McCain.

COULTER: I think so. I still think my gal Hillary can pull it out in the end. She`s ahead in Ohio. They`re very close. Neither one of them are going to have enough delegates to win at the convention now. So, it will probably be up to the super delegates. And you must admit (ph) it appears that there is a supernatural evil force behind the Clintons.

BECK: I`ll tell you -- can I tell you, I had dinner last night. Half the table was conservative, the other half, liberals. And I said -- we were talking about Hillary, and they`re all Obama supporters.

And I said, "Let me ask you a question. In the 1990s, if a Republican would have -- if somebody would have died jogging"...

COULTER: Right.

BECK: ... "that was opposing them, and, a Republican would have suggested that, `Wait a minute. Do they have anything to do with it.`" If Obama dropped dead jogging, had a heart attack and died, there`d be a lot of liberals today that would say, "I bet those Clintons had something to do with it. They removed him and got him out of the way."

COULTER: Yes, yes.

BECK: It`s craziness.

COULTER: That is the one fun thing about the horror show of the current presidential election. These two -- these two, I think, deleterious forces that were certainly, if not created by, nurtured by, used by the Clintons, the liberal mainstream media, the monolithic black vote, have now been turned against them.

BECK: OK, so, if you had to vote for who I think Barack Obama is going to turn into the JFK/FDR, if you had to vote between him and McCain, who do you vote for?

COULTER: Um...

BECK: I mean, look at this, America.

COULTER: This is how -- I do want to say that both of these candidates, both on the Republican and Democrat side, were supported and I think chosen by George Soros. Soros has been funding McCain. And this is because of McCain-Feingold that we`re in this pickle to begin with by vastly increasing the power of the mainstream media. So sort of the long- term agenda, there`s not enough difference of the top three presidential candidates right now.

BECK: Are you going to vote?

COULTER: I`ll vote for the lower candidates. Maybe I`ll write in Mitt Romney or Ronald Reagan for president. And who knows? You know, we`ll see what happens as it gets closer.

I definitely think Hillary is more conservative on the war on terrorism than McCain is. He`s campaigning to shut down Guantanamo. He`s hysterical about waterboarding. And worst of all about McCain, he`ll do whatever "The New York Times" wants him to do. I don`t think Hillary cares that much about "The New York Times" or, certainly, Teddy Kennedy any more.

BECK: Ann, thank you very much. We`ll have you back.

COULTER: Coming up, Reverend Al Sharpton has a big problem with the Democrats. He joins me to explain, next.

Also, Barack Obama has decided to give the rhetoric of hope and all that crap, just to rest for just a second. He talks some issues. But after hearing his plans on the economy, I kind of want to just two back to the hope talk. That`s tonight`s "Real Story."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Going to take a look at how presidential hopeful Barack Obama pledged to solve our economy issues. And everybody else`s issues, too. I`ll explain something called the Global Poverty Act. Key word global. That`s coming up in just a minute.

But first, the good Reverend Al Sharpton sent a letter to the DNC yesterday, saying that it would commit a grave injustice if it seated delegates from Florida and Michigan at the party`s national convention. Just to make sure he made his point, he also threatened to march on the party`s Washington headquarters, and I believe the headquarters of the NAACP, as well, but I`ll ask him here in a second.

Coincidentally, Sharpton`s ultimatum came just a day after the NAACP leader, Julian Bond, urged Democratic Party officials to officially seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, saying that not to do so would risk disenfranchising minorities. What about all the white people that voted?

Let`s -- let`s break here for just a little history lesson. Do you remember Bill Clinton? He was America`s first "black" president. After eight years in office, he owes a bunch of favors to his pals over at the NAACP. And now he`s calling them in. You might have forgotten.

I didn`t mention that -- that his wife, Hillary, won the Florida and Michigan primaries, and now she needs the delegates more than ever.

Now back to Al Sharpton. Al is an Obama supporter. And while it looks like Barack is a lock for the nomination, Sharpton is smart enough to know that you should never, ever underestimate the tenacity of the Clinton political machine.

Hillary, kind of like the Terminator. They say that you should never turn your back on a pit bull? I think pit bulls should never turn their back on a Clinton.

The Reverend Al Sharpton joins me now -- Reverend Al.

REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: How you doing Glenn?

BECK: Well, I -- I`m having a hard time understanding this story, sir. And here`s why. You don`t want the delegates seated, right?

SHARPTON: Well, no, what I said -- and by the way, I have not endorsed any candidate. I`m not speaking for Obama or Clinton. I`m neutral.

I`m saying that the Democratic National Committee cannot say that they`re not going to recognize delegates, have people either vote or not vote, based on the fact that it was, by them, announced just a beauty contest and meaningless, and then come back a few months later and say, "Oh, we changed our mind. We`re going to seat those delegates. They do mean something. So all of you that didn`t vote, tough luck." That disenfranchises voters.

And in the state of Michigan, they didn`t even have the other candidates on the ballot. That`s a voter rights violation in my judgment, Glenn.

BECK: Al, I -- I`m having such a hard day today. I really am. I find myself looking at you, Al Sharpton, saying, he`s consistent. You`re making sense. And it hurts my head, Al. I don`t know what to do. You`re making sense here.

The problem is that the DNC, they already made this rule. Now, here`s, I guess -- I guess here`s the part where I do disagree with you, and that is -- you said that this was turning the Democratic Party into the GOP from, like it was in 2000 when they changed all the rules.

This is exactly what the Democrats did in 2000 with Al Gore. They cherry-picked. Instead of picking and just recounting the whole state, in which Al Gore would have won, they said, "No, no, no. Let`s just pick this one and this one and this one to recount," and that`s why he lost.

This is the problem with the Democrats. They`re always changing the rules. They`re always just making them up as they go along, as it`s convenient for them.

SHARPTON: Well, I think that we`ve got to call them on it. And again, I think those of us that are neutral are the ones to do it. Because I think that clearly, whether you agree with my assessment of 2000 or not, it is absolutely clear that you cannot advertise and say that you`re not regarding a primary, and then come back later and say you are. And then tell people you`re not disenfranchised.

BECK: If the NAACP says that this would disenfranchise voters now, why wouldn`t they say it disenfranchised voters before?

SHARPTON: Well, I talked to Julian Bond. He says that his position has been -- he`s the chairman of the NAACP.

BECK: Yes.

SHARPTON: He said that his position has been misconstrued. What he`s saying is that the voters in Michigan and Florida had the right to representation, of which I agree with him. And that they have to recognize those states. But...

BECK: But didn`t they say -- didn`t they say this months ago?

SHARPTON: Well, I think -- I don`t know what was said months ago. I think you can`t do that by seating these delegates. And I think that the Democratic National Committee has to find a way to, yes, enfranchise the voters in Michigan and -- and the voters in Florida, but they can`t do it by trying to announce they`re going to do what they said what they were not going to do.

They put themselves into this position. And they`ve got to find a way to come out of it, but the way to come out of it is not to just turn around and do a 180 degree turn in which you announced and disenfranchised those that believed that you were going to do what you said you were going to do.

BECK: Reverend, as always, it is a pleasure having you on. And we`ll -- we`ll talk to you again.

SHARPTON: Thank you.

BECK: All right.

Coming up, Cindy Sheehan is bringing her extreme brand of protest to Egypt -- Egypt in support of the Muslim Brotherhood. I`ll tell you why this brotherhood should be watched closely.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, I guess anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan must have had her fingers crossed when she announced her retirement a few months back. Or maybe she just thinks she`s already conquered the U.S. market and needs to expand overseas. It is that all-important overseas market that we all care about so dearly now.

Whatever the reason, Cindy Sheehan was in Egypt yesterday, marching in solidarity with wives and children of imprisoned members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Her own son died in Iraq fighting radical Islam, and now she`s in Egypt, supporting a group that some believe personify it, a group that has publicly stated their desire to bring Sharia Law to Egypt. This group stands against almost everything Cindy Sheehan says she stands for, which leads me to believe that she is either shockingly naive, dangerously crazy or, more likely, both.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder of American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

First of all, Zuhdi, for anyone who doesn`t know the Muslim Brotherhood, these guys are -- they`ll take all of Cindy Sheehan`s rights away.

ZUHDI JASSER, FOUNDER, AMERICAN ISLAMIC FORUM FOR DEMOCRACY: Oh, absolutely. The Muslim Brotherhood basically is the central nervous system of political Islam around the world. They are an Islamic religious political party that wants to put into place Islamic states wherever they can. And basically, they are to terrorism what the Communist Party was to the Soviet dream for transnational communism in the Cold War.

BECK: OK. So this is -- what the Muslim Brotherhood wants is in Egypt, a theocratic state? They want another Iran. True or false?

JASSER: They want -- no, they profess now that they want parliaments, elections, et cetera. But the source of their law would be the Koran and the imams that work for them and their interpretations, such as Kordawi (ph). So, basically, they want a theocracy. They would say it`s Iran Lite or a democracy, but it`s certainly not a society based on liberty and freedom.

BECK: Does it ever confuse you, Zuhdi, trying to keep up with progressives, where they just want to shut down any kind of talk of religion here in America? But she will go stand in solidarity with people that want a theocracy in Egypt?

JASSER: That`s -- that`s the whole bizarre nature of this alliance between the far left and the Islamists.

BECK: Can you explain it at all?

JASSER: Well, I think it`s part of this cultural relativism where they feel that in America, they expect one thing, but for others, such as us Muslims and Arabs, they somehow think that somehow we want to live in theocracy, so they`re going to let us do that, when in fact, why doesn`t she go march the streets of Cairo for all the feminists and the secular Muslims that have been in jail?

It`s not only the Muslim Brotherhood that should be let out. But how about the -- all the other freedom fighters that were part of the Kathia (ph) movement and others that had been fighting the regime of Mubarak that she`s not speaking for?

BECK: Isn`t bin Laden`s No. 2 guy, or wasn`t the No. 2 guy of bin Laden from the Muslim Brotherhood?

JASSER: Absolutely. And that`s the issue. Is that it`s not only about terrorism. The goals of the Muslim Brotherhood are no different at the end of the day than the goals of Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, or any of these transnational Islamist movements that want to put into state Islamic -- put into place Islamic states based on Sharia Law.

BECK: Zuhdi, thank you very much. Talk to you again, my friend.

Coming up next, a true sign that Clinton Democrats think it`s over? The fact that Democrats don`t support them anymore. Wait until you hear the list of reasons why they`re just jumping ship like rats. I mean, it might as well be a conservative`s birthday until you realize the alternative that`s right around the corner. All that and more in tonight`s "Real Story," next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, I don`t know if you have a life, but for those of us who don`t, we saw Roger Clemens` testimony on Capitol Hill yesterday. It was engaging, and by engaging, I mean totally boring and a waste of time and money.

It was basically an exchange of he said/he said, leaving us with at least one liar, a few hours wasted, and lots and lots of your money inconceivably spent. But hey, it`s not like we have anything bigger to do.

We have the story in just a minute on how much exactly this cost you.

But first, welcome to the "Real Story".

I told you early in the show today that Mitt Romney`s endorsement of John McCain, which I don`t yet understand, may be -- may be because he believes that McCain is just the best candidate for the job. Well, despite all the theories, I mean, it may not be more complicated than that. I don`t know yet.

When you actually look at the policies of the other candidates, Romney may actually be right. For example, Barack Obama always seems to be, you know, light on substance. But after reading through the detailed economic plan that he finally released yesterday, just in time for the primaries, the "Real Story" is, I think I actually like the vague hope and change Barack a lot better.

You remember a few months ago when Hillary Clinton said that she`s got so many ideas that Americans just can`t afford all of them? Well, apparently Barack was paying attention, because he`s got even more ideas that we can`t afford.

Sure, his plan does have universal health care. But it also has a new national infrastructure bank, a major government investment in green energy, tax credits for those who pay no income tax.

In total, Obama`s plan will cost us over $197 billion every 365 days. Money that I`m sure China would be all too happy to loan to us.

But don`t worry, because daddy Barack says we don`t have to borrow that money for very long because we`ll pay for all of the new spending by, A, letting the Bush tax cuts expire; B, auctioning off C02 emissions -- may I translate bull crap to English -- that means instituting a carbon tax on business. And C, well, I`m going to let him explain this last one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It`s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together again and start spending the money on putting America back together again instead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Yes, fix America. I`ve been waiting. Obama, `08, yes we can, yes we can. Oh.

The only problem I have with this, it`s just a small question before, you know, I go back to the celebration of Obama in `08. If he`s so intent on spending our money here at home, which I`m all for -- in fact, let`s not spend any money abroad or home for a while, what do you say? Why is he the lead sponsor of something called the Global Poverty Act?

Yes, global poverty. Global poverty. Spend it all at home.

This act which just passed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday would commit the next president of the United States -- oh, my gosh, that may be Obama, what a coincidence. It would commit him to working towards the worldwide poverty goals set by the United Nations millennium declaration.

Look that one up. Google it, please.

These goals may cost America an estimated $845 billion, while making us subservient to a whole array of U.N. treaties and resolutions like the Kyoto Protocol. Wouldn`t that be great?

Now, you likely haven`t heard much about this because not many people, even those who voted for it, understand its true intentions. But while helping the poor is a noble cause, I think Barack Obama would admit that since America isn`t classified as an impoverished nation yet, not one dime of that $845 billion that we give to the U.N. to distribute would go towards, you know, the pledge of fixing America first.

Cliff Kincaid is the editor of Accuracy in the Media, and one of the few people who`s done his homework on this Global Poverty Act.

I have to tell you, Cliff, this is a giant, giant step in the wrong direction. And nobody knows about it.

CLIFF KINCAID, ACCURACY IN MEDIA: That`s right. I found out about it a couple of days ago when it was really secretly put on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agenda. The Republican members of the committee didn`t know what was coming.

It was sprung on the House last September, brought up for a voice vote. It passed. Most members didn`t know what was in it.

Well, maybe I need a Pulitzer Prize. Maybe you can nominate me for that, Glenn, because I took a look, I found out about it, I`ve analyzed it. And yes, indeed, when you understand between the lines and the fine details, this commits the United States to spending another $845 billion on the rest of the world.

BECK: If I`m not mistaken, it is an almost 1 percent U.N. tax that we would be forced to pay, right?

KINCAID: It`s .7 percent of Gross National Product. This is a figure that was bandied about by the U.N. for many years, it was actually inserted into a document out of the U.N. in 2002 and agreed to by the Bush administration.

BECK: That`s craziness.

KINCAID: And the Bush administration agreed to it. The Barack Obama bill basically, without mentioning the .7 percent, or the necessity of a global tax, commits the United States to carrying out this objective, meeting its own "millennium goal." And...

BECK: Right. I mean, it`s the same game that they are always playing. Look, they`ve set it up in one bill, and now this is the other bill to actually execute it, basically. Right or wrong?

KINCAID: Right. This commits us to spend the money as dictated by the U.N., .7 percent, according to Jeffrey Sachs, who ran the U.N. Millennium Project. It means the United States has been short by $65 billion a year on what is called official development assistance.

BECK: OK. But it also -- it also puts us in line for Kyoto, it also puts us in line for what is also part of this U.N., you know, millennium agreement, of banning all small arms.

KINCAID: Well, these -- there`s a couple different documents here.

The .7 percent has to be reached. We are supposed to reach that immediately. We`re $65 billion short. Over the 13 year period, from 2002 to 2015, that`s how we get the $845 billion figure.

Plus, they have a so-called millennium declaration. That actually came out in 2000, which not only commits us to the more foreign aid spending, but calls on countries to implement Kyoto, a ban on small weapons, the children`s rights treaty, the women`s rights treaty.

BECK: Oh, yes.

KINCAID: You go down the list.

BECK: These are -- Cliff, I`ve got to run, but these things are a nightmare.

Please, America, do your homework on the millennium stuff from the U.N.

Cliff, thanks a lot.

Now, anybody who spends a lot of time in Washington, as the Clintons have, they are bound to alienate lots of people along the way. Unfortunately, for Hillary, who has now lost eight straight primaries, the "Real Story" tonight is, those mistreated supporters may finally have decided to even the score.

Among the groups of people who Clinton has offended over the years are social activists angry about Bill Clinton caving to Republicans over welfare reform. Also, you`ve got politicians who still hold a grudge over Hillary, ignoring their advice during failed health care push. You know, remember the early 1990s.

You have political activists that are mad about the Lewinsky scandal. That it not only forced them to lie, but also cost Gore the 2000 election.

You have labor activists who are still mad about Clinton`s support of NAFTA.

It`s like all of these people have been living in fear, just falling into line saying, yes, I like them, they are the greatest, yes. Waiting for their chance to cut the king`s head off. And now they finally see that chance.

Conservatives like me have been saying for years the Clintons will do and say anything to get elected. It doesn`t matter. They just want the power.

But they rule through intimidation. They don`t have friends, they have followers. Unfortunately for Hillary, many of those followers are also superdelegates now, who may just use their newfound power in the ultimate act of revenge.

Jeff Hewitt is a Democratic strategist and president for Hewitt Campaigns.

Jeff, I see -- I mean, I don`t think I`ve ever seen a fall from grace so far, so fast, as the Clintons. It is like -- it is like King Louis and Marie Antoinette. It`s just, all of a sudden it`s, everybody`s dressed up with the lace and they`re going, oh, yes, we love you, Marie. And then it`s off with their heads and they`re gone.

JEFF HEWITT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, Glenn, I don`t know about that. I think what we have right here is, we shouldn`t go so fast to assume that Barack is going to be the nominee. He`s looking good now, but Hillary proved to be a survivor in New Hampshire, just like her husband.

There`s still a deep well of good support, and good favor for the Clintons. And I think until Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania vote, Glenn, we`re still -- we still are in a holding pattern as far as people abandoning ship.

BECK: Oh, come on. Come on.

These people -- you`ve got Al Sharpton and the NAACP going -- Al Sharpton may picket the NAACP. Come on, people are picking sides. People are saying, you know what? I think they`re over, I`m getting out of here.

You don`t think there`s any truth to that?

HEWITT: Well, I think there`s probably a small realm of truth to that. But Al Sharpton does not represent the base of the Democratic Party.

BECK: Right.

HEWITT: At least not right now.

BECK: How about -- how about -- how about the Kennedys?

HEWITT: Well, the Kennedys are obviously a Democratic icon. And while any presidential candidate would be glad to get their vote, I think that we need to look past the Sharptons and the Kennedys and look to the voters of Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania before we decide how this election is going to unfold.

BECK: Right. OK.

I mean, I don`t know where else to go with you. I mean, other than -- first of all, come on. Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton is still going to pull it off in the clutch? Have you seen the poll numbers?

HEWITT: I don`t know that she`s going to pull it off, but I think to underestimate the Clinton machine in those three states would be a huge mistake.

BECK: Wait a minute. Wait. Let`s stop there.

Yes, my point exactly. To underestimate the Clinton machine. Exactly right.

HEWITT: Exactly. Exactly, because let me tell you why, Glenn.

BECK: Am I missing something here?

HEWITT: We have not only the support of -- she has not only the support of elected officials in those states, but the demographics in those states that make up the Democratic electorate, I think you have to still consider her a serious nominee. She could still be the Democratic nominee for president. And while Barack has all the momentum and has won a number of states to this point, I don`t think you can call it over until March 4th.

BECK: All right. Jeff, thanks a lot. We`ll see you on March 5th.

HEWITT: Thank you.

BECK: That`s the "Real Story" tonight.

Coming up, the long story short on Roger Clemens` testimony before Congress. Somebody did steroids, somebody lied about it. Congress wastes a bunch of America`s time and a bunch of your money.

How much money? Oh, we`ve done the tabulations. It`s coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, homeland security chief Michael Chertoff yesterday told Congress that U.S. Border Patrol officers recently found something strange with the U.S. border in Mexico. It was a wire. It was stretched about four feet off of a road that, when pulled tight, would have likely decapitated any border agent riding an all terrain vehicle.

Sounds like a pretty good story, huh? Sounds like a pretty big story. Yes, you probably haven`t heard about it because yesterday Congress and the media were a little busy dealing with something else -- Roger Clemens on steroids.

We asked the Heritage Foundation, how much did this cost the American people? They estimated that it was almost $1 million that was spent out of your purse yesterday in that four and a half hour sham of a hearing. That includes research time for the congressional staffers, prep time for the committee members, and, of course, the entire hearing itself, where middle- aged politicians finally got to live out their dream of having their pictures taken with a Major League Baseball player.

I`m glad to see that in a country facing the most serious issues in our nation`s history, our leaders believe that spending their time questioning a washed-up pitcher about something he may or may not have done years ago, when it was legal, is doing the people`s business.

Jon Wertheim, he is a senior investigative reporter for "Sports Illustrated"

Hi, Jon. How are you?

JON WERTHEIM, SR. INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, "SPORTS ILLUSTRATED": How you doing?

BECK: You know, I`m not a sports fan at all. And so I don`t know.

I asked my radio audience yesterday, what am I missing here? I`m watching this, and I`m thinking, this is only being watched for entertainment. There is no -- there`s nothing of substance being done here.

Right or wrong?

(LAUGHTER)

WERTHEIM: I wish we could argue this. I agree. So you are saying there are issues more pertinent to the American public than who went to a backyard barbecue at Jose Canseco`s house 10 years ago?

BECK: Yes. Yes.

WERTHEIM: No, I totally agree with you. It was riveting television, but why this occupied a congressional hearing day, you`ve got me.

BECK: OK. Do the fans -- do the fans actually care? I don`t think the fans care. I don`t think the people who were asking the questions actually cared yesterday.

WERTHEIM: I think the fans care a great deal as voyeurs. I don`t think there`s any moral outrage.

I mean, fans aren`t boycotting baseball because these guys may or may not have done HGH. I think the fans care as they care about a reality show.

BECK: Right.

WERTHEIM: It`s sort of a compelling set of circumstances. But I don`t think anybody is sort of in a moral huff over this.

BECK: Yes. All the guys that I work with at the studio today were all talking. They were like, you know, if he would have just said it at the beginning, it would have been no big deal. And now they`re talking about, is he going to be in the hall of fame, will he not be in the hall of fame -- yadda, yadda, yadda. And they only care because it`s like an asterisk.

WERTHEIM: Yes, exactly.

BECK: It`s a dent (ph) -- a dent (ph).

WERTHEIM: Oh, it`s good drama.

You know, we had this Mitchell Report a couple of months ago, and George Mitchell was very somber and gave this report. And before he started reading from it, he said, but I don`t think anyone in here should be subject to anything punitive.

So, basically, even if Roger Clemens did what he was accused of doing, the guy who issued the report doesn`t think he should have any penalties. So, the whole thing was just silly. And it made for great TV. And as you said before, it gave a lot of fairly anonymous congressmen a chance to be in the front page of the newspaper.

BECK: Yes.

Jon, isn`t it a better idea to solve -- if you really wanted to solve this, allow the Major League Baseball -- allow Major League Baseball to have competition? Allow them to develop a non-steroid jerk multimillionaire sport and let them compete against what you got, and if that`s what the fans want to see, that`s what the fans will pay to see.

WERTHEIM: Go total libertarian.

BECK: Why not?

WERTHEIM: No. I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

WERTHEIM: No. I mean, I think the issue of sort of preserving some dignity in competition is important, and I even buy the congressional -- I buy the committee`s claim that this sort of youth steroids angle makings this valid. But I`m just not sure we needed to spend a day dissecting it like this.

BECK: OK. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

But my point is, if the sport were allowed to destroy itself, and somebody else could come in and say, I can make baseball better, wouldn`t this fix it all?

WERTHEIM: There you go.

BECK: I mean -- no, seriously. I mean, your fans are -- your fans are starting to go away from baseball. Nobody`s really paying attention. Everybody is kind of watching it as a voyeur.

If it really was a problem in the sport, allow competition. Yes or no?

WERTHEIM: That`s one way to look at it.

BECK: You`re -- I mean, you`re talking down to me, aren`t you? You are like, listen to this nincompoop, man. He doesn`t even know what he`s talking about.

WERTHEIM: No. I mean, look, I think drug testing is a valid issue. And I think, you know, we ought to have some standards and we ought not to let people just dope as much as they want. You know, I don`t think this is not about -- my point is just, it should not have occupied any of Congress` time.

BECK: All right. Jon, thanks a lot. Appreciate it.

Coming up, Valentine`s Day, and the city of New York is in the subways, they`re everywhere. City workers telling you to go ahead and get some. Free condoms for everybody.

The joys of New York, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: This is the one time of the year where we revisit the Victorian tradition of expressing true love through a bouquet of roses, and cards inscribed with equally flowery words. That is unless, of course, you live here in New York City.

Here in Manhattan, it`s all about getting some. Yes, getting some.

That`s the call to action from street corners and subway stations, as representatives of this fine city are getting busy giving away free condoms. Sure, safe sex is -- you know, it`s a good thing. No disputing that. But you have to ask, who rubberstamped this idea? No pun intended.

Since when is New York City swimming in so much extra cash that they can afford to not only design and manufacturer their own brand of condoms, but also a whole marketing campaign to go along with them? With a Web site and music videos. Some in Spanish.

I`ve said it before, I will say it again. I don`t think handing out condoms in schools is a good idea.

I say that when it comes to education, sex is one of those things that should be taught at home, you know, or maybe in, you know, the street, like I learned it. But at least a school and the street is somewhat of a controlled environment. I mean, you`re with your parents or your friends.

But a subway platform, or outside of delis, or outside of Macy`s department store, I mean, is it really a good idea to have hot women handing out fistfuls of condoms to any kid who says, you know, "I want to get some"?

All guys want to get some. All guys want it. And I hear these days, even some gals want to get some. But until you are informed, and old enough to handle the responsibility of some, you shouldn`t be getting anything.

We all love free samples. I`ve had the bourbon chicken at the mall. I know.

You know, salespeople love it. They figure, once you`ve had a little taste, maybe you get hooked for good. You know what? They are right. And that`s what I`m worried about.

Sex is a big deal, a serious issue. Deadly serious if you`re not careful.

I know that`s where safe sex and preventive measures like condoms come in, but we shouldn`t have them being handed out like they are free balloons. Or should we?

What`s next? Will the city start putting bartenders on street corners mixing up gin and tonics to help people get in the mood? Will they hire bands to play Barry White songs so you can fly your freak flag?

Where does the madness and common sense begin? And really, New York, I mean, it`s a dirty, rat-infested city with a thin layer of gunk on almost everything. If you are going to get some, shouldn`t you get some somewhere else, really?

We`ll talk to you tomorrow.

Sign up for the free news letter at glennbeck.com.

From New York, good night America.

END