Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

What Should Happen with Anna Nicole Smith Case?; Allies Leaving Iraq; Recap of "American Idol"

Aired February 21, 2007 - 19:00   ET


GLENN BECK, HOST: We don`t have issues, we have solutions. I think every right-thinking American knows how to end this Anna Nicole circus, but I`m going to be the first one to say it out loud tonight.
Plus, one of the biggest start in the world checked into rehab yesterday, then checked out again today. When does Britney Spears finally hit that bottom? That and more, next.


ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by Judge Larry Seidlin. Justice isn`t just blind; it`s bald and annoying, too.


BECK: Well, let`s start with that nightmare that is the Anna Nicole Smith trial. Her mother, Virgie Arthur, testified in Florida today, making her case for gaining possession of her daughter`s body and her granddaughter`s future.

Meanwhile, Judge Larry Seidlin, a.k.a. Judge Sheckie, continued to display his own unique brand of justice.


JUDGE LARRY SEIDLIN, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA: This is not a circus. The circus would be -- one would say it`s just the attention it`s receiving. If you want to put it circus, you say circus, and he pulls attention. But not the conduct of the trial, not the conduct of these hearings.


BECK: This guy -- this guy said he`s going to have a final decision by Friday. But even so, here`s the point tonight.

I think common sense is dead, especially in Florida. I mean, I don`t need until Friday to make a decision. Put this woman in the ground. You and I could end this sad story in a matter of about two minutes. And here`s how I got there.

There are like 14 attorneys arguing over this thing. It has turned into a circus, despite what Judge Sheckie says. Meanwhile, Anna Nicole`s body is apparently falling apart, which is a process I believe began during the first season of her reality show on E! But I digress.

I`d like to have three quick and easy rulings that would bring this mess to an end, and here they are. If I`m the judge, ruling No. 1, here`s a crazy idea. Why not put her in the cemetery plot she bought for herself, right next to her son? I don`t care if that`s in the mountains of Switzerland. Bury her where she wanted to be buried.

Clearly, one of the only people in her life who genuinely loved her was her son. For heaven`s sakes. She had such a sad and twisted life. Let`s at least put the woman in the ground next to her son to rest in peace.

Two, regarding little baby Dannielynn, the real -- the tragic figure in all of this, here`s my ruling on that. Swabs for everybody. From Birkhead to Stern to Zsa Zsa`s husband, to every cab driver in the Bahamas, if need be. Swab them now.

If I were the judge, I wouldn`t need three more days of hearings. I`d say, "Hey, anybody in here in the courtroom that thinks they`re the father? If they are, raise your hand. Great. Cough up the DNA. As soon as I get the results, I`ll call you."

And finally, three, an unusual ruling. This one`s for Judge Sheckie. Stop being a putz. Your stupid jokes and your fake tan are tacky, even for this case. But, please, stop with the -- this guy -- you know, this guy actually put together a highlight reel because he wants his own TV show? Come on. Can we at least wait until Anna Nicole is actually buried before you capitalize on her death, your honor?

You know, this judge makes Judge Ito look like Judge Rehnquist, who, by the way, was buried in a timely manner. He shouldn`t have been on the case to begin with, but since he is, here`s another ruling. No TVs in the courtroom and no TV show for you. Judge Seidlin`s audition for hell`s version of "American Idol" ends now.

Here`s what I know tonight. Money and fame have conspired to eliminate shame and common sense in America. The exception, I believe, is you. I mean, anybody who`s sitting at their home right now -- you`re sitting on your couch, you`re watching TV. When you see this stuff, you`re screaming at your TV. Why? Because you know the answer.

But for some reason, the lure of money and fame are just too powerful for common sense to fight. It never seems to rear its head in America, except in our own living rooms.

And you know what? We better start using our common sense on our kids. Otherwise, our kids are going to end up like some of these nut jobs in the courtroom. Let`s use this freak show as a teaching tool for our children and say, "Hey, kids. See those people there? Don`t ever be like them."

Here`s what I don`t know. How long will it be before we finally send the child home with her actual, verified father? Before this woman is finally put in the ground? And before Judge Seidlin has a TV deal in place?

Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor and professor at New England School of Law. Carolyn Schaeffer is from "Us Weekly".

Wendy, first, the question in Florida that -- of where she needs to be buried or who she should go to is really clear, right?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, it could be. You know, I so appreciated your opening remarks, because the judge is sort of on OK legal ground letting all this stuff happen and taking in this boatload of information. I don`t think he had to do it. He certainly didn`t have to do it on television.

And guess what he could have done, Glenn? He could have just said, well, there is a statute that is crystal clear here. I could consider all this other murky law, but I`m just going to go with this one, which says the person who gets to decide who decides where they get buried is the decedent, Anna Nicole Smith, if she puts it in writing. She didn`t.

Who`s next in line if we don`t have something in writing? A spouse. She doesn`t have one. She has a fake husband, that thug, Howard K. Stern. He`s out of there. The next in line is a parent. Now, you may not like that her body should go to Texas. I wish that Anna Nicole`s body should go to Texas with her son Daniel, because she had very little contact with the Bahamas, frankly.

But that`s how simple it really is under Florida law. The parent is the next in line, because why? The child is not over the age of 18. Period. He could have said, "We can make it complicated. We can make it simple. I`d rather get this done quickly," which he keeps saying he wants to do.

He chose the wrong path while telling us he wants the short path. He chose a joking proceeding while telling us it was a somber proceeding. I don`t get this guy.

BECK: Carolyn, is anybody feeling the pressure here? I had a coroner call me on the air today and say, "Look, I`ve been dealing with dead bodies a long time. This woman`s body is about to fall apart, and I don`t think you even have until Friday."

CAROLYN SCHAEFER, "US WEEKLY": Absolutely. Well, the medical examiner is like, listen, you better do this quickly, because her body is decomposing. If you want to view it, you know, you want it to happen, bury her soon. I mean, I think he said Friday is the deadline. But you know, it`s already been two weeks since she died.

BECK: So Wendy, the DNA thing with the dad, I`ve got Q-tips, I think, in my desk. Why don`t we just swab everybody`s mouth and be done with it?

MURPHY: Well, you know, he technically doesn`t have authority to do that. But he could have used his power to at least pressure Howard K. Stern to answer the question what kind of guy lies about being a baby`s father? And if you don`t open your mouth for the Q-tip, I`m going to draw the inference that you`re lying about being the baby`s father, not to mention the child is blonde and light eyed, and he looks like a damn gorilla. There`s no question -- there`s no question he is not the baby`s father. And the judge is looking at him, giving him a total pass on what is really a big fat lie on a very important, probably the most important issue in this case.

BECK: OK. I want to show you a clip of what the mom said today in the courtroom. Watch this.


VIRGIE ARTHUR, MOTHER OF ANNA NICOLE SMITH: The only one that`s ever, ever made any money off of my daughter is that man sitting right there. He sold a movie video to her death -- I mean -- I heard that "ET" is buying her death funeral. That`s why he wants her body, for a million bucks.


BECK: How -- Wendy, how is this guy -- or Carolyn, how is this guy looking in the courtroom? How is the mother being perceived? I feel -- I`m actually really starting to feel bad for the mom.

SCHAEFER: Yes. I think people are definitely empathizing with the mother, although you know, Anna Nicole had been estranged from her mom for ten years. Howard K. Stern isn`t looking so great. You know, he`s finally conceding that, yes, Anna did have other lovers besides me. Sort of paving the way for if the fact comes out that he`s not the father, he doesn`t look like the total, you know, sheister that he is.

BECK: OK. And now there`s the other -- the other clip from the judge today in kind of in response to what the mother said that, you know, that Larry -- or Howard was just trying to make money off of Anna`s body. Here`s what the judge said.


SEIDLIN: I think the issue of her death and money is a personal decision to be made by every party in this -- in this courtroom. Some are going to say they`re going to spin it that`s it`s an area that you`re trying to profiteer. Others will say I can`t pay my mortgage and I need some money. It`s up to you where you go.


BECK: What kind of -- what?

SCHAEFER: That`s just typical. It`s because he`s trying to make money. He`s trying to get a career, a Hollywood career off this trial.

BECK: Wendy -- Wendy, I mean, you know, you want to talk about Solomon being dead. Boy, this guy is the anti-Solomon.

MURPHY: Well, and the thing is if there`s one big elephant in the room, it`s who had the biggest motive to lie, in other words, who stands to gain the most woman off of this woman. And I think the answer to that question in part is who`s already gained the most off of this woman. And for the judge to foreclose that question.

I think one of the most grotesque things this judge did was let Howard K. Stern come to this proceeding with a deal. A deal. He made a promise to this guy. You come to court, play nice in the sandbox, and we won`t ask you those tough questions about like, I don`t know, did you kill these people?

I can`t really tolerate such things. Because you know what? Virgie didn`t say, "I`m only coming to court to testify about what I want to do with my daughter`s body, if you don`t let those darn lawyers ask me the hard questions, judge."

He`s the only one who said, "I`m only coming if you don`t ask me the hard questions."

BECK: Does this make any difference at all for the future? I mean, does this in fact -- if they -- is anybody investigating this guy? Is anybody looking into the connections on drugs and everything else? Carolyn, you would know.

SCHAEFER: I mean, I think he has been called in by the Bahamas authorities a couple of times.

BECK: Not the Keystone Kops, the real cops.

SCHAEFER: Well, right now he`s in the Bahamas so I think he`s sort of protected. I mean, I think they should definitely be looking into all those allegations, you know, if he was involved with Daniel`s death, if he was involved with Anna`s death. I mean, there`s so many questions out there. Somebody has got to be asking these questions.

BECK: All right. Carolyn, Wendy, thank you.

Coming up, as America continues its troop surge in Iraq, the U.K. begins its troop purge. The truth is not what you`re reading in the paper. I`ll explain why Great Britain is leaving next.

And is oil the real reason the U.S. government refuses to police the border with Mexico? I`m going to give you all the slimy details, cloak and dagger stuff, in tonight`s "Real Story".

And oops, she did it again and again and again. Britney checks in and out of rehab for the second time in a week. Is anyone going to catch this woman before she explodes herself?



BECK: You know, there`s a new poll out that Muslims, the higher educated Muslims in the Middle East are more likely to be extremists? More and more Muslims now hate us all across the world, and it really has not a lot to do with anything other than our morals.

The things that they were saying about us were true. Our morals are just out the window. We`re a society on the verge of moral collapse. And our promiscuity is of the charts.

Now I don`t think that we should fly airplanes into buildings or behead people because of it, but that`s the prevailing feeling of Muslims in the Middle East. And you know what? They`re right.


BECK: You know, everybody is talking today about how Britain has decided to withdraw 1,600 troops from Iraq. But the surprising part of the story, at least for me, is that they only have 7,000 troops left there in the first place. They`ve been withdrawing people for years. We`re sending three times as many as part of this surge alone.

Denmark also withdrawing their entire contingent of 450 troops. Lithuania seriously considering its troop withdrawal of 53. How will we ever go on without Lithuania? By the way, anybody mention that Australia is upping their commitment?

Now, when it comes to Great Britain, I don`t believe this is an abandonment but rather a sign of hope. As Iraqi troops take control, foreign troops leave. That`s been the plan all along. Hasn`t it? Let international troops make the country safe, then go home.

A new poll today shows that 57 percent of Americans want to stay in Iraq and finish the job. Until we win the war. Man, thank you, thank you America. Sounds like a plan. I couldn`t agree with it more.

But understand this. We will have to win this war. Not Great Britain, not Denmark, not Lithuania, certainly not the weasels in France. It has always been on our shoulders.

Great Britain, thank you for your help, sincerely. You sacrificed right alongside of us. And many of your troops have paid the ultimate price. But it`s now up to us to finish what we started.

Lieutenant Commander Jack Liles, the U.S. Air Force military analyst who flew the no fly zone in Iraq in the early 1990s.

Commander, President Bush consistently has said, the Iraqis step up, we step down. Isn`t this an example of this? Or is that just sunshine and lollipops coming from my head?

LT. COMMANDER JACK LILES, U.S. AIR FORCE: No, I don`t think we need to over read this. It is simply that. The Brits happen to be patrolling the area in the south and providing security in the south, where there`s much less violence than there is in central Iraq where we`re covering. So this is just a matter of hopefully what we`ll see ourselves doing in the near future, as violence secedes and the Iraqis are able to provide their own security. We`ll start to phase out. And we`re just seeing that happen in the south with the British.

BECK: Right. Now Basra is a different -- very different story. Basra hasn`t really had the sectarian violence. Do you think that Basra is going to look this way a year from now?

LILES: Well, that`s the $20 million question right now. This -- this Basra experience over the next 12 months will be quite a litmus test, I think, for -- for the project of pulling troops out of an area and seeing how well the Iraqis are able to provide for their own security, particularly in an area where at one point where there was a good bit of violence.

And as we phase out, it will be interesting to see how that transpire transpires.

BECK: You know, I was thinking of a way to explain Baghdad to people. And help me out. I think Baghdad right now is like New York City 100 years ago. New York City at that time was the Irish and it was the Italians. And it wasn`t really a cohesive city, per se. Everybody was kind of cobbled together. That`s kind of what Baghdad is today, isn`t it?

LILES: That`s hard to explain. Not having spent a lot of time there myself, it`s hard to explain. And that`s obviously been our -- our big mistake in this entire enterprise. We don`t understand it. I don`t think it`s as easy as breaking it down to New York in the late 19th century.

This is a very complicated area with very complicated demographics and ethnic groups and nationalist groups. And it`s been our key mistake all along. We haven`t understood the dynamics of this country, of this region and have made mistake after mistake as a result of that understanding.

BECK: I read paper after paper after paper today, and not a lot of people were highlighting that Basra is now secure and it was all about, you know, this is just another sign that this thing is falling apart. Does this have anything other than political ramifications? Does this have any military ramifications with Great Britain pulling out?

LILES: I don`t think so. I`m sure this was a well-planned and coordinated announcement today. The Brits have been side by side with us throughout this evolution. I`m sure this was well planned and well thought out. And certainly, it has political ramifications for Tony Blair. But you know, what doesn`t have political ramifications in governments like ours?

BECK: What does this look like in a year from now? What does success look like?

LILES: Well, success looks like this nice, stable country where they`ve got a duly elected government, representing all these different factions, that it`s a functioning government, and basic services are provided for us, security is provided for us.

BECK: Odds that that`s going to happen?

LILES: In my opinion, rather slim. I`m hopeful, but I think it`s rather slim. I think -- my personal opinion is, a likely scenario is we withdraw, as well, due to a lack of success. We begin to pull out.

And we wind up kind of in the same situation we were eight years ago on September 10, 2001, with a containment strategy for that area. We`ll be containing all these various factions, and we`ll be containing Iran and Syria just as we were containing Saddam`s government in pre-9/11, 2001.

BECK: OK. Jack, thanks a lot.

Back in a minute.


BECK: Well, America loves a great reality-based drama. And between the Anna Nicole circus and Britney Spears bouncing in and out of rehab, I`m at about capacity for this stuff.

Fortunately, when it comes to catching up with the most wholesome option of this genre, "American Idol" -- who would have guessed that? -- I`m actually lucky, because having your own TV show means somebody else can watch this stuff and fill you in on it. Kim Caldwell, former "Idol" contestant and host of "Idol Chat".

Hi, Kim.


BECK: What`s with the hat?

CALDWELL: I actually was just too lazy to get dressed today and do my own hair. So I did the hat. Just like you`re too lazy to watch your own shows.

BECK: OK. All right. So last night, what did you think of the performances?

CALDWELL: Can we continue talking about how great my hat is?

BECK: So you loved them?

CALDWELL: OK, OK. So I thought the guys were good.

BECK: No, you didn`t.

CALDWELL: Did I think that one of them was completely and totally drop-dead amazing, oh, my gosh they`re the stand-out and they`re going to win? Not really.

BECK: Yes.

CALDWELL: I thought Chris Richardson was really great, but I also have a really huge crush on him. But I think that he was great.

BECK: Hold it just a minute. Shut the pie hole for just a second.

CALDWELL: Pie hole!

BECK: Let a man -- let a man speak for a second. Geez.

CALDWELL: Go ahead.

BECK: May I translate for the rest of America?


BECK: OK. I`m just translating. This is what Kim actually said. They all sucked last night.

CALDWELL: That is not what I said.

BECK: That`s what you said. I heard it. America heard it. You know, actually, last week...

CALDWELL: That guy right there that we`re looking at...

BECK: Yes.

CALDWELL: ... he`s so hot. And he`s my next ex-boyfriend. I`m very excited about it.

BECK: So are you like that?

CALDWELL: Am I like what?

BECK: Yes, I mean, you know, you`re just with me one night and then with him the next night?

CALDWELL: I would never be with you, Glenn, on any night.

BECK: Well, that`s a long line of women that would never be with me. Anyway...

CALDWELL: Just kidding. I`d be the first in line. I would.

BECK: What is the...

CALDWELL: But we`re going to have to work on that tie and that shirt together. It`s just not working.

BECK: Thank you. The -- my wife likes it, and that`s all that matters.

CALDWELL: I`m sorry.

BECK: So the -- I read something that one of the producers said. The biggest event in American television is going to happen this year on "American Idol".


BECK: You hadn`t heard that?


BECK: I read that last week. And I`ve been waiting all week to ask you what it was.

CALDWELL: I don`t know what it is.

BECK: He said some -- he said -- and at the same time, he said, it`s not Michael Jackson going to be here. I`m like, that really wouldn`t be a big deal. I mean, unless you had him appear as they were putting him into prison.

CALDWELL: Oh, my goodness. That is just rude, just rude.

BECK: Oh, it`s...

CALDWELL: OK. So listen really quickly. I know a couple weeks ago you bashed me. You brought up a really ugly picture from my first audition.

BECK: No, and if I would have had the picture of you in the hate...

CALDWELL: No -- so listen -- so listen. Glenn, this is my show. Seriously. Would you stop talking?

BECK: All right.

CALDWELL: OK. So what I pulled out of my sleeve. Check this out.

BECK: All right.

CALDWELL: Pay back hell.


BECK: Thursday morning at 7:15.


BECK: Oh, my gosh. Yes, that was about 400 pounds lighter.

CALDWELL: You are so sexy when you`re 15 1/2.

BECK: That`s me. That`s me.

CALDWELL: All right, take care.

BECK: Wait until you see what...

CALDWELL: Maybe next week we`ll talk about "Idol".

BECK: Yes. Let`s see what I pull out from you next week.

"Real Story" on oil for illegals. You haven`t heard this one before. Don`t miss it. It`s next.


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

Today we continue our "Selling Out of the Border" series with a couple of updates. We told you last night that, last year, the Bank of America appointed a woman to their board of directors who is also the chair of the National Council of La Raza, translation, the National Council of The Race, the group that makes immigration reform one of its primary objectives.

Now, the timing of this appointment is pretty convenient, considering that the pilot program to market checking accounts and credit cards to people without Social Security numbers also happened last year. But the real story is that the Bank of America is just the beginning for La Raza.

They have mounted successful campaigns to forge corporate partnerships with the most influential companies in America. Some of their amigos: Allstate, Coca-Cola, Citigroup, Ford, General Motors, PepsiCo, UPS, and Wal-Mart.

Now, it is undoubtedly a very good thing for minority rights groups and corporate America to work together, but it just seems unseemly that a group with the controversial goal of advocating legal status for illegal aliens -- remember, being in this country illegally is now and always has been a crime -- is legitimizing that platform with big business backing.

I also have an update on the story of the border guards who are rotting in prison while the rest of this country wakes up to the fact that they were railroaded. With all of the evidence that has surfaced lately, including a smoking gun memo from homeland security that was never given to the defense attorneys, our best hope to uncover the truth has been a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that was scheduled for and by, get this, California liberal Dianne Feinstein for next week.

But the real story is, those hearings, scheduled for February 27th, now have been postponed due to scheduling difficulties. Now, maybe I`ve seen too many spy movies, but I can`t help but wonder if someone maybe is applying a little pressure to create those scheduling difficulties. If there isn`t any foul play, well, then I`m glad our senators are working so hard to fit those hearings around their tee times while these agents are literally being assaulted in prison.

But I guess we should know better. Why would you expect our government to stand up for these guys when they`re the ones who put them there in the first place?

All right. I told you last week I`m on a mission to uncover why our government has sold us out on the border. Tonight, I found something, something that I think answers a lot of questions, but, then again, you have more questions than answers in the end.

The real story is one you`re not going to see anyplace else. The reason our border may be so easy to slip across: oil. No secret. We`re running out of oil in this country. Our production peaked back in 1970, but the consumption has been increasing ever since, and that means year after year we have to import more foreign oil to meet our needs.

Most people believe that the majority of oil comes from the Middle East. But the truth hits a lot closer to home. The second-largest supplier of oil to U.S. right behind Canada is, yes, you guessed it, Mexico.

In 1938, Mexico`s government took control of their oil industry, and now it`s an enormous source of national pride for many Mexicans. But they`re starting to run into a teeny-weeny problem. It seems that Mexico`s main oil field, a field that produces 60 percent of their output, is drying up faster than Antonio Banderas` career.

And that`s left the Mexican government, which funds about 40 percent of its federal spending through oil revenue, in a desperate situation. The loss of a major oil field would put tons of people out of work, but it could also result in a virtual collapse of their economy.

Now, considering that a main reason why illegal immigrants come to the U.S. now is to find work, putting thousands more Mexicans out of a job wouldn`t exactly be a good thing for Mexico or for the United States. So how about we kill two birds with one stone?

Mexico, let`s us invest in their oil facilities and get a sweetheart deal on some energy, that, you know, we don`t need to rely on the Middle East dirt bags for, and we`ll think about considering amnesty for your citizens that have come here illegally. Got it? We both win.

A deal like that would make a lot of sense to a lot of people and would answer a lot of questions. Is there a chance like something like that would ever happen? Hard to know for sure. I mean, the White House, it wouldn`t exactly bring that up in the daily briefing.

But consider this: In May 2003, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a resolution that attempted to tie immigration and amnesty for illegal Mexicans together, according to the Associated Press. The measure said, quote, "Any accord on immigration issues with Mexico should include an agreement to allow U.S. companies to invest in their state oil company."

Wow. Why wasn`t that story all over the news here in America? I don`t know. But I can tell you it was everywhere in Mexico. They were outraged by it. But doesn`t that beg a bigger question: Why weren`t we outraged by it?

People like to say that we invade other countries just for their oil. Well, this time it`s us who`s being invaded for oil, and nobody is doing anything to stop it.

Mark Krikorian, he is from the Center of Immigration Studies. Mark, the resolution itself, did this pass through the Senate or was it through the House?

MARK KRIKORIAN, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: No, it didn`t. It was at the committee level and actually never made it that far. And I have to say that I think, actually, the motivation of the congressman who offered this measure was very different.

It was actually to try to kill the push for amnesty, because even though that measure was not on the front pages of our papers, it was on the front pages of Mexico`s papers, and it really stirred up a hornet`s nest down there.

BECK: What kills me, is because I`ve heard this theory, as well. This is actually even more cloak-and-dagger, because the theory goes, as I understand it, that they wanted to separate Vicente Fox from Bush and kind of make enemies between the two, right?

KRIKORIAN: Right, well, to some degree, yes. And oil is the ideal way to do that, because Mexico`s constitution says that no foreign investment, no foreign ownership is allowed in the oil industry. Not just the law; it`s actually in the constitution.

And so by premising amnesty on changes in Mexico`s own constitution, it was really, I think, kind of a poison pill to get the Mexicans all riled up and outraged, you know, kind of Third World, nationalist chip on their shoulder about their oil industry, that Yankee imperialism was going to take it away, as a way of trying to kill the deal between Fox and Bush.

BECK: OK. You actually believe that the problem with our border, if I understand you correctly, is a moral thing with Bush. Is that fair to say?

KRIKORIAN: I think it is. In other words, some people say that this administration is pushing open borders and opposes enforcement just because, you know, corporate donors want it or because they`re looking for the Hispanic vote or something.

That all may figure into calculations, but I think really what`s at the core of it is that the president really doesn`t think it`s morally right to enforce the border with Mexico, that it`s really not a foreign country, in some sense, and so it`s wrong, morally wrong, to enforce immigration laws against Mexicans.

And he`s unshakeable in that belief. That`s why he keeps trying to push this amnesty and guest-worker program, no matter how much harm it does to himself and to his party.

BECK: Isn`t it morally irresponsible for him as the president of the United States, if he truly believes that, to not make that case to the American people and let the American people decide?

KRIKORIAN: Well, I think, to some degree, he has made that case, or tried to. I mean, he`s never made any case, you know, to the contrary. Even before 9/11 when he was running for president, he was pretty clear he was a pro-amnesty guy.

BECK: I have to tell you, though, I`ve sat down at a table with Chertoff where he`s looked me in the eye and said, "We are securing those borders, let me tell you that right now." Bull crap. Amnesty is not tied to securing the borders. Those are two separate issues. What do we do with the people that are here? And what do we do with the border to make sure more people don`t get here?

KRIKORIAN: Well, I think they are tying them together, at least politically. That`s why, over the past few months, we`ve seen this administration actually engage in some pretty good enforcement. They`re just started, but they`re doing it to try to convince enough congressmen that they`re serious about enforcement so they can get the votes for amnesty. When the amnesty passes, the enforcement will stop.

BECK: I saw the front page of the "New York Times." I think it`s the first time that I`ve ever seen the "New York Times" ever print a good story about George W. Bush, and it was about how the borders are all being protected now. And I thought, "Bull crap." This is nothing but a little - - this is a little scrap of food that they`re giving people, saying, "Look, everything is fine."

KRIKORIAN: I wouldn`t even call it a scrap of food. The way I describe it is, a spoonful of enforcement helps the amnesty go down.

BECK: What a great way.

KRIKORIAN: Because this really is a political ploy. And as soon as the ink is dry on the bill, if it ever happens, all this enforcement stuff will start fading away.

BECK: Mark, thanks. That`s the real story tonight. If you`d like to read more about this or if you found a real story of your own you`d like to tell us about, please visit and click on the "Real Story" button.

Coming up, Britney checks in and out of rehab twice in one week. She`s out again. We`ll give you all the details, next.




BECK: What does it say about us that we`re fascinated? I contend that this is just "American Idol" extreme. You`re seeing people with dreams being lifted up, and you`re seeing people that are being crushed. "American Idol" is the Rated G version of this crap that`s actually in the news.

It is the ultimate reality show. It is today`s version of the Christians and the lions, our television shows, including mine, the modern- day version of the Roman Coliseum. Every night, without the toga, we sit down and we watch people being eaten by lions, and we like it.


BECK: Well, for those of you who have been out of the country in the last seven days or maybe stranded in an airport terminal, here`s a brief recap of the life of Britney Spears in the last seven days.

First, she checked into Eric Clapton`s rehab facility in Antigua. Twenty-four hours later, she checks out. Then she shaves her head, she got a tattoo, she chain smoked at a hotel in a blue wig. Then, she checked last night into another rehab facility in Malibu. Today, she checked back out.

I don`t know what exactly is going on. I don`t know if we`ve seen this kind of behavior before, and we`ve seen a lot. Nicki Gostin, she`s from "Newsweek" magazine.

Nicki, she checked out today?

NICKI GOSTIN, "NEWSWEEK" MAGAZINE: Right. It`s her second stint in less than 24 hours. Yes, she checked out today.

BECK: What kind of rehabs are letting you just go in and out?

GOSTIN: Well, I mean, you can`t force someone to stay in rehab. They`ve got to want to stay in rehab. And she`s an adult. She`s over the age of 21. So, if she doesn`t want to stay in rehab, they can`t make her.

BECK: How out of control do you think she is?

GOSTIN: I think she`s pretty much the definition of out of control right now. I mean, it`s actually really sad. I mean, clearly it`s not like she`s having a blast. I mean, she`s vomiting in the back of taxis, and nightclubs, and in and out of rehab. And I don`t think she seems like a very happy soul.

BECK: I mean, we are seeing the destruction of so many people, one right after another.

GOSTIN: Right.

BECK: I mean, this is -- you know, it seems like everybody who`s famous is in rehab.

GOSTIN: Right.

BECK: When she cut her hair, somebody in the paparazzi said, "Why did you do it, Britney?" And she said, "You."

GOSTIN: Right, she`s blaming the paparazzi. I mean, there was also a report that she had a big fight with her mom, so it sort of may be a shout out to her mom that, you know, she was upset. You know, I think that the paparazzi certainly hound her. And I don`t think she`s had a normal day in the last few years.

BECK: Yes, you know, we`re just watching the video here of, you know, the paparazzi shooting. And, I mean, how do you survive in that? How does the average person survive with their life constantly like that?

GOSTIN: I don`t think the average person does, and I think that you become a little bit unsure, mentally unstable from all of that. I mean, you know, Princess Diana used to complain about feeling hunted. And it must feel like that after a while.

BECK: So what is the difference? I mean, is it just that you`re calling these people out? I mean, what`s the difference? You`ve got Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks isn`t like that.

GOSTIN: Right.

BECK: I mean, is it because you just -- you`re known to be unreliable or unstable, and so people watch you because they want to catch it. Is that what it is?

GOSTIN: Right, totally. I think it`s a little bit death watch in that way. And also, if you go out to nightclubs, that`s where the paparazzi hang out, so, you know, they`re going to photograph you. If you`re going to, I don`t know, to a deli every day and having coffee, it`s not very exciting. They`re going to stop following you after a while.

BECK: You know, what I found amazing today was on my radio program, and I was talking about it, and I said, I never thought I would get to a point where I thought, "Wow, Madonna looks stable."

GOSTIN: Right, a lot of celebrities look stable next to her. I mean, who ever thought that her ex-husband, Kevin Federline, would look like a stable parent? I never did.

BECK: Yes. Never would I have thought, "You know, let`s give the kids to Kevin."

GOSTIN: Right, exactly. And that`s what, you know, everyone is thinking.

BECK: Do you think that we are -- you know, kind of going back to that paparazzi line where she said, you know, "I cut my hair because of you," do we have any culpability in this? Do the paparazzi have -- you know, I`ve been thinking lately that we`re no different than Rome. This camera in front of me and, you know, the TV set in everybody`s living room, this is really the modern-day Coliseum.

GOSTIN: Totally. And also it`s the car accident on the side of the road, where you know you`re not supposed to look, but you can`t help looking, because it`s fascinating. It`s like watching a slow-motion car wreck in a way.

BECK: Yes. And so the next step, I would imagine, is either her death, God forbid, or her redemption. I mean, those are the only two chapters left.

GOSTIN: Completely. And, you know, really, I mean, it`s horrible. I mean, to think that she could die is just really awful. I mean, really I think everyone is hoping that she goes to rehab, that she gets her stuff together, and, you know, has a fabulous career, and is healthy, and looks after her kids.

BECK: Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We`ll be back with your e-mail in just a second.


BECK: All right. If you`ve watched this show for a while, you know I feel passionately about a lot of issues. But this isn`t a cause-related show. I`m not a boycott guy. I don`t say, you know, call your state senator, your local comptroller.

But there are a few issues that I care deeply about, and there are times to speak out. Now, I feel like Australia has been a very good friend to our country. They`ve been a strong ally in the war on terror. We share so much of a similar vision of the world. And I feel tonight like I need to warn them, ask them to stop the adoption of the bane of my existence, and that is the fluorescent light bulb.

Australia announced yesterday that it will begin to restrict the sale of classic light bulbs to help cut greenhouse gas emissions. Florida wants to do the same thing. Cuba, Venezuela, they`re already on the bandwagon, and surely there will be more followers to come.

It`s a horrible decision for several reasons. First of all, some people supposedly like fluorescent light bulbs, mostly because they last longer and use electricity, so they cost less over time. But having the powers that be force you to use them is, yes, another exercise in the anti- free market nonsense that the government should never get involved in.

Make the light bulbs better, and people will buy them. You won`t have to force people`s hands. It`s crazy, isn`t it?

And why are they doing this? Oh, yes, to stop those evil greenhouse gases. Well, if everything breaks right, it could cut Australia`s emissions by 4 million tons in five years. Wow, sounds like a lot, huh? Except when you figure out that it`s only .7 percent of what Australia produces in a year, and that`s three years ago. Their emissions have only increased since then.

And, remember, the U.N. also says that livestock does far more damage to the climate than humans and light bulbs combined. And cutting back on meat would have more immediate and drastic impact, wouldn`t it? So if you really want to help the environment, it`s not just the fluorescent lights. It`s hybrids and vegetarianism, as well. Sounds like a fun party we`re all headed towards.

But the main reason not to adopt fluorescent lights is that I believe they`re pure evil. Yes, they suck the creativity right out of your head. They give you that evil, corporate sterile office environment that only Mr. Burns from "The Simpsons" could possibly love. And I won`t be a part of it.

Oh, I don`t care if Florida is completely underwater specifically because of my light bulb choices. Nice people of Georgia, you deserve some nice waterfront property. I`m just saying. We`ll see you on the radio tomorrow and back here on TV.