Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Will Withdrawal in Iraq Lead to Genocide?; Do Divorced Dads Get a Raw Deal?; California to Ban Sale of Light Bulbs

Aired April 24, 2007 - 19:00   ET


GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, showdown on Capitol Hill.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: Winning this war is no longer the job of the American military.

BECK: Is this war fatigue or Bush fatigue?

And where`s George Clooney? Wouldn`t an early withdrawal from Iraq turn Iraq into another Darfur?

And hip-hop hysteria.


BECK: Are messages of pop poisoning our next generation? The answer is yes, and we`ll talk to CNN`s Anderson Cooper.

Plus, Alec Baldwin, and yes, father`s rights. He may not win dad of the year, but he`s shedding light on how divorced men are oftentimes railroaded by our court system.

All this and more, tonight.


BECK: I have a theory why everybody is sick about hearing about the Iraq war, including me. And here it is.

It is because the solution is easy to people like you and me. Either you think that we should have never gone there in the first place and we should get out immediately, or you`re like me and you think we should finally start fighting this with everything we`ve got. And you`re tired of hearing about it because you know the morons in Washington, D.C., will never apply either of those solutions.

Well, here`s the point tonight. If we withdraw from Iraq right now, it will be our country`s biggest moral scar since the Civil War. And here`s how I got there.

There is a showdown looming on Capitol Hill right now. It`s the Iraq spending bill. It`s about to hit the president`s desk. Now he wants more money for the war, and the Democratic leaders will surely give it to him, only in exchange for troop withdrawal that would begin October 1.

Here is what Harry Reid had to say.


REID: Seventy percent of Iraqi children are suffering from trauma- like nightmares, bed wetting, stuttering and fear that some say could paralyze an entire generation that we`ve been counting on to harvest the seeds of democracy.


BECK: This is unbelievable. I want to get back to this statement in particular here a second. But first, let many ask Harry this. This is why we`re pulling out?

Harry, you and all the other Democrats listen to me clearly. You`re setting this deadline, I believe, for three reasons. This is what you intended to do all along, which makes some of your earlier anti-timetable statements to the American people a big sack of crap. Statements like this, quote, "As far as setting a time line, that`s not a wise decision because it only empowers those who don`t want us there." Who said that? Look, it`s your picture, Harry Reid, January, 2005. Harry, you were either lying to us then or you`re lying to us now.

Second reason, you know the president is going to veto this bill. So you`re trying to throw a bone to some of your anti-war base and say, "Hey, look, we were just -- we`re just like you, you know, liberal hippy communists. We tried, but the president is a big, bad man and he won`t let us."

And three, the Democrats in Congress, I believe many of them, are just plain stupid. They can`t see the future. It`s a combination of all three. Meanwhile, they`re not only playing with the lives of our troops, but they are playing with the lives of the Iraqi people.

It is immoral for us to do what we`re doing right now, to abandon these people and let them get slaughtered after we started it. If we did that now, this would be America`s most shameful act of immorality since slavery. The blood of the Iraqi children will be on all of our hands.

Harry Reid, the Iraqi children are not wetting their pants because of us and the American soldiers. They are wetting their pants and having nightmares because of the lack of American soldiers protecting them.

Let me ask George Clooney. George, where are you? Forget about Darfur. It`s going to look like a picnic compared to what happens in Baghdad. You know what? Start drawing up the ads right now with the little Iraqi children holding a blood soaked teddy bear. Have the death toll numbers start to control, 100,000, 200,000, 500,000. Why? Because we left a vacuum there, and we abandoned these people.

I have never been more afraid for my country than I am when I see a Democrat say we should pull out. Am I the only one who sees an Iraqi genocide right around the corner? Am I the only one who sees that we would be responsible for it?

You know what? After 9/11, on my radio program, I said America, have no fear. The only thing that can defeat us is us. Well, the last thing I wanted was to be proven right, and that`s exactly what will happen if we leave Iraq and abandon those people now.

Here is what I know tonight. I know that if we pull out of Iraq before the job is done, like the Democrats want us to do, not only will it lead to genocide, but it will cause massive instability in the region and create a vacuum which will be filled by Iran.

We will not have a friend in the region for the rest of eternity, because no one can count on us, and those who did count on us will have been slaughtered. And the rest of the world, our enemies, will know exactly how to defeat us every single time.

Here`s what I don`t know. How do we, we the people who promised each other that we would learn the lessons from Vietnam and not let our politicians but our generals fight the war, how do we sleep at night? How are we doing it, knowing that genocide is around the congress?

Joining me now is Van Hipp, chairman of the American Defense International and former deputy assistant secretary of the Army.

Van, please tell me I`m wrong.

VAN HIPP, CHAIRMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: Unfortunately, Glenn, I believe you`re right. And I tell you, if we surrender now, I believe you will see a humanitarian catastrophe much like or even worse than the situation in Darfur right now, where there are five million people displaced internally in that country.

And the death count -- and the estimate right now beginning in a few months, they could be looking at 100,000 deaths a month.

BECK: Van, how could you possibly solve it if we leave? There`s no going back. There`s no going back. How could you possibly solve it when we can`t get Russia and China to send in peacekeeping troops to Darfur?

HIPP: Absolutely. And Ahmadinejad in Iran now they`ve got to be smiling when they see this so-called supplemental emergency bill funding coming in, because they would go into this eastern part of Iraq, and it would be -- it would be a catastrophe. What would happen to the Sunnis who would then be displaced?

And you`re right, they won`t even let in 3,000 humanitarian workers from the United Nations in Sudan right now, let alone the peacekeeping force of 17,000 people.

BECK: It is -- it is so frustrating to see somebody like Harry Reid, who I mean, I should have respect for Harry Reid, and I don`t. Somebody like Harry Reid to stand up and say the children are having nightmares.

It is not because of the American soldiers; it is because Sunnis are being shot by Shias and Shias are shooting Sunnis. It is a sectarian war, and it is only going to get worse. That`s why they`re wetting the bed at night, not because of us but a lack of what we`re doing. Am I wrong?

HIPP: Unfortunately, you`re right. And here`s what`s so sad, Glenn. I`ve talked to our troops. I`ve talked to our troops on the ground, and let me tell you, they want to come home, but guess what? They want to come home the right way, not under a white flag of surrender. And that`s what - - that`s the message that`s being communicated to our troops that we`re going to cut off our soldier`s supply lines.

BECK: Van, I thank you very much for your time, sir. I appreciate it. I wish -- you know what? I want to get somebody on here that I actually respect, that will say to me I`m wrong. I don`t want to be right on this, America.

Republican strategist Karen Hanretty.

Karen, let me go to Harry Reid. The hypocrisy of his statements of we can`t have a timeline and now we`ve got to have one. Beyond that, he says the war is lost. John McCain has said in the past that it`s immoral and I agree with him, immoral to send troops into something you know they`re going to lose.

How does anyone on either side of the aisle justify what`s happening right now and how do they sleep at night?

KAREN HANRETTY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGY: Yes, I`m surprised Harry Reid doesn`t wet his pants when he goes to bed, knowing full well that he is participating through policy in something that, if you believe everything he says, and if he believes everything he says, is fundamentally immoral.

John McCain showed great courage last year during -- when the surge was announced when he said if we know that this is a lost cause, and it`s immoral for us to send men and women into harm`s way to die.

If Harry Reid really believes we lost, he needs to do two things. He needs to justify to the American people why we should spend a dime more on this operation, rather than simply sending plane tickets to these men and women so they can get home. And then he needs to explain exactly how it is that what he`s doing is justified.

I mean, look, at the end of the day, I think that it`s almost like analogous to -- you`re going to talk about this later in your show -- a custody battle. We`ve got Republicans and Democrats who have lost sight of what is in the best interest of America, what is in the best interest of freedom. And they are fighting over custody of the military and fighting over custody of the votes for the 2008 election. And it`s destroying America.

BECK: It is so beyond destroying America. Listen to me, America, please listen to me. If you are somebody on the other side of the aisle and you say this is wrong and we`ve lost it and we should get out, then please, please take that stand and pull these guys back. We have family members over there. It is immoral to shed one more drop of blood for something like this.

And if you`re on the other side, then please stand up with everything you`re got. Karen, tell me. You`re a Republican. Why is the president not coming out guns a-blazing and say, "We`re going in, and we are going to crush these people who are causing this kind of mayhem"?

HANRETTY: I don`t know the answer to that, Glenn. I wish I did. I tell you, two things that need to happen.

First of all, and I`m going to give Harry Reid credit for this. You know, he recently criticized President Bush, saying, "Well, every time I go out there and say something, he just sends his attack dog, Dick Cheney."

President Bush should not be sending the vice president to attack the Democratic leadership. President Bush should show leadership himself, go out there and demand -- privately first, and if that doesn`t work, publicly that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the Democratic Party come sit down with him and they have got to reach some sort of resolution.

We are going to continue to fight full force or we are going to withdraw, and the American people, they can deal with either course of action.

BECK: Yes, they can.

HANRETTY: The further we drag this out, the less people will care, I think.

BECK: We don`t believe -- we don`t believe that either side actually cares about it anymore.


BECK: I want a bull horn moment from George Bush. Karen, thank you very much.

Coming up, Alec Baldwin`s phone rant to his daughter was clearly wrong, but it may have revealed some of the frustration that fathers feel in a custody battle. Tonight, we`ll explore the question, does our court system treat divorced fathers fairly? I can tell you right now, the answer is uh-uh.

Plus, San Francisco now refuses to enforce immigration laws because it`s a sanctuary city. You won`t play by the rules San Francisco. Maybe it`s time for the government to stop helping you build roads. That`s "The Real Story" tonight.

And Anderson Cooper here with a revealing interview on a rap star. He did it on "60 Minutes." This is a culture of death, and your kids just may be a part of it. It`s an interview you don`t want to miss, coming up.


BECK: What could possibly make a grown man dress up as Batman and scale, I don`t remember what it was, Buckingham Palace? The frustration with the court system and how guys, quite frankly, honestly America, are screwed in the court system when it comes to child custody.

Now, the -- the audiotape that came out with Alec Baldwin being a pig himself, talking to his 11- or 12-year-old girl, was shocking in and of itself. And I don`t want to make him sound like he was the good guy. But I got to tell you, it has shown the frustration of some fathers of getting screwed in our court system when it comes to custody.

And I wanted to bring a couple of people on. Wendy Murphy, she`s a former prosecutor and law professor at New England School of Law. And Michael McCormick, he is the executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

First of all, Michael, let me start with you. Even guys like Alec Baldwin who I think, you know, he`s -- there`s something up with Baldwin, but even guys like that, you don`t have to be like Alec Baldwin to get a raw deal in the court system, do you? When it comes to custody?

MICHAEL MCCORMICK, AMERICAN COALITION FOR FATHERS AND CHILDREN: No, what we`re seeing in custody situations today around the country is about 85 percent of the time, mothers end up with either custody of the children or primary residency of the children.

BECK: OK. And Wendy, you say, oh, that`s hogwash.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: No, I`m not sure it`s hogwash that mothers do get a disproportionate amount of visitation and custody, but that`s because they`re primary caregivers, you know, and another argument I might be saying. And that`s sexist, and it`s all about tying women down to the house and let`s not do that to them.

But I do think, disproportionately, the people who suffer the most in our family courts are -- no surprise here -- those with the least wealth and least power and least influence, and that tends to be the women and children, not the guys.

BECK: You know what?

MCCORMICK: Actually, I think the people who suffer the most in the family courts today are the children.

MURPHY: I just said that.

BECK: Well, you`re saying the ones with the least -- with the least power and money.

Let me -- let me say this. Michael, correct me if I`m wrong, and Wendy, help me out here. Help me understand the other side. I was in a situation. I`m a divorced guy. I have two children. I now have four. I would love to have had full-time custody of my children and had the situation reversed.

I knew that I would have to take my -- my ex to court to be able to have that happen. And there was no way I was going to do that, because when you`re in a court system, to be a guy and get the children, you have to prove that the woman shouldn`t have those children. And there was no way, A, I could have said that, and B,...

MURPHY: No, no, no. That`s not true. Actually, in most states, the presumption is both parents come to the table presumed equally capable. But the one who usually wins is the one who has a history of being home with the child. That tends not to be a guy like you, Glenn. That`s not prejudice against you. That means we want kids to have a parent around with whom they`ve had their preexisting, you know, lifestyle and common experience.

MCCORMICK: I can categorically say to you that, if fathers understood that if they were to go into court and they had been out being the primary breadwinner and those types of things, they would change if they knew that situation would cost them their children in a divorce situation.

And what we`re talking about is really, essentially, a systemic problem with the way the courts handle these child custody issues. There`s no reason why a parent`s divorce, particularly given the fact that our society, marriages don`t last in our society today. There`s no reason that a divorce should mean the end of a relationship between a parent and their children.

MURPHY: I agree with that. I think that`s absolutely right. But you know what? The problem is, what I`m seeing, and this is different from Michael`s experience, I do see guys sometimes get the shaft. I`ve seen it personally. People I know, men, good fathers getting the shaft. It does happen.

But I also see children who have been abused sexually by their fathers being placed in custodial situations with the abusers and mothers being punished for reporting the abuse.

BECK: Guys...

MURPHY: That`s very unacceptable.

MCCORMICK: You know what? I wouldn`t -- I wouldn`t actually take issue with that at all. I think that`s unacceptable, and I think we have to protect children. I would say that that situation goes in both directions. And if you actually look at the statistics with respect to neglect in our society today children, that is more of a female than a male issue.

But what we`re talking about here is let`s not make the rules for everyone by the exceptions. Most children in our society today are not sexually abused. Most children in our society, they are not abused. And we shouldn`t deny good parents a relationship with their children just because we`re...

MURPHY: I agree with that.

BECK: I have to tell you, guys. Let me tell the producers. Producer gods, we should do an hour on this, because every time I talk about this topic on radio, my phones are jammed for a week. We`ll get mail for two weeks just based on this.

Guys are getting the shaft. You have to sell your ex down the river to be able to have a shot of getting your kids, and it`s just not right. Decent guys won`t do it.

MURPHY: Glenn, that`s not true.

BECK: It is true, Wendy.

MURPHY: Can I just send your audience, by the way, to an important website.

BECK: Quick, quick, quick.

MURPHY: I`m affiliated with an organization. It`s called Lots of good scientific data there on this issue.

MCCORMICK: Well, let`s...

BECK: Guys, I got to break. I`ve got to break. Thanks. We`ll have you back on this topic. Wendy, Michael, thanks.


BECK: Honestly, America, I don`t understand how it can be over 70 degrees today in New York City and people still don`t see global warming. Oh, wait, no, it`s spring. That`s right, I forgot.

The debate over climate change is about to drive me insane. And next week we`re doing a one-hour special on it. It`s May 2. It`s a week from tomorrow. It`s called "Exposed: The Climate of Fear". This is the other side of the argument.

Now, here`s the latest nuttiness from California where insanity, I believe, is their specialty. As of 2012, the state government wants to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs. You know, the regular old-fashioned light bulbs. Of course, it`s crazy, but what would you expect from the state that gave us Jerry Brown?

Assemblyman Cameron Smyth is a Republican from Santa Clarita.

Assemblyman, tell me, are you telling me by 2012, I can go in and buy a gallon of Jack Daniels, cigarettes. I could probably get some medical marijuana, a shotgun and some shells, but I can`t buy an incandescent light bulb?

CAMERON SMYTH (R), ASSEMBLYMAN, SANTA CLARITA: Unfortunately, that is -- that is the proposal right now. Hopefully, it won`t get that far but currently that is -- that`s the proposal.

BECK: Has anybody talked about, for instance, migraines? I suffer from migraines. Fluorescent lights not good for migraines. I understand that they can bring on epileptic seizers in some. How do you just ban them and say...?

SMYTH: Well, first of all, I voted against the bill, so I kind of share your concern that I don`t know if this is really what we should be talking about in California with all the real issues that we have.

BECK: Please, you have immigration and health care and all of that stuff and your huge economy and it`s -- you`re going to be broke at any time. You`re closing hospitals down. Light bulbs is exactly what you should be talking about.

SMYTH: Don`t forget that we`re about to -- in about 30 days we`re going to have to release a bunch of prisoners into our communities because of the overcrowding prison population, and we`re going to release people early. So don`t forget about that, as well.

But you`re right, we should -- we`re spending our time right now talking about banning light bulbs.

BECK: Assemblymen, I mean, no disrespect, look, California -- I was just in San Diego. Well, San Diego is a nice little bastion of sanity. San Diego is nice. I love California. I love San Francisco. It`s a beautiful town.

But I have to tell you, I think in about two weeks of living there, I would be praying for the Ebola virus: "Please, dear Lord, just melt my organs. I can`t get out of this place fast enough." How do sane people live in California?

SMYTH: You know, sometimes it can be frustrating, particularly when you`re here in Sacramento. But you know, there is a solid group of people, Republicans and Democrats alike, who are in the capital trying to do the -- a good job for the state and really try to focus on the issues that really matter. It`s just unfortunate that sometimes bills like this or bills to ban spanking get introduced and end up being the headline grabbers.

BECK: Don`t start on the -- don`t start on the bills in California that don`t make sense, because I`ve only got about 30 more seconds, my friend.

SMYTH: That`s right. All right.

BECK: I -- do you really think that this will pass? This is the first step. Do you really think it will pass?

SMYTH: You know, it -- it will be interesting. It got out of the assembly utilities committee with just the right amount numbers of votes to get out. It got the seven votes it needed. Some members didn`t -- didn`t vote for it.

So it will be interesting to see if it works its way through the assembly and the senate and if Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign it into law.

BECK: Assemblyman, thank you very much for a little piece of sanity out of California in you.

SMYTH: Thank you.

BECK: Quick programming reminder: on Wednesday, May 2, our special. It is an hour on this very debate, called "Exposed: The Climate of Fear." There is another side that you`re not being told. Trust me, don`t miss this special next Wednesday.


BECK: All right, welcome to "The Real Story."

I want you just for a second to try to imagine that you`re a police officer in a dangerous, crime-riddled city. Got it? One night, you and your partner pull over a suspected crack dealer, and he takes off running. Your partner gets out of the car and catches him. A scuffle ensues, and the crack dealer ends up hurting in the hospital.

Next day, the state opens up an investigation on your partner. Following week, virtually the same thing happens to another cop in another part of town, and again the state starts to investigate. Now, each time, your boss, the chief of police, turns his back on your fellow cops. Instead of standing up and supporting them and giving them the same "innocent until proven guilty" standard afforded to the criminals, he stays silent. He lets the attorneys and the media just feast on them.

Let me ask you a question: Would you as a cop on that same force really be willing to go out there every night, night after night, and put your life on the line to enforce the law when you know even your chief won`t have your back if anything happens? I`ve got to be honest with you: I wouldn`t. I`d never chase a crack dealer ever again. I`d put in my shift. I`d write a few parking tickets. I`d go home. It just wouldn`t be worth it.

The real story tonight: That`s exactly what`s happened with our border agents. The agents Ramos, Compean, Hernandez, all who are rotting in prison for doing their jobs, all the way to the Agent David Sipe, who was finally cleared for using excessive force after living nearly seven years as a convict. Border Patrol leaders have proven over and over again where their allegiance lies, and it`s not with the agents. It`s with the agenda of the administration.

Now, the frustration and the lack of morale that has caused this finally has boiled over. The National Border Patrol Council, which represents about 11,000 employees, has unanimously now voted "no confidence" against Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar. They say he`s become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the administration`s political agenda. No!

They point to 10 specific examples, including the fact that border agents are now prohibited from pursuing vehicles that flee from them, even if they know the cars are fully jammed with drugs.

Our agents may never, ever admit it, because they`d be fired if they did, but we`ve taken away every incentive they have for them to do their job to the best of their ability. After all, why go out of your way, pull a car over, or chase a drug runner when it`s clear that your reward is more likely to be prison time than a promotion?

T.J. Bonner is the president of the National Border Patrol Council. T.J., have you ever had personally a conversation with any agent that says, "Look, T.J., man, I`m just putting in my time. I`m just keeping my head low"?

T.J. BONNER, PRES., NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: I have. And I can`t give their names for obvious reasons, Glenn, but there are many agents out there who are simply afraid to do their job.

BECK: Why wouldn`t you?

BONNER: It`s a rational response. It really is.

BECK: OK. I heard the president a couple of weeks ago give a speech, and he said, "Young Americans, you need to serve your country. Be a Border Patrol agent." I about swallowed my tongue when I heard that. I thought, "Who are you fooling? Why would you ever do that?"

Did you have a hard time not laughing when you heard that and thinking -- I mean, because I don`t even know why we have any border agents at this point, how they have even have the morale to show up for work.

BONNER: He sounded absolutely desperate. Well, bear in mind, he has a target goal of 18,800 Border Patrol agents on the force by the end of December of next year.

BECK: You`re going to have to release some from prison to keep those numbers up.

BONNER: Well, we`re losing 1,500 a year right now. And so far, since May of last year when they started this big push, they have added a grand total of 650, and they have 5,800 more to go.

BECK: OK. Hang on. What did you say? How many are we losing a year? How many are quitting their jobs?

BONNER: 1,500.

BECK: Is that dramatically different from what it has been in the past years?

BONNER: It`s quite a bump over last year. Last year, they said attrition was down at 4 percent. It`s up to 12 percent.

BECK: You know what? I want to do a story just on that. That`s an absolute outrage. That shows you the people on the front line know what games are being played. T.J., thank you very much.

BONNER: Thank you.

BECK: Appreciate your time.

Now, you may know Mayor Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco. He`s the guy who overruled the California Supreme Court on same-sex marriages. You may know him for that. You may know him as the mayor who signed into law the first-ever city ban on plastic bags. Or you just may know him as the guy who slept with his best friend`s wife and then said he was an alcoholic, although I think we should cut him some slack on that. I mean, what, are you going to sleep with some stranger`s wife? That would be crazy.

What I remember Mayor Gavin Newsom for, and I will never, ever forget him for this, is what he said this last Sunday.


GAVIN NEWSOM, MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO: If we don`t cooperate, we`re a sanctuary city. We don`t cooperate with the federal government as it relates to these raids, and we work to raise awareness that we are a sanctuary city, one of a number in the United States.


BECK: Hey, I heard that, and I snapped. San Francisco, you know what? I`ve been telling you for months, America, that illegal immigration is creating a new civil war in this country. It`s pitting neighbor against neighbor, city against city. But until now, a city has never openly challenged its own federal government and said, "We will not cooperate with you."

San Francisco, you should be ashamed of yourself. Like anybody in San Francisco watches this show. I apologize.

You want to openly defy federal law and shelter illegal aliens? Great, great, join the club. You want to ban the military from recruiting in your schools? No problem, freak people. You want to ban guns and plastic bags? Whatever floats your boat.

But the real story is tonight is that, as long as San Francisco continues to act like they`re an independent country, then we should treat them like one. If I were president today, San Francisco, you`d be begging for a new Lee Harvey Oswald, because, read my lips, no more federal funding for you!

We sent you over $7.6 billion a couple of years ago, and I`d want every blue cent of it back. If you want us to pay for your rogue immigration policy, you know what? You`re getting no more money for roads, no more education, no more postal service, no more federal courts, Coast Guard, FBI, FAA and, quite frankly, I`d personally uproot all of the redwood trees from our national park and move them to some place like Utah.

You don`t like our immigration policy, San Francisco? Great. Send your playboy mayor to Congress and let him lobby for a change. You don`t like the way the war is going? Great, congratulations. We have a representative government, and your congresswoman happens to be the speaker of the House. Tell her to pull the troops out right now.

If you don`t like the way this country`s laws are, then you work to change them or you vote to secede from the union and, quite frankly, do it! You`d make me happy. No hard feelings, really. I`d be more than happy to still come and visit Alcatraz when it`s owned by Venezuela.

California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, how are you, sir?

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, I was just listening to your oratory. It`s pretty good, coming from Southern California, the way I do.

BECK: What kind of understanding do they have of rights and responsibility? They`re part of this system; they have a responsibility to the rest of us.

ROHRABACHER: Well, let me just note to you that these people are, of course, self-righteous, and they look at themselves as being humanitarian. Let`s go right to the heart of that issue.

I agree with all the other things you said, but let`s go to their own posturing as being humanitarian. They are a city that`s going to, what, give refuge to people who are here illegally? Why are they doing it? Why is it that giving refuge and actually providing sanctuary for someone who has cut in line, why is that a good thing?

What they`re doing then is not only insulting, but assaulting everyone overseas who have been waiting patiently in line in order to come here legally. Why are they helping the people who cut in line around all of the good people who have waited in order to -- you know, they were going to fulfill the law. They were going to abide by our laws. They`re waiting oversees, and San Francisco has decided they don`t care about those people. They care about the people who have cheated and come in here illegally.

BECK: You know...

ROHRABACHER: They have no moral basis for their decisions. This sanctimonious morality on their part is false from day one, from first premise.

BECK: Here`s what bothers me so much. First of all, you have a responsibility, when the federal government says cooperate, you cooperate. If not, you work to change the law.

Second thing is, you don`t change the law by just doing it. You know what? I`m a gun carrier. I believe in the right to bear arms and carry a weapon with me. In New York City, I can`t carry a weapon, because insane Bloomberg is running this town, so I can`t get a license. Do I just carry one because I disagree with the law? No! I abide by the law and work within the system and the framework to change the nuts people that are running it.

What part of that don`t they understand in California?

ROHRABACHER: Well, obviously, again, their moral basis for their decision is wrong, and the practical basis is wrong. They, by suggesting that they can exercise authority in this area of someone who has come into the country legally or illegally, what they are doing is undermining the ability of the federal government to do its job, undermining every Border Patrol agent.

There`s not one Border Patrol agent who isn`t being undermined by the mayor of San Francisco, who these people now -- they know, if we can get past this Border Patrol agent, we`re going to find refuge and sanctuary in San Francisco.

BECK: You know what, Dana? I`m going to send you some airfare. You`ve got to get out of there, man. I don`t know how you`re going to survive. That`s "The Real Story" tonight. Back in a second with Anderson Cooper.



BECK: And the rap that`s coming out now far more offensive, far more insidious than anything Don Imus ever said. If you look at the lyrics of rap artists, it`s really disgusting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Glenn Beck, y`all.

BECK: This is why I`m hot. Catch me on the block, every other day, another bitch, another drop.


BECK: I`m a be pimping. I don`t be slipping. When it come down to these hos, I don`t love them. We don`t cuff them.


BECK: Man, that`s just the way it goes. I`m a chick magnet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I get a level?

BECK: Anything`s fine. I`m bagging it. Is anybody uncomfortable yet?



BECK: That last part was an adlib because I think I make most of America very, very uncomfortable a lot of the times. Don Imus used the word ho, got fired. Rappers use "ho" all the time. They get rich from it. When it comes to racially charged language, I mean, America knows there`s a double standard. Rap music mogul Russell Simmons shocked some this morning by suggesting the urban music community lead the way by keeping some offensive words out of song lyrics. Watch this.


RUSSELL SIMMONS, RAP MUSIC MOGUL: I`m suggesting that the hip-hop community go ahead of your mainstream shelves, where you do use the d-word and the h-word on every other mainstream channel. We`ll take the lead. We`ll take those words out of our lyrics for radio and for television.


BECK: I mean, that`s ridiculous. CNN anchor and CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Anderson Cooper filed a story that it was shocking and horrifying that I saw on Sunday on "60 Minutes." Hi, Anderson. How are you, sir?


BECK: Bring me up to speed. Russell Simmons is only suggesting that they take them out of the lyrics for radio.

COOPER: Three words, bitch, ho and the n-word, but for the so-called clean versions of the songs, meaning the versions which are played on a mainstream radio station. You can still get the unedited versions elsewhere.

BECK: I mean, that`s the biggest load of garbage I think I`ve ever heard. I mean, how does that help anything?

COOPER: It`s also interesting he`s claiming that hip-hop is going to lead the way that on every other mainstream channel they all use those words. I`m not sure how many times you use those words, but I don`t think those words are commonly used.

BECK: No, I use them generally just around my kids.

COOPER: Right, yes, I`m sure.

BECK: You did this story on "60 Minutes." And I want to play a little bit. This is Cam`ron, who...

COOPER: "Killa Cam."

BECK: "Killa Cam." I`m down with him. This is a little clip from "60 Minutes." Watch this.


COOPER: If there is a serial killer living next door to you, though, and you know that person is, you know, killing people, would you be a snitch if you called police and told him?

CAM`RON, MUSICIAN: If I knew the serial killer was living next door to me?


CAM`RON: No, I wouldn`t call and tell anybody on him, but I`d probably move, but I`m not going to call and be like, "You know, the serial killer is in 4-E.


BECK: You`re sitting there. You`re watching this. How did you keep your mouth from doing this?

COOPER: Well, you know, I kind of knew he was going to say that. It didn`t quite surprise me. After doing research on this whole idea of stop snitching, which is this message being spread by rappers in inner-city communities, and this message which has gotten hold and has, at every level of society in these communities, anybody can tell you what it means to be a snitch.

And what it means to be a snitch -- it`s not what it used to mean, which was a criminal ratting out another criminal in order to get a lesser sentence. Being a snitch is an eyewitness, anyone who has seen a crime, a burglary, a rape, a robbery, a murder, anyone who talks to police is considered a snitch.

BECK: Devil`s advocate: Is it caused by fear?

COOPER: No doubt, there`s fear in these communities of retribution, of, you know, someone getting out of jail, and no doubt about it. It`s also partly caused by a distrust of the police. They don`t think -- they simply don`t trust the police.

But it goes much deeper than that. It is now a belief, a moral code that it is wrong to talk to police. And it`s not everyone. This is only in some segments in the inner city. There is still time to change. I just talked to Geoffrey Canada, renowned African-American educator, just today. He`s going to be on my program tonight. And he says, look, there are still people -- we can still change this. It`s not so engrained, but it`s going to take time, and it`s going to take a lot of work.

BECK: So how much of that was, not staged for you, but staged for consumption? Do you think he really believes this kind of stuff?

COOPER: He believes it. I mean, he says, look, this is a business decision. He knows, and he`s right about this.

BECK: Let me ask you this. Does he have a soul? Does he know what he`s doing at all? Or is this really to the core of...

COOPER: I think he knows, you know, deep down that this is kind of -- it kind of doesn`t make sense, that if no one testifies, if no one comes forward and talks to police, people get away with murder. I think he knows that.

But he also knows that, if he does go forward -- and he was shot. He was shot through both arms in front of his whole entourage, his bodyguards, and he`s never talked to police about who pulled the trigger on him. And he said, "Look, if I told police who did it, if I saw who did it and I told them, no one would come to my shows. No one would buy my records." And you know what? The sad thing is, he`s right about that.

BECK: Is there anybody who has street cred -- I`m sorry, America, for making you uncomfortable again -- that has street cred...

COOPER: You`re so down you can use that phrase.

BECK: I know. I mean, because, honestly, Russell Simmons, you know, legend, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but it`s kind of like Bob Seger going to the Killers now and telling them about rock `n` roll. It`s great. "Night Moves" is great, Bob, but, hello, welcome to 2007.

Is there anybody with real street cred that they would listen to, that these rappers would listen to and go, "OK, yes, you know what? We do want to move in another direction"?

COOPER: The only people with street cred would be the CEOs of the companies who are paying their checks. This is something which companies - - everyone I talked to say, look, if you want this to change, you can`t really even go to the rappers, because they`re making business decisions. And, yes, it would be great if a Jay-Z and a 50 Cent decided, you know what? I`m not going to talk about snitches. I`m not going to label other people snitches anymore.

But, frankly, that wouldn`t be enough. It has to be a decision made by corporations, because those are the ones ultimately who are deciding this kind of stuff.

BECK: OK, Anderson Cooper. Don`t forget, check out Anderson Cooper tonight at 10:00 p.m. on CNN. Back in just a minute. Thanks.


BECK: All right. It`s not going to come as a surprise to some, but on this program sometimes we do make mistakes, and I do try to correct them. Here is a clip from last night`s program.


BECK: Sheryl Crow then came out -- and I think this is insane -- she came out and said, "Well, I think we should just use" -- and I`m not kidding, America -- "one square of toilet paper per sitting."


BECK: OK, look, I agree with Sheryl Crow on approximately zero things that she has ever said. However, later that night, as I was going home, I kept thinking, "That has got to be a joke." But the problem is, legitimate news sources, like the BBC, were reporting it as legitimate, so I believed the hype. I didn`t really do my homework on it. But my spider senses kept tingling, and so I looked for what the media, you know, didn`t bother with: context.

When you read it the way she wrote it last week, you realize it`s clearly a joke. She said about her one-square of toilet paper idea, that when she presented the idea to her younger brother, his idea was, well, how about just washing out the one square when you`re done? Does that really sound serious? Does it sound like it should be reported as a legitimate news story? She also in the same thing proposed a new line of clothing where you blow your nose into your sleeve, but the sleeve is detachable.

You know, at first I was really annoyed at myself for just blindly believing the media reports. What is wrong with me? Then I realized, you know what? It`s actually deeper than that. To be perfectly honest, the reason why I believed this is because I honestly thought she was that insane.

I have an opinion of Hollywood types and activists and musicians that is so low that I assumed they`d all be that stupid. But that`s exactly my complaint with the far left when they talk about conservatives. They don`t even try to figure out what point we`re trying to make. We`re all just put into this category of hatemongering, racist, war-lovers.

That`s the equivalent of what I did last night with Sheryl Crow. And I made that mistake because I wanted to believe that she was nuts, just like many in her circle wants to believe that Rush or Hannity or myself are all evil monsters that just want to starve little children to death.

So I offer a full apology, sincerely. Sorry, Sheryl Crow, for believing the media and not giving you the benefit of doubt. I officially offer the penance of an entire segment on my program, uninterrupted, for you to talk about whatever global warming stuff that you want. I won`t say anything. I promise, I won`t even end the segment with, "Is that a joke, too?" I won`t do it.

E-mail me at From New York, good night.