Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Immigration Reform a Political Matter; Will Scandals Affect Election Chances?; Tensions Rise Between U.S., Russia Over Missile Defense; Study Disproves 5-Second Rule

Aired June 05, 2007 - 19:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, McCain and Romney are at it again, over the immigration bill.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Pandering for votes on this issue, while offering no solution to the problem, amounts to doing nothing.

SMERCONISH: But will all the trash talk translate to votes?

Plus, when Russia`s leader gets huffy and threatens to point nuclear weapons at Europe, the president responds.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The Cold War`s over. It ended.

SMERCONISH: Why Vladimir Putin says it`s just beginning to get cold again.

And Michael Moore visits Oprah for a love fest about his latest controversial documentary.

OPRAH WINFREY, TALK SHOW HOST: It`s the kind of film that I think it`s going to be eye-opening.

SMERCONISH: All this and more tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SMERCONISH: Good evening. I`m Michael Smerconish from Philly, in tonight for Glenn Beck, who`s continuing his "Inconvenient Tour".

As the Republican presidential candidates square off in their latest debate, much of the squabbling over perhaps the biggest issue is already taking place on the campaign trail. It`s about what to do with the 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants already in our country, and it`s getting ugly.

Here`s the point tonight. I say fix the border immediately. Then we can catch our breath and worry about what to do with those 10 to 12 million illegals.

And here`s how I get there. Senator John McCain, who`s under fire from conservatives over his support for the immigration reform bill, once again took an aggressive stance during a press conference yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: It`s a hard problem. I understand that. But the choice is between doing something imperfect but effective and achievable, and doing nothing.

I would hope that any candidate for president would not suggest doing nothing. To want the office so badly that you would intentionally make our country`s problems worse might prove you can read a poll or take a cheap shot, but it hardly demonstrates presidential leadership.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Governor Mitt Romney, the clear target of McCain`s words, wasted no time in hitting back, saying, quote, "The immigration approach proposed by senators McCain and Kennedy fall short of a workable solution to an important problem."

Now I consider John McCain to be a friend, but in this instance I`ve got to side with Romney.

Consider this: as Pat Buchanan wrote in his book, "State of Emergency", there are at least as many illegal aliens now in the United States as all English, Irish, and Jewish immigrants who came to America in 400 years. Every month, the Border Patrol apprehends about 150,000 illegal aliens, more than the number of troops in Iraq. And one in every 12 of those breaking into the United States illegally has a rap sheet.

And this doesn`t just affect border states either. Take a look at what`s going on around the country, thousands of miles from any border.

In Allentown, Pennsylvania, the city council is considering a referendum that would enable the training of police officers to enforce federal immigration laws.

In Moorestown, New Jersey, there`s a similar effort.

In Elsmere, Delaware, where registering a vehicle requires Social Security numbers, the city council has now adopted an ordinance to combat illegal immigrants driving cars without state tags.

And of course, in South Philadelphia, Joe Vento, proprietor of Geno`s Steaks, is on the receiving end of a discrimination complaint because he`s got a sign posted in his window that says "Speak English."

Our borders are porous. Our quality of life is decreasing, and Congress won`t act. The closest they`ve come was to approve 700 miles of fencing but without any funding. This forces mayors and other local officials to do the government`s job for them.

And in the meantime, some of those speaking out against illegal immigration get labeled as hate mongers and bigots. Not only is that incredibly sad, but it also chills debate.

Look, I`m for enforcing the law. And there`s nothing bigoted about that.

So how will all of this play out in the debate and throughout the campaign? Joining me now is Jonathan Allen from "Congressional Quarterly".

And Jonathan, I want to ask, why do the proponents of this bill feel the rush to get it all done in one shot? In other words, why not seal the borders, catch our breath, and then have some more discussion and debate as to what to do with the 10 to 12 million who are already here illegally?

JONATHAN ALLEN, "CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY": I think the short answer to that is that the votes probably aren`t there for that right now. That, in order to get votes from the Democratic side and even from some Republicans, you`re going to have to have a solution that does more than just close off the border.

That said, the way this immigration bill is structured, the border closing is the first step. I think they were very careful to try to put it in those terms, that that`s the X step, the guest workers are the Y step. And of course, these controversial Z visas are the Z step.

SMERCONISH: But I don`t understand. Who would vote against a piece of legislation that simply says, we`re beefing up the border, we`re going to do something about what`s going on in Mexico, we`re going to have increased patrols in Canada. In an up or down vote on that matter, who could say, "I`m not for that"?

ALLEN: I don`t know that you`re going to get an up or down vote on that matter, partially because I think the Democratic leadership feels, and I think this was true of the Republican leadership in the last Congress, that -- that ultimately, in order to have comfort on both sides and to have support on body sides, that you`re going to have to have something that does -- does more things than just close off the border.

SMERCONISH: How is this playing out for John McCain in his home state of Arizona? I`ve seen the polling data nationwide. But in Arizona, with a real front-line problem with war on illegal immigration?

ALLEN: This is an issue for John McCain. His home state colleague, Jon Kyl, has said that he`s gone home. And he was just re-elected, and he knows that he`s moving against wishes of some of the people in Arizona.

Kyl was against last year`s immigration bill and is for this year`s version, which has moved a little bit to the right of where last year`s was a little bit more pleasing to conservatives, I think, than last year`s version. But there`s no doubt that there are a lot of people in Arizona that don`t like this three-pronged approach.

SMERCONISH: I have to say that I respect John McCain even when I disagree with him, and I disagree with him on two important issues. An exit strategy relative to Iraq, and now the amnesty for the illegal aliens.

But there`s something that is admirable about McCain, because the guy stands his ground. In other words, he`s not putting his finger to the wind. He`s not one of those blow-dried politicians who`s taken a poll and then decided what his position will be. Does that pay off for him in the presidential race?

ALLEN: Well, I think that`s one of the things he`s really got to hang on to at this point, that if he can prove to Republican voters that he`s going to be a leader, that that`s one of the qualities that he can hang his hat on. Because there are a lot of issues where Republican voters have had problems with him, including this immigration issue.

I think some don`t like what he did on campaign finance reform a couple of years ago. So when you look at the totality of the issues for McCain, his -- his ability to project himself as as leader is going to be important to him remaining viable in this contest.

SMERCONISH: We`ll see how it plays out. Hey, John, thank you very much for being here.

ALLEN: Thanks for having me, Michael.

ANNOUNCER: This is GLENN BECK.

SMERCONISH: Meanwhile, as the candidates debate, both parties have some members they`d like to forget. Vice President Cheney`s former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was sentenced to 30 months in prison today for his role in the Valerie Plame scandal.

Democratic Congressman Bill Jefferson was indicted yesterday evening on 16 charges relating to a long-running investigation into bribery, racketeering, obstruction of justice and money laundering.

Both instances smack of abuse of power. And the question is, at height of election season, how will these respective parties handle this political baggage?

Joining me now, Democratic strategist Scott Levinson.

Scott, explain to me first the politics of a potential Scooter Libby pardon.

SCOTT LEVINSON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, obviously if Scooter Libby gets pardoned it`s one more thing that George Bush is going to have hanging over his head.

The Republicans are vulnerable on so many issues: on the debt, on foreign policy issues dealing with Iraq. This will just give the Democrats one more thing in their arsenal to go after them on.

SMERCONISH: But Fred -- Fred Thompson apparently, and he`s about to get into this race, Thompson has already staked out the territory that he thinks he`s deserving of the pardon.

LEVINSON: Well, that might be Thompson`s position, but I don`t understand as the growing concern about integrity in government, in this age of the philosopher kings where Corzines and Bloombergs are running for public office, how a guy can stand by someone who committed the crime that Scooter Libby did and say he should be pardoned.

SMERCONISH: I`m not -- I`m not for giving him a pardon, by the way. I mean, my view is that the man lied under oath, according to the jury. We`ve got to honor that jury verdict.

But you know, those jurors seem to have given some cover for a pardon, because they themselves said they wouldn`t be offended by it.

LEVINSON: But the fact is, Michael, I`m with you. With growing concern about integrity in government, and these elected officials being so tempted by these issues over time, if we don`t clamp down and come down hard on these guys, it`s going to be something that we`re questioning for years to come.

SMERCONISH: All right. Let`s shift now to your side of the aisle. Congressman Jefferson, the fellow who had all the cash in his -- in his freezer. What`s remarkable to me is that he was re-elected by his home constituency after the discovery of that money. What does that tell us?

LEVINSON: It tells us that often people are more concerned with people who bring home the bacon, than charges that might be applied to them. You certainly have some districts where people are generally liked by the people that elect them. And often the charges that are put on them are not -- are believed not proven yet. And if they`re not proven, people are going to stand by their elected officials.

SMERCONISH: Should he resign today?

LEVINSON: I don`t have the charges, but they`re awful, awful damning charges. They`re charges that are going to put him in -- ostracized by the Democratic leadership. This is something Democrats certainly have to come down hard on him for.

But the fact is this is one of those issues that the Republicans love. It`s a distraction from the national issues that we`re really facing.

SMERCONISH: What`s sad about it is that he`s not just a Democrat; he`s a Democrat from the state of Louisiana. And those folks need Katrina relief and funding. And consequently, for him now to take a tumble and have to leave office, the folks who can least afford to get hurt are probably going to get more injured.

LEVINSON: You`re absolutely right, Michael. And to some extent he was responsible for bringing home help to people who needed it most.

And you know, anytime you find an elected official with $90,000 in their freezer, you have to take real problems with this. This is a catastrophe. But again, it`s a distraction from the issues of the day and foreign policy problems that are really plaguing this country.

SMERCONISH: I`ve got some Milky Ways in my freezer. I still like to eat them when they were frozen. You may have done that when you were a kid. I don`t know. We still do it at my house.

But the cash, it`s the last place -- we don`t have any, but it`s the last place you`d find it.

LEVINSON: Rarely do I find it in my freezer either.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Scott. I appreciate it.

LEVINSON: A pleasure.

SMERCONISH: Coming up, tension rises between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin over the planned missile defense system. There`s a definite chill in the air, but are we looking at another Cold War?

And there`s nothing cooler than Google Earth, except when it`s used to plan terror attacks. How the recent JFK plot raises questions about the technology`s security and your safety.

Plus, Michael Moore pays a visit to Oprah. It`s sure to be an absolute love fest. Glenn Beck will join me to share what will no doubt be equally passionate thoughts on the subject. You don`t want to miss that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: A victory for broadcasting today as an appeals court rules it`s just fine to accidentally drop an "F"-bomb on live television. Why that decision may be more about politics than common sense. Glenn Beck joins us in just a couple of moments with his thoughts.

But first, a lot of people say that one of the reasons we`ve become so divided and so polarized as a nation is because we`re missing a common enemy. That`s a common enemy to bomb against.

Sure, Iran`s scary, and I`d argue that defeating radical Islam is something we should all be united upon. But neither of them seems to have the same sort of evil empire appeal as the old Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Well, the people who miss those days may just be in luck, because tensions between the United States and Russia are once again heating up. On the eve of the G-8 summit in Germany, where presidents Putin and Bush will meet face to face, Bush addressed Putin`s concerns about the U.S. installing a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Cold War`s over. It ended. The people of the Czech Republic don`t have to choose between being a friend of the United States or a friend with Russia. You can be both.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Putin disagreed and has upped the ante by warning that Russia will point missiles at European countries if the U.S. continues with its plans.

Bush is right; the Cold War is over. But that doesn`t mean a new one can`t begin.

Ricky Ellison is president and founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. And by the way, he`s also the winner of two Rose Bowls and a college football national championship with USC, and three Super Bowls with the San Francisco 49ers.

Ricky, how do you go from the Rose Bowl to, you know, the nuclear bowl?

RICKY ELLISON, PRESIDENT/FOUNDER, MISSILE DEFENSE ADVOCACY ALLIANCE: A good professor at USC and a couple of knee surgeries put me in that direction.

SMERCONISH: But Ronald Reagan is the guy who, you know, lit a fire within you, right? Became an inspiration of sorts?

ELLISON: He did. Twenty-five years ago before I got drafted I heard that speech. He asked for the brightest and the best to come up with a concept to save the world and help us deal with ballistic weapons.

SMERCONISH: How far has the technology advanced? Because frankly, I think a lot of us took our eye off the ball since the `80s.

ELLISON: Yes, we have a deployed missile defense system today protecting the United States of America. It`s a small one. We have about 17 ground-based interceptors up in Alaska and in California.

We also have several dozen or so Aegis ships with that capability. And we have Patriot systems around the world. So we do have a limited missile defense system that can defeat very simple threats.

SMERCONISH: Some would say that, you know, in a world of prioritizing, those threats against the United States, that the Soviet Union, the old Soviet Union is much further down on that totem pole than radical Islam, and we should be focusing our resources against radical Islam. What thoughts does Ricky Ellison have on that?

ELLISON: Well, we are. You`re right. We are concerned with the threats to our armed forces and allies and friends overseas. These systems today are particularly effective against that. They need to grow and prosper.

We have longer-range systems that will counter and deter countries like North Korea and Iran. We need missile defense, most -- most importantly for the fact that it can dissuade and deter other countries and other entities from developing and putting funding and supporting ballistic missile offensive capability.

SMERCONISH: Ricky, what do you think the reaction will be from western European leaders to this situation at the G-8 summit?

ELLISON: Well, I think that populations, certainly, of Czech Republic and Poland will be much more receptive to an American security relationship and missile defense, because of the remarks of President Putin.

This is clearly not about missile defense, as the system that we`re talking about is ten defensive missiles that don`t have the capability to knock off any Russian ballistic missiles. This is more about his position, which should be Putin`s position, on not liking the U.S. relationships with former Soviet bloc countries.

SMERCONISH: And what do you make of that relationship between President Putin and President Bush? I mean, the president of -- our president has extended an invitation to Putin to go to Kennebunkport during the course of the summer.

ELLISON: Yes, we have -- I know the government at our highest level, military levels, have offered full access and openness for our missile defense system.

It is also remarkable that we have a deployed missile defense system up in Alaska with two radars and 17 about interceptors that are very close to the Russian border, more close than the proposed sites in Poland and Czech Republic, and we haven`t heard any criticism or resolve or political propaganda on those sites.

SMERCONISH: Ricky, I think your group does good work. Remind me of that web site. Because I think a lot of people will want more information on our missile defense system.

ELLISON: Sure. It`s MissileDefenseAdvocacy.org.

SMERCONISH: All right. You get a signed football if you logon and you make inquiry. I`m not sure if it`s a 49er football or a USC football.

ELLISON: It`s a kinetic energy football.

SMERCONISH: There you go. Ricky, thanks for being here.

ELLISON: Thanks, Mike.

SMERCONISH: Appreciate it very much.

ELLISON: Appreciate it. Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Coming up, would you eat food off the floor? No? Well, OK. What if it were there for less than five seconds? Maybe? I put the five-second rule myth to the test.

Plus, with Google Earth you can literally see your house from space, which seems kind of cool. But guess what: terrorists can see it, as well. Has this technology become a tool for terror? Don`t miss tonight`s "Real Story".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: There`s an important recent study out called "Residence Time and Food Contact Time Effects on Transfer of Salmonella Typhimurium from Tile, Wood and Carpet".

What exactly does that mean? Well, it`s the scientific term for the five-second rule. You know, the five-second rule, the rule that says you can eat a piece of food if it drops on the floor as long as you grab it and eat it within five seconds?

As a man with four children, I can tell you in my house we are practitioners of the five-second rule.

Well, now research is proving that this urban myth may be an urban myth. Professor Paul Dawson has been scientifically studying the so-called five-second rule at no less than Clemson.

Professor Dawson, tell me about your experiment.

PAUL DAWSON, PROFESSOR, CLEMSON UNIVERSITY: Yes, sir. Pleasure to that with you again, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

DAWSON: We have an undergraduate research team that studied the five- second rule. We inoculated tile like you said, carpet and wood, with salmonella, then let it rest there for zero to 24 hours, and then during that period dropped baloney and or bread on that surface for varying times and picked them up 5, 30, and 60 seconds.

What we found was that there was really no difference in the contact time, that if it was 5 seconds it picked up salmonella, if it was 30 seconds, there was no difference. We did find the longer the longer the bacteria was on the surface, that it was some decrease in its presence. But the five-second rule, as you just said, was probably a myth.

SMERCONISH: You`re driving a stake through my heart and through the hearts of families across this country. Let me ask you: are there some surfaces that are worse than others?

DAWSON: Well, in our study, again, the carpet turned out to transfer less bacteria. Of course, thinking about dropping food on the carpet, it`s not really -- and picking up and eating it, it`s not really a positive effect.

But that -- the bad news was that the salmonella actually lived better and longer on the carpet. So kind of a give and take there. But from a scientific standpoint, there was a little less transfer on the carpet versus the tile and the wood.

SMERCONISH: Dr. Dawson, I want to get into another area of your expertise. To do so, I want to show you a clip from one of the great television programs of all time. Roll that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you just double dip that chip?

JASON ALEXANDER, ACTOR: Excuse me?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You double dipped the chip.

ALEXANDER: Double dipped? What are you talking about?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You dipped the chip. You took a bite. And you dipped again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Now, is it true that you`ve also studied the effects of double dipping, and if so, what does your study reveal?

DAWSON: Yes, sir, we have also studied that this past semester. We`d like to thank our undergraduate team for participating in that. Yes, we studied that, checked dipping and biting first, and then dipping without biting.

And we found significant transfer of bacteria to the dipping solution. We used stale water as our dipping solution. When a student or when someone bit the chip first, versus when they did not bite the chip first. So there was -- George was wrong. I guess Denny (ph) was right. It is like sticking your mouth in the dip.

SMERCONISH: You`re going to have a big effect on my dietary habits. Dare I ask, did you at least analyze celery or carrots in the dip versus chips in the dip? Or was it just the same effect for everything.

DAWSON: Well, we -- so far we have just evaluated chips. And I guess when you go to a party, if you look around the party and you see people double dipping, you`ve got to consider whether you`d like to be kissing those people or not, because that`s about what you`re doing.

SMERCONISH: I had somebody do it to me recently with whitefish. I couldn`t do go near it after that.

Thank you, Dr. Dawson. We appreciate it very much.

An appeals court told the FCC to redefine decency. It`s a win for broadcast television. But "The Real Story" is the decision was more about politics than fairness. I`ll explain in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Welcome back. I`m Michael Smerconish, in for Glenn Beck tonight.

Coming up, Michael Moore is back, and he`s making the rounds. Today, he spent a little time plugging his new movie with Oprah. And, boy, what a love fest that was. I`ll give you all the details in just a little bit.

But first, tonight`s "Real Story," where we cut through the media spin to figure out why a story is actually of importance to you. A federal appeals court here in New York has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission can`t fine or punish broadcast networks for someone blurting out an obscenity live on the air. FOX, NBC and CBS filed the suit after the FCC raised its potential maximum penalty for each offense from $32,500 to $325,000 a couple of years ago.

Over the years, people ranging from Bono to Cher to Nicole Richie have let what the FCC calls "fleeting expletives" slip out on live television. And until now, the broadcast networks have been held ultimately responsible for it. Most people will tell you that this is a win for the First Amendment and, quite frankly, for common sense, and I don`t disagree. But the "Real Story" is that obscene speech is now judged with less scrutiny than political speech.

It`s great that Cher can go ahead and drop the f-bomb without network executives worrying. But what about people like Don Imus? Who`s out there fighting against the overreaction that he endured? Who`s out there appealing for the same level of common sense to apply to people who make bad jokes, even if they`re distasteful?

We`re living in scary times when it comes to free speech. People like Mel Gibson, who say truly hateful and offensive things, are being lumped together with the likes of people like Don Imus and, dare I say, John Kerry, who were really just making poorly conceived jokes when they got in trouble.

Two things need to happen for us to get out of this witch hunt atmosphere that`s been created. First, let common sense rule. Almost all of us know real hate speech when we hear it, and people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson certainly shouldn`t be the sole arbiters of it.

And, secondly, we all need to just lighten up. Glenn Beck, host of this program, and a guy who`s been accused of saying offensive things from time to time, joins me now.

Glenn, where am I wrong here?

GLENN BECK, HOST: Yes. You`re not wrong at all, Michael. You know, the politics is just a bad bedfellow at all when it comes to speech and political correctness. And that`s exactly what`s happening. Welcome to the McCain-Feingold era, where you have all of these dot-orgs that are really on witch hunts.

There is offensive speech. There is bad speech. But you never, ever solve it with less speech. You always solve it with more speech. You know, with the Rosie O`Donnell thing, right after Don Imus, I heard Tom DeLay call for Rosie O`Donnell`s termination. It was a kind of tit-for-tat kind of thing, and I was just as against Rosie O`Donnell`s termination as I was with Don Imus.

You can be offended, and you can stop listening, or you can do what most people did with "The View," at least with my political ilk, and that is stop watching. But you solve speech problems with more, not less.

SMERCONISH: But, you know, how ironic that the government is saying, "You can`t come down on the networks for Cher dropping the f-bomb," when Imus just lost his job for saying what he said.

BECK: You know what?

SMERCONISH: And I`m not defending the speech. He was a nut job to say it. But he shouldn`t have been fired. And, you know, Glenn, you and I ended up on some self-proclaimed watchdog list. I don`t know what you did. Me, I used the word "sissy." I hate to say it on your program.

BECK: I will tell you this, Michael. There was a list that I saw -- I think it was in the "New York Times." They were monitoring shock jocks. And they had people -- and I don`t mean to be graphic here -- but they had people that were on the air that they had listened to, and they were talking about sex and sexual positions that were very, very vile. They compared it to a guy named Mancow, and what his shocking verbiage was, was that some day, if we didn`t wake up, his daughter would be wearing a burqa and people would be praying five times a day.

You cannot compare the two. One is someone`s opinion about what`s going to happen to the country, and the other is describing sexual acts.

SMERCONISH: Right. And the problem, the danger now is that political speech, whether it`s offensive or not, political speech is being put through the wringer, and yet all the sex and violence and so forth, free rein.

BECK: Yes. You may not like my point of view, jus like I don`t like Michael Moore`s point of view. I really think Michael Moore is really a despicable human being, and I know you`re going to talk about him here in a few minutes.

But I would never, ever boycott his movies. I would never, ever say he doesn`t have a right -- in fact, I would stand by next to him -- as despicable as I think the guy is, I would stand next to him to defend his right to make movies, defend his right to let his voice be heard. The arena of political ideas must never, ever be closed down.

SMERCONISH: See, this is the key point, and I`m glad you allow me to make it on your program. This is chilling the free exchange of ideas. And I think that, unlike the two of us, there are a lot of people out there who run for cover instead of having the tough conversation.

BECK: You`re exactly right.

SMERCONISH: Maybe it`s illegal immigration, maybe it`s a race matter, because they don`t want to be labeled. You know, you talk about gay rights. And if you`re not for same-sex marriage, you must be a homophobe. Wait, you`re not for affirmative action, Glenn? You must be a racist. You`re not for this amnesty bill? You`re anti-illegal immigrant.

BECK: Michael, I know I`m the pot calling the kettle black here in a way. I`ve turned a new chapter in my own life. I want to re-stitch some of the fabric that I have myself tried to pull apart, because I feel -- I just sense there is real trouble in America if we don`t start talking to each other.

I don`t hate Democrats or liberals, and I hope they don`t hate me. And when it comes to friends, I`ve got a lot of liberal friends, a lot of co-workers that are liberal, and I don`t hate them, and they don`t hate me. We are being taught to hate each other so we stop talking to each other. We must speak to each other.

SMERCONISH: Hey, Glenn, thanks. We`re going to check back with you in just a couple of minutes. We appreciate it.

Next, have you ever used the Google Earth software to try and find your house from space? What about using it to look down on famous buildings like Washington, D.C., the Capitol, or Three Mile Island, or the Empire State Building? If so, then you`re not alone, because the "Real Story" is that terrorists are apparently using it, as well.

According to court documents posted on the Smoking Gun Web site, the Islamic extremists who were plotting to blow up fuel lines and holding tanks at JFK Airport, they used satellite images from Google Earth to help with their planning. That news comes on the heels of Google`s recent launch of what they call "street view." That gives you a 360-degree view from ground level.

Now, privacy experts have been sounding alarm bells about that program, because the resolution is so clear that you can see people`s faces, even their license plates. Imagine the ramifications of someone caught by Google`s cameras leaving a restaurant when they were supposed to be out of town, or leaving an abortion clinic, or even an adult bookstore. "Hey, that wasn`t me, I swear!"

As technology evolves, concerns over security and privacy are going to continue to mount. So how do we find that line between convenience and classified, between freedom of information and information that can harm our freedoms?

John Pike knows. He`s the director of GlobalSecurity.org. John, how concerned are you about the revelation that the would-be terrorists were using Google Earth?

JOHN PIKE, DIRECTOR, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: Well, I`m not overly concerned about it. I think that it speaks to the relatively low quality of this terrorist plot. I mean, the problem that you`ve got with the imagery in Google Earth is that you don`t know how old it is. You don`t know whether you`re looking at an image that`s a month old, a year old, or a decade old.

And if I`m planning an operation, I want to make sure that I have up- to-date imagery. You simply can`t get that from Google. You can get it from a lot of other sources. And I think that that`s one reason the concerns about the imagery on Google Earth might be overblown, because people just don`t understand how easy it is to get these imagery from a lot of other sources.

SMERCONISH: Are there precautions that are in place relative to, for example, the war in Iraq? What if I were a bad guy and I wanted to take a look at troop deployments in Kuwait or in Iraq?

PIKE: Well, I think, again, the problem that you have is that you have no idea whether you`re looking at this camp a year ago or two years ago. You have no idea what sort of security improvements have been made in the meantime. And you could be in for a very rude surprise when you discover that there`s a security check point that was put into place earlier this year that simply didn`t show up in that imagery two years ago.

SMERCONISH: All right. How about if I`m a stalker or a pedophile? I want to go take a look at an elementary school, and I want to use this street view to try to map out the scene. I mean, shouldn`t there be a speed bump somehow put in my way so that I can`t go peek at an elementary school that I`m casing?

PIKE: Well, you can already do that simply by driving around in a car. I think that the challenge is, how do we draw that line? You know, back in the Soviet Union, they didn`t even have telephone books. They thought that that was a good way of ensuring their security. We have telephone books because we think that that`s essential to our free and open economy. Not having telephone books was, I think, one of the reasons that the Soviet economy fell apart, and they fell apart, as well.

SMERCONISH: You know, I`m a gadget guy. Believe me, I love all this stuff. I`ve got to tell you a quick story. Last weekend, I`m out with one of my sons, and we need paintball supplies. And we don`t know where to go to get them. We`re in a strange area. I hand him my BlackBerry while I`m driving, he does a Google function for paintball, brings up a local vendor and map. Now I input the address into my GPS system. Bang, the car goes right to the paintball supply store. I have to explain to my son that, in my day, there was no paintball, no GPS, no Google, and there were no BlackBerries. So I love it, but every once in a while I say, you know, in the wrong hands this technology can be dangerous.

PIKE: Well, no, I think that we need to continue to look at this. I mean, one good example of it is that we`re going to be having a new series of commercial imagery satellites. They`re going to have much better pictures than the existing satellites do. And one of the speed bumps that the government has put into place is that you`re going to be restricted to getting yesterday`s image tomorrow.

The satellite could give you this morning`s image this afternoon, but just to have that extra measure of precaution, there`s going to be a 24- hour hold back, I understand, to make sure that you`re only seeing what was happening a couple of days ago, rather than earlier today. So we`re always drawing the line as the technology develops to make sure that we`re striking a proper balance between security and freedom.

SMERCONISH: All right. As long as guys like you who really understand the science are out there monitoring it, I guess I feel better. But I appreciate it very much. And 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 that you`d like to tell us about, please visit glennbeck.com. Click on the "Real Story" button. We`ll be back in just a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Here`s today`s newspaper from my hometown in Philadelphia. It`s the "Philadelphia Inquirer." And according to the page one story, we lead the nation in murder. And many of those victims are kids. And while some folks in my hometown are giving us the same solutions -- you know, police redeployment and get guns off the street, all meritorious -- I want you to meet an author who says that, perhaps, perhaps the cure to what plagues our kids may just be a little fresh air. Get your kids out in the woods. Let them build a fort, climb a tree.

Joining me now is Richard Louv. He`s the author of "The Last Child in the Woods." Mr. Louv, it`s a privilege for me to have you here while I`m guest-hosting for Glenn, because I love your book. I never knew that there was such value in building the kind of fort that I always had in the woods behind my house.

RICHARD LOUV, AUTHOR, "LAST CHILD IN THE WOODS": Well, that`s right. Thank you, Michael. A new body of research really has emerged just in the last dozen years or so that shows that just getting outside in nature has profoundly good effects on children`s mental health, their physical health, and, indeed, their spiritual health, that just attention deficit disorder studies at the University of Illinois show that kids with just a little bit of contact, that have the symptoms of attention deficit disorder, the symptoms get much better. Creativity, cognitive development, stress, depression, a lot of these things are very much affected in a positive way just by kids going out and playing in nature.

SMERCONISH: You talk about a nature deficit disorder. What exactly is that?

LOUV: Well, first, I`m really careful, as you know, in the book to point out this is not a known medical disorder. Maybe it should be, but it`s not yet. It is a way of thinking about what all of us, many of us, have felt was happening to kids over the last few years, but really haven`t been able to talk about directly because we didn`t have much of a language. I think of it as more of a disorder of the society, one that puts all kinds of barriers in front of children, in terms of getting out into nature, and in front of parents.

SMERCONISH: You know, one of the other examples in the book of how we`ve become so disconnected from nature, and so, too, have our kids, you talk about someone with whom you`re acquainted who goes out and buys a wonderful new car, and then rejects the television monitors in the back seat, because they want the kids to look out the window like we used to look out the window. But I have to tell you, I`m an offender. My kids are watching movies in the back seat.

LOUV: Well, it`s hard to buy a minivan now without that in the back seat, but it`s a good illustration. Some of the ads for those vans are pretty funny, because they have flip-down screens with pictures of the Grand Teton mountains, you know, the mountain range, on the screen. And then, outside the window, they show the same mountains, and the kids are sitting there looking at the screen.

This is happening in many ways, you know, the focus on video games, on television. But I have to be careful, because I`m not blaming video games or television for this, at least the game part. I think what`s more at fault is our own profession of journalism in many ways.

You mentioned the murders in the "Philadelphia Inquirer," that coverage. It`s true that there are risks out there. But if you were to watch television, you would get the idea that there is a kidnapper on every corner. And the truth is that the numbers of stranger danger crimes on children is actually fairly low and has not gone up in 20 years, some evidence that it`s actually gone down. But if you watch television, you think that this is all around us.

SMERCONISH: Richard, you`ve turned me into a tree-hugger, and for good reason. This is a great read. And I think it`s particularly great for those of us who have kids, and I thank you very much for writing it.

LOUV: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Time now to introduce you to a New York dentist who`s not afraid to leave behind Madison Avenue to make a difference. Trey Wilson is today`s "CNN Hero."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. TREY WILSON, DENTIST: Every single one of us has that capacity to be of service to others, and I just did something about it. I`m Trey Wilson. I live in New York City, and I provide free dental care and dental education to Kenyans.

Dental care in Kenya is virtually nonexistent. When I arrived in Kenya, routinely, I saw in my clinic 4-year-olds with 20 teeth that needed to be extracted. I bring a team of dentists and volunteers who provide dental care in two clinics that we`ve established, in Kitale, which is the fifth-largest city in Kenya.

When we arrive in the morning, there are already 400 or 500 people assembled, ready to be seen. My organization gives patients the opportunity to have their teeth fixed. We provide dental education, and we hand out toothbrushes to people. There was a woman who waited seven hours to see me because, she said, "I like my smile, and I won`t have anything to smile about if they pull my front tooth."

I think that it would be a good idea to try to save that tooth.

She was so happy that her beauty -- I mean, her beauty really came out.

Give me a hug.

My life would have been a Monday-through-Friday, Madison Avenue dentist, getting in my car and driving out to the country and gardening all weekend. But I had a revelation that, with just a little bit of effort, I could make a huge impact.

All of us are far more resourceful than we ever think we are, and we have much more to give than we think that we have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: In case you happen to be feeling like America is the greatest country in the world, Michael Moore has arrived on the scene once again to let you know just how wrong you are. This time he`s popping up to preach the evils of our health care system in his upcoming movie "Sicko." Now, amazingly, he`s making the pitch for universal health care just a couple of months after the Walter Reed scandal showed us all in agonizing detail how well it actually works.

Moore appeared on Oprah today for an all-out love fest. And since Oprah and Moore weren`t available to come on and talk about it, we`ll have to settle for this guy. Glenn Beck is with us once again.

Glenn, do you have your tickets to go see the premiere of "Sicko" yet?

BECK: I can`t believe Oprah. Shame on you, Oprah. I mean, I just can`t believe how many people will get into bed with Michael Moore. You know, there`s something to be said for people with different opinions, and then there`s something to be said for somebody who is really, truly destructive to America. And Michael Moore is that guy.

SMERCONISH: We`ve got a broken health care system; I mean, you and I would have to acknowledge that. What`s the bottom line problem with universal health care?

BECK: Well, I mean, tell me about our broken health care system.

SMERCONISH: You`ve got a lot of folks out there without coverage.

BECK: Yes, you got a lot of folks out there. I believe the number was 43 million, but what that doesn`t talk about is how many of those people are on and off, and how also many of those people -- and not universally true -- but how many of those people also choose not to take their coverage at time, too. So that number is a lot smaller. Beyond that, we have the greatest health care system in the world.

There are a lot of people that should have coverage and would like to have coverage. The last thing that we do is start a government program. Michael, anybody who wants to have a government program, you just go try to get -- just think of the DMV coupled with kidney dialysis. And I think you know how great it will really be.

SMERCONISH: Is that the Carrier Dome behind you? You`re appearing in Syracuse tonight.

BECK: Yes, Syracuse, yes. Actually, tomorrow night. We just arrived, going to kind of take the night off, and then tomorrow we`re going to be doing it at the legendary Landmark Theater.

SMERCONISH: And then you`re at Knebworth, I think, in the U.K., and then Woodstock? Is that...

BECK: Yes, yes.

SMERCONISH: Is that where the Beck tour goes next?

BECK: No, actually, then on Friday we`re in Columbus, and then Saturday in St. Louis.

SMERCONISH: Good luck. I heard the show in Philly was awesome last night.

BECK: It was good. It was good, Mike. I wish you were there. You held down the slot real well, though, for me last night. Thanks again.

SMERCONISH: I was here, I was here, OK?

BECK: I know, I know. Anything to get out of it.

SMERCONISH: If they let me in tomorrow night, I`ll be back here again. Thank you, Glenn.

BECK: Thanks a lot. You bet.

SMERCONISH: See everybody tomorrow. Good night.

END