Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Our Next President: Barack Obama?; Is Plan to Shoot Down Satellite a Show of Force?; Mexican Oil Industry in Trouble

Aired February 20, 2008 - 19:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, meet our next president. Barack Obama packs another primary punch. Will Texas be the closer?

Plus, the Pentagon plans to shoot down a satellite with a heat-seeking missile. Why conspiracy theories are suggesting the only thing that missile will be seeking is the attention of our enemies. Uh-oh, I guess that makes me a conspiracy theorist.

And an update on the Merida Initiative, a plan to send over $1 billion of our own money to Mexico to help them with their drug problem.

All this and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Well, hello, America.

Two points right off the bat you need to know. One, the tie doesn`t really work, does it? Two, after last night`s primary victories, the truth seems unavoidable. And here it is, "The Point," tonight.

Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. And here`s how I got there.

Doesn`t work.

Yesterday`s victory in Wisconsin and Hawaii, some of the final nails in Hillary`s -- Hillary Clinton`s coffin. As a conservative, I`m actually kind of bummed, because Obama scares the pants off of me.

She is starring in a spectacular losing streak and Obama`s charm, his charisma, his momentum seems unstoppable. Here he is, addressing a crowd in Texas last night after the announcement of his big wins.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Houston, this is our moment. This is our time. And if you are willing to vote for me, if you are willing to stand with me, if you`re willing to caucus for me, then I truly believe that we will not just win Texas, we will win this nomination, we will win the general election, and you and I together will change this country and change the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Boy, he`s not kidding.

Texas, you do remember that you are a red state, right? Texas is not acting like a red state. The Texas primary isn`t until March 4, but early voting has already begun, and the turnout is breaking all kinds of records.

Approximately 8,600 Democratic ballots were cast in Dallas County yesterday alone, as opposed to just 2,400 Republican ones. The Democratic Party has offered -- or ordered 100,000 extra ballots in anticipation of the huge crowds. That`s double the normal number. For the GOP, terrifying, just a wee bit.

Election officials say that the early voting could account for up to 60 percent of the total primary vote.

Can you imagine Texas voting Democrat by a margin of four to one in a general election? I can. Mainly because the candidate that they got is the one that was really bad against the border, and they haven`t had a real conservative candidate that could handle their Texas-sized problems in a very long time.

It seems that the Lone Star voters believe what I`ve been saying for months. Texans are not going to walk across the desert when a Republican candidate like John McCain isn`t even bothering to hold out a glass of water.

While John McCain was the winner in yesterday`s contest, his best just isn`t good enough. But at least he seems he`s identified his likely opponent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent, but empty call for change.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Come on, man. Which one looks like he`s going to win?

A call for change isn`t empty. Americans do want change. But I wonder if there is a single candidate among these two whose policies speak to the kind of change America is demanding.

Tonight, here`s what you need to know. It`s great to be a preacher. That is, until the messiah shows up. John McCain is popular but only in states where Barack Obama practically walks on water. The guy is the messiah. McCain`s moderate, liberal leanings make him a disappointment, at best, to Republicans, and irrelevant to Democrats and independents, who are going to vote for Barack Obama.

As for Hillary Clinton, Obama is winning over her base union members, lower-income voters, women. If you got any tears left, Hillary, you better get crying, because this thing is over.

America, Hillary Clinton will be staying as a senator. Barack Obama is headed for the Oval Office.

Dan Patrick is a Texas state senator, as well as a radio host for KSEV in Houston, Texas. Michael Reagan is a GOP strategist and syndicated talk radio host.

Gentleman, let me -- let me just start with you, Dan. Do you disagree or agree?

DAN PATRICK, TEXAS STATE SENATOR/RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes, I totally agree, Glenn. What happened yesterday in Harris County, which is the home of Houston, where I have my Senate district, is we had an historic turnout on the first day. In 2004, Glenn, in the last presidential primary, 1,200 people showed up. Yesterday, 12,000 people showed up.

BECK: OK. How many people at the Toyota center yesterday?

PATRICK: Over 20,000. I haven`t seen that much excitement since the rockets won the NBA championship.

BECK: OK. So 20,000 in the Toyota Center. I`ve got to tell you. I think John McCain probably couldn`t fill up a Camry in Texas.

PATRICK: No. No, in fact, Mike Huckabee could still possibly win Texas. That`s how many Republicans are disenchanted with McCain. But yesterday`s totals in Harris County, Glenn, you mentioned Dallas County and Tarrant County where Ft. Worth is. Last primary election, 800 voters on the first day. This time, 10,000. And they`re turning out in numbers three to one, Democrats to Republicans.

And what this means -- Glenn, you`re so right -- is that John McCain, who would have thought he wouldn`t have to spend much time or money in Texas, he`ll have to defend Texas. And if these models hold, he could lose Texas. And when you take the electoral votes of California, New York, and Texas, no Republican can win if they lose all three.

BECK: Yes. OK. Mike, I think that Barack Obama is like -- do you remember those songs that we used to sing in the `70s when we were kids, `60s and `70s? And we would sing songs and we wouldn`t even know what the lyrics were, but you`d sing along. You`d like, I like that song.

MICHAEL REAGAN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Good tune.

BECK: And you get to -- you get to be an adult, you listen to the lyrics, and you`re like, holy cow, what does that say?

REAGAN: Oh, yes.

BECK: That is Barack Obama, agree or disagree?

REAGAN: Oh, I agree with you. I mean, the guy`s a rock star. He`s out there speaking. You have a man running for president who probably will be the president of the United States who actually can articulate something, but we don`t know what. He can put two words together.

We haven`t had a president with two words put together for about eight years. They have no idea what he`s saying, but he sounds good when he says it.

BECK: Yes. He does.

REAGAN: So what`s happening is they`re going to elect somebody to be president of the United States who has no idea what he`s going to be doing when he get to the Oval Office, and I don`t think they really care.

BECK: You know what? I have to tell you. I think that`s probably closer to it, that we don`t know what`s going on. We do. He is saying these things. We just don`t care anymore, mainly as a society overall.

I want to play a little audio clip here. This is Barack Obama`s plan that is supposedly affordable for everybody now to make college available for everybody. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We`re going to provide a $4,000 tuition credit for every institute, every year. But students, you`re going to have to give back something in return. You`re going to have to participate in community service. We`ll invest in you; you invest in America. Together we will march this country forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Dan Patrick, you know, I think it`s time for people to go back and read history of FDR.

PATRICK: Absolutely.

BECK: This guy -- this guy has the charm of JFK, but he has the policies of FDR.

PATRICK: Absolutely.

BECK: And he`s going to have the power that FDR has. They didn`t -- they didn`t -- you know, FDR is such a popular president. Everybody remembers him: oh, we loved him, he was great.

PATRICK: Right.

BECK: Really? Then why did they change the Constitution so nobody could stay in power that long as soon as he died?

PATRICK: Well, and not only that, Glenn, but what we also have to watch is if the Republicans lose the Senate, if the Democrats get 60 senators, they`ll have the House. That means the Democrats can do whatever they want.

Now, I believe Barack Obama, if he becomes president -- and while the models look that way now, things could change before November. But right now we`d have to say...

BECK: You know what?

PATRICK: ... he`s the heavy odds-on favorite. He will end liberalism in this country forever, as Jimmy Carter killed liberal thinking for 25 or 30 years. If Barack Obama is president, we will suffer. We`ll feel the pain. But it will be the end of liberalism.

BECK: I have to tell you. I honestly -- I mean this sincerely. I know this makes me sound like a freak, but I don`t know if you have four years of those policies that you can recover from, with the economy the way it is. And most people don`t even -- they`re not even looking at how...

REAGAN: But as I said, as I said, Glenn. People aren`t listening, and the GOP really needs to wake up to the numbers you were talking about at the beginning of the segment. The fact that no new people are coming to the polls for the Republicans.

BECK: Michael!

REAGAN: Nobody`s showing up and saying, "Hey, I want to vote Republican because I`m excited."

BECK: Do you know why?

REAGAN: There`s no excitement with the Republicans. All the excitement`s on the Democrat`s side.

I`ll tell you what you do. You pray that Hillary finds a way to undermine Barack Obama at the convention so they split the Democrat Party and all these first-time voters don`t go to the polls in November.

PATRICK: But if that happens, Michael, you`ll have riots in the street.

BECK: You will.

PATRICK: If they take this from Barack Obama...

REAGAN: I`m not saying -- you know what, John McCain may win.

BECK: Yes, but Bloomberg -- there`s a rumor going around here in New York that Bloomberg will actually pay for a campaign for Barack Obama as a third party. You`ll have that third party. But it`s the only way, I see, that John McCain wins, unless he somehow or another -- you know, the clouds open up and he becomes -- and Reagan anoints him.

I`ve got to run, guys. We`ll talk again.

So now where am I wrong? The fever surrounding the Obama campaign, I think, makes him a lock for the presidency. The chosen one just can`t lose. Agree or disagree? Go to CNN.com/Glenn right now and cast your vote.

Coming up, the sky is falling, literally. The government is preparing to shoot down a rogue satellite. Some are asking if this is nothing more than a display of our military might. OK. That "some" is actually me, and I`ll ask it in a second to somebody who knows the answer.

And oil prices rise to over $100 a barrel. Time to look at our third- largest supplier, our friendly neighbors to the south. Why Mexico`s declining oil production should worry us all.

Then you asked for it. Gee, do these two stories tie together? Tonight you`re going to get it. An update on the Merida Initiative. It`s $1 billion from us to Mexico to help them fight drug cartels. How come we haven`t heard more about this? Your tax dollars at work, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: We will get a lot of calls today, and we`ve been getting them for weeks, of people saying, "I`m not going to vote for John McCain." And there are some of those people that, in reality, won`t vote for McCain when it comes down to McCain versus Clinton or McCain versus Obama. But the bottom line is, McClane...

I mispronounced one word in the sentence. I wish we were voting for Bruce Willis. I`d have an easier chance. I would. I`d pull the lever for Bruce Willis. He was in "Die Hard." I love him. Yes!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Let me -- let me set something straight for you. Fascism, dirty word, right? I know, because it`s been thrown my way on the streets here in New York more than once. The "F" word comes my way a lot.

But when you examine what that word really means, and in particular, what it means to our current economy and the state of government, it`s kind of eye-opening. Please, don`t miss our next installment in our series with author of "Liberal Fascism," Jonah Goldberg. It`s coming up in "The Real Story" tonight.

Now they say it`s like shooting a speeding bullet with another speeding bullet. That`s how experts are describing the Navy`s plan to shoot down a satellite with an interceptor missile. It`s a shot that they`re hoping to take later on tonight.

The military says this is in the public interest because of safety. Bull crap. We`ve had these things fall out of the sky before. Oh, no, this one`s loaded with toxic kind of stuff in there, and that`s really -- and satellite, you know, falling out of space. It`s happened with that kind of toxic stuff, and we`ve had Sky Lab fall on our heads. Come on.

Some would say -- and that would be me -- that the only reason why we`re doing this is to show that we can shoot a missile out of the sky. We`re sending a signal.

China shot down a weather satellite just over a year ago, which ain`t that tough compared to what we`re about to do. Russia is threatening to restart the Cold War arms race and this is a show of strength. We make it clear to Iran, China, and Russia, don`t mess with us or Europe, because our missile shield will work.

That is, unless, you know, it doesn`t, and then I am fresh out of answers. We`re in trouble.

Michael Coumatos is the author of "Space Wars."

Mike, this satellite, real danger?

MICHAEL COUMATOS, AUTHOR, "SPACE WARS": There is -- there is a possibility. You state it correctly when you say that we`ve had lots of satellites fall, lots of dangerous propellants hit the earth. In fact, there`s been about 328 entries.

BECK: Sky Lab.

COUMATOS: There`s not a single death.

BECK: I remember when Sky Lab was -- it`s the size of a house coming out of the sky. I don`t remember when it crashed. We`re doing this to send a message, are we not?

COUMATOS: Those are your words. I`ll tell you what I think, Glenn. I think that this is an unscripted opportunity. It`s not something that was established ahead of time to say, let`s go send this message.

BECK: Oh, no, no, no. Hang on, hang on. I`m not saying that we put this $1 billion or whatever it is, multibillion-dollar satellite up there knowing that it wouldn`t work. We see this, and we`re thinking, let`s send everybody a message that we can shoot a missile out of the sky. Because that`s what this is. This is not what China did, right or wrong?

COUMATOS: This is not what China did. And I think you`re using the right connotation by saying, shoot a missile, or have a missile run into ours, because it is more about a ballistic missile reentry than it is about shooting down an orbiting satellite.

BECK: And isn`t this the way our missile shield would work?

COUMATOS: Very similar. Very, very similar. And I think that there`s an important point you make by using the term that you used, missile. And that is, orbiting satellites in low-earth orbit, or say between 200 to 900 miles. This shot will take place at about 150 miles.

To give some perspective, recall the Chinese anti-satellite test of last year, Glenn?

BECK: Yes.

COUMATOS: That was at 517 miles. So at 150 miles, you are nearing reentry. In fact, we should see reentry no later than, say, March 6 or so. We have a couple of windows of opportunity here. And the idea that this is an anti-satellite test is not as technically analogous as it is testing a capability for ballistic missile reentry.

BECK: I mean, look, we just had Russia threaten Cold War. They just said, "Hey, there`s another arms race is going on. Another Cold War is starting." They`re threatening us with another Cold War, because we want to put our missile shield closer to them. We want to put it into Eastern Europe, and they want nothing to do with it.

Isn`t this the perfect way to say, "Go ahead. Start your own arms race. You`ve got a lot of catching up to do, because look, we can -- we can fire your missiles right out of the sky"?

COUMATOS: Back to that unintended or unscripted opportunity.

BECK: Right.

COUMATOS: I certainly believe that there are folks who would look at this and say, you know, it`s important we take a chance where we can.

Well, one thing to keep in mind here. We went very public about this. This is very interesting, because as you know, we have not been fully successful in some of the initial tests, although the Navy`s standard missile is -- I believe it`s about 12 for 14 right now.

But this is not one of these where you`ve had weeks to set up a controlled test environment. This is an uncontrolled environment.

BECK: I mean, I honestly -- it sends a great message if it works. If it doesn`t work, it`s not really -- you know, it`s not really that great. And then we`ve got the bus falling on us with thorazine all over everybody, or whatever it is.

COUMATOS: It`s hydrazine.

BECK: Yes, whatever.

COUMATOS: That`s the interesting aspect, is that we`ve been so public...

BECK: Yes.

COUMATOS: ... about making this test. We`ve gone around the world from both diplomatic as well as news cycles to talk about it, but we`ve really set ourselves up in a very open forum here. And there is uncertainty.

BECK: Michael, I read your book. I don`t even know when it came out, about a year, year and a half ago. Fantastic book.

COUMATOS: Came out about a year ago.

BECK: A year ago. Called "Space Wars," and it`s fantastic.

Thank you very much.

Now, coming up, would you consider mortgage bailouts or universal health care fascist policies? No, right? But in today`s "Real Story," we`ll continue our series with author of "Liberal Fascism." What he says may surprise you. You need to hear it. At least, your friends do. Call them up, tell them "Real Story" coming up.

Also, don`t assume all of our oil problems are coming from the Middle East. Just look to the south: Mexico. There`s a brewing crisis there that could send our gas prices through the roof.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Oil futures yesterday closed at over $100 for the first time over, but mark my words, it will not be the last. The oil refinery fire and rumors about OPEC cuts were blamed yesterday for the rise. That`s just short-term, fly in the ointment kind of stuff compared to what`s happening in Mexico. Yes, Mexico. Come to Mexico. Otherwise known as America`s third largest supplier of oil.

If you`re surprised that it`s the third largest supplier, then you might even be more surprised to know that some experts are now saying Mexico`s oil industry is falling apart. Who would have seen that one coming? And if things stay on course, they could stop exporting oil to the United States altogether within seven years. You still think $100 a barrel is expensive?

Jorge Pinon is an energy fellow at the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and former president of Amoco in Latin America.

Jorge, they`ve got a nationalized oil company down there. It`s been nationalized, I think, since the 1930s.

JORGE PINON, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Correct.

BECK: Why -- I mean, it`s literally falling apart. Why not let somebody else come in and help them with it?

PINON: Well, it`s not only the question of allowing somebody else, but allowing Pemex itself to do its job. They actually treat Pemex like the cash cow of the state. And if they would only allow Pemex to behave like a true international oil company, I think their position today would not be as bad as it currently is.

BECK: I`m wondering if Obama is listening to this. Sometimes nationalizing things don`t work so well. Go ahead.

PINON: No, no. I was going to say, that`s true. It`s how you allow your foreign oil companies to behave. A good example is Brazil`s Petrobras, which is also owned by the state. But the state allows it to behave like a true independent free enterprise.

BECK: Right.

PINON: It doesn`t put any controls over it.

BECK: Here`s the scary thing. As I understand it, and correct me and show me where I`m wrong here, there`s no pressure on Mexico to fix their problems because oil prices are going up, so what difference does it make? They`re still making tons of money?

PINON: Correct. Eventually, that is the challenge that most countries -- not only Mexico, but others like Venezuela -- is going to face. We have to remember that only about five years ago, Mexico was selling its barrel of crude oil for about $27, $30 a barrel. Today they are realizing more than $60, $65 a barrel.

So even though their production level is today at the lowest level that it has been since the early 1980s, their revenue from those barrels is huge. It`s more than five times what it used to be.

BECK: OK.

PINON: So the cash is coming in. Don`t bother (ph) about it.

BECK: How long before this really starts to affect us?

PINON: That is -- there are two key indicators. I think it`s $55 a barrel. In other words, if we see world oil prices drop below $55 a barrel, you`re going to see major national producers really getting into very deep trouble.

And in the case of Pemex, it`s not only $55, but also the three million barrels per day of production. They reached that level this year. If they fall below three million, then they`re really going to have a problem.

BECK: You really think that it will go down to $55 a barrel?

PINON: I -- I don`t think so. We at the University of Miami calculate that barrels -- the barrel of oil today ought to be around $76. I mean, this $100 a barrel that we saw today is really pure speculation. There`s no fundamental reason for this marketplace to be where it is today.

BECK: It`s -- yes, it`s people just jacking up the price, you know, playing the market.

Jorge, thank you very much.

Coming up next, we`re going to continue our series with Jonah Goldberg, author of "Liberal Fascism." Don`t miss it. It`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: The economy is on the front page of the newspaper almost every single day. We`ve been talking about it for a very long time. It`s a mess. We need to do something to turn it around, and we have to do it fast.

That is one of the things that scares me so much about this upcoming election, because that`s people`s attitude. We`ve got to do something.

A modern progressive like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will shoulder this country with untold billions in spending, and you know what? It`s already happening before anything has happened in an election.

Here with more on the fiscal sensibility of the left is Jonah Goldberg. He`s the author of the new book, "Liberal Fascism."

Jonah, you know what scares me? Is as I`m watching what`s happening with our banking system right now, you have one of the main guys over at AIG over in London last week said we should -- the United States government needs to start investing. They need to buy stocks, they need to buy assets.

It`s the only thing they can do and it has to New Deal size, otherwise we`re going into another great depression. That`s from him.

You have these banks starting to come in and say, we need to -- we need to have the government take these bad loans that we wrote...

JONAH GOLDBERG, AUTHOR, "LIBERAL FASCISM": Right.

BECK: This is -- this is New Deal era, gigantic government right around the corner.

GOLDBERG: I think that`s right. And I think it highlights one of the most important points that I try to the make in the book, especially in the chapter on economics, which is part of -- you know, sort of tied to the myth of conservatives being fascists is this myth that corporations are inherently right wing.

You know, there`s this idea that corporations are right wing. It comes out of this idea that -- it basically comes out of Marxism.

Corporations are useless on the culture war. Right? They have no use for the right. They`re in favor of affirmative action, all this kind of stuff.

They like big regulations because they keep out competition. And so you have these corporations who are constantly trying to get the government to bail them out, to give them favorable legislation, to give them subsidies for this, trade benefits for that, to hurt their competitors, to keep certain technologies from coming up that might hurt their products.

They`re for free markets when free markets are to their advantage. When free markets aren`t to their advantage, they`re against free markets.

And that was the story of the New Deal, that was the story of the progressive era, where big corporations and government worked hand in hand. And we`re seeing it again today, where these big corporations are delighted to have government bail them out. And you see the progressive, you know, liberal Democrat saying that they would love to do it.

And it`s a sign of where the real nexus is. It`s between, you know, big corporations and regulators wanting to work in tandem and hand in hand. And that`s not free market, and that`s not right wing, if you define right wing as free market capitalism, belief in the idea that business should be on its own and sink or swim on its own.

BECK: You know, you have Chris Dodd coming out, and this -- I saw an article in "The Wall Street Journal" a couple of weeks ago. They said this kind of thinking would have been unheard of just a couple of months ago, just to kind of give you a feel of the pace that this is coming at us. It would have been unheard of.

Chris Dodd is actually proposing a resurrection of the homeowner`s Preservation Corporation, which is a -- which was started in 1933. It was a New Deal program, basically will not allow you to fail in your mortgage.

GOLDBERG: Right.

BECK: How do you survive in that kind of situation? How do you -- how does somebody look at -- I had a caller ask me this. They said, "Glenn, I don`t agree with the big government. I don`t agree, but this program is important."

GOLDBERG: Right.

BECK: How do you separate on what`s important or makes you feel good and feels like the right thing and fascism?

GOLDBERG: Well, that`s sort of a big point. I mean, part of the smiley face on the cover of the book is that often the things that we want are fascistic.

I mean, we like fascistic economics. We like the idea of corporations and businesses -- corporations and government working together to help the little guy.

We want to -- you know, we`re willing to take any, you know, corporate subsidy, farm subsidy, whatever it is, if it helps me. And that creates a constituency. And this comes out of FDR, who, you know, radically transformed, revolutionized American politics, by turning citizens into clients of the government.

They got checks. They became dependent on government in one way or the other. And that was the New Deal coalition.

BECK: We were never like this. We were never like this until Wilson and FDR.

GOLDBERG: Yes.

BECK: This is a totally new concept. And it really stemmed from seeing the great success in Italy. Seeing -- I mean, I`ve read things about the scholars that went over and looked at Stalin and said, look at what he`s doing. Look at what he`s doing for industry, look what he`s doing for people.

This is the future. OK, he`s killed a million people at the time, but he had to do it for the good.

GOLDBERG: You`ve got to break some eggs to make an omelet.

BECK: Yes.

GOLDBERG: No, Woodrow Wilson says it quite plainly. He says the essence of progressivism requires that the individual marry his interests to the state. Those are his words.

It`s the idea that the individual has to define himself in relationship to the state, that he gets his livelihood, his meaning -- FDR comes out what he calls the second Bill of Rights in 1944, addresses the nation and says basically what he wants to do is basically overturn the Bill of Rights. Remember, the Bill of Rights is negative rights. It says the government has no right to take your gun away, has no right to go into your home, has no right to bridge your speech.

He wants to create a second Bill of Rights, which are all positive rights. You have a right to a home, you have a right to a job. It`s things government can give you, and that you can demand from government, and if government isn`t giving you these things, if it isn`t giving you these trinkets, then the government has violated your rights.

It is a radical redefinition of our Constitution and our reunderstanding of what makes a citizen in this country.

BECK: Isn`t what is going on with our enemies in China and Russia, isn`t that the future of America in many ways? These -- just a happier face.

You`ve got this gigantic, crushing, oppressive government in Russia -- look, I`m just taking the mob away. The Russian mob, it`s horrible. I`m just being a strongman because I have to be a strongman.

GOLDBERG: Right.

BECK: And they couple with these giant corporations. There`s no way to destroy that, because you`ve got -- democracy is too slow.

You can`t rally the troops and say, hey, we`ve got to go to war. We`ve got to -- we`ve got to do all this, because you`ve got to convince people.

GOLDBERG: Right.

BECK: And then you couple that -- so you`ve got the totalitarian dictator who says, let`s go, we`re going right now because it`s right for the country, and you couple it with the engine of capitalism, the engine of these giant corporations, you can buy as many bullets as you want.

Isn`t what we`re seeing the seeds of here already in China and Russia?

GOLDBERG: In a lot of ways, yes. I mean, China and Russia fit the classic fascist model a lot better than the United States, by orders of magnitude.

BECK: But we have...

GOLDBERG: The authoritarian regimes, all that kind of stuff.

BECK: Right.

GOLDBERG: I agree with that. But, you know, in the United States, I mean, you have some of the things -- you know, GE with its -- remember Green Week? Where they basically say -- you know, GE is looking to get all sorts of contracts with the government for alternative energy, for, you know, solar energy, all these kinds of things.

BECK: Yes.

GOLDBERG: And so it agrees to put on like 100 hours of green- friendly, essentially propaganda, incorporating it into its sitcoms, into its dramas, into its news, into its sports. And all because this is essentially what the government wants it to do, and so it can win a closer relationship with the government. It is propagandizing for a popular -- again, that`s popular -- issue like global warming, so that it can curry favor with the government.

It`s very much the fascist...

BECK: We talked about it during Green Week almost every night. I think we were the only show on television that was talking about it.

This would have been decried from the highest mountaintops. If I would have done it for some cause that I cared about, or if, you know, the FOX network -- and I don`t mean FOX Channel -- I mean the FOX network decided to take on some conservative thing -- you know, waterboarding, it`s waterboarding week.

GOLDBERG: Right. Right. No, exactly.

BECK: You know what I mean? And it`s the same kind of thing.

GOLDBERG: Right.

BECK: There is -- there is -- there are people who believe in it, people who don`t believe in it.

GOLDBERG: Right.

BECK: And yet nobody said a word, and they never had to disclose that NBC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GE. The largest lobbying group has billions of dollars to make on green energy.

GOLDBERG: That`s right. And it`s -- and it`s good corporate promotion for the company.

I mean, the company`s team is progressive and popular and all these kinds of things. But I agree with you entirely.

We only recognize as fascist those things we don`t like. And so, if - - you know, I agree. If FOX had came out with a -- you know, it says, we`re going to incorporate pro-life images, pro-life themes into our programming for a week.

BECK: Imagine that.

GOLDBERG: You know, people would go batty about it, and they would say it`s propaganda, it`s government -- it`s corporate collusion with politics and government and all this kind of stuff, and they would decry it as fascist, and they would have a point. But it`s the same point that we have about things like Green Week.

BECK: So how do you -- how do you stop it? How do you -- how do you wake people up?

I`ve been saying -- a couple of weeks ago, Jonah, I said, please, stop buying my book. Buy this book and give it to your liberal friend. One that is open-minded enough that says, OK, I may agree on these policies, yadda, yadda, yadda, but it`s important that I learn the history of liberal fascism so I can then judge for myself.

I know, oh, this is what I`m doing. If you know what you`re doing, well, then you`re making an intelligent choice.

How do you stop this?

GOLDBERG: Well, I think one of the things that is decidedly fascistic, or at least just a bad idea, is looking for silver bullets. You know, when Barack Obama campaigns, he`s basically saying, I`m a silver bullet, I`m going to solve all your problems just by electing me.

FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, all your problems can be solved. I don`t think conservatives should buy into that logic.

The logic of conservatism says that there are no final -- there are no perfect solutions to anything. It`s just going to take a long argument.

I mean, this argument has been going on in America for a century now. You know, during the Cold War, this was an intense argument.

You had the liberals constantly looking to places like the Soviet Union as a model. You know, saying that it was a better place. You still have these incredibly sand-poundingly stupid people talking about how Castro has a better model. You know?

BECK: I wonder who that is.

GOLDBERG: And all you have to do is just -- you have to just keep having the argument, you have to keep focus -- it`s a door-to-door fight.

BECK: Right.

GOLDBERG: And saying, you know, it`s first principles, and even if freedom makes things harder, it`s better to have it harder than to not have it free.

BECK: Right. Thanks, Jonah.

We`ll have more after the break. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: I have been getting a ton of e-mail from viewers wanting to know the status of the Merida Initiative, which is the $1.4 billion aid package that we`ve promised to Mexico to help them buy training and equipment, like advanced helicopters to fight drug cartels.

Now, you would think that a deal of this size would be pretty big news. You would be wrong. My staff called around today and almost no one seemed to know what was really going on, including members of Congress.

The initiative itself, reportedly hammered out in private between Mexican and U.S. officials, my understanding, the president and their president. No input from Congress whatsoever. And now it`s being railroaded through, with rumors swirling around that a portion of the funding may actually be buried in the Iraq funding bill later this year.

Don`t even try it.

Giving Mexico this much money when our own border and homeland security agents are so desperate for funding is bad enough. But to be this secretive about it, to not open this up to public debate it deserves, is inexcusable and un-American.

Congressman (sic) Gabrielle Giffords is from Arizona. One of the few voices in Congress actually asking tough questions about this plan.

Why so secretive, Congresswoman?

REP. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS (D), ARIZONA: I`m not sure why President Bush and President Calderon felt that they had to craft this deal behind closed doors, because there`s many of us in Congress that are working very hard to secure the border and to make sure that we don`t have the illegal smuggling of migrants and also of drugs.

But this deal was crafted without the consent of Congress, and now they`re expecting us to move ahead with the legislation. And I, for one, am not going to stand by and allow it to move forward unless we get some real accountability.

BECK: I mean, this is -- I mean, that`s a great word, accountability. There is no accountability. We helped train the Zetas. Now the Zetas are coming across the border, and they`re kidnapping our people, they`re killing people, and the drug cartels have gotten out of control because of the training we gave them.

This is a corrupt government. No accountability.

GIFFORDS: We need to give credit to President Calderon. I mean, here is a president who is now willing to extradite some of the drug traffickers. And I believe, honestly, that there is a better feeling with this and better attempt with this government than anything we`ve ever seen in the past.

My concern is, in my district, I have one of 10 Mexico/U.S. border districts. The Tucson sector of the border patrol is the most heavily- traveled sector along the entire 2,000 miles. About 50 percent of the drugs and 50 percent of the illegal immigrants who are coming in come in through the Tucson sector.

When -- we had a couple of hearings recently on the Merida agreement. When I had a chance to ask the people coming to testify on behalf of the Merida agreement if they`re coordinating and communicating with our local law enforcement, the sheriffs, the border patrol, the ranchers who were patrolling the area up and down the border as well, no communication. So before we put that money into Mexico, I want to make sure that it goes first and foremost to our front line, to the border.

BECK: I have to tell you, I had a conversation with a couple of sheriffs that went down to one of these big border sheriff meetings with homeland security and everybody else, and they asked. They said, can we get more money? We need more funding. We need some help here on the border.

You know what they were told? They were told in that meeting, we`re giving a lot of money to Mexico. Talk to them, have them help you out, get some of that money.

GIFFORDS: Well, I`m really concerned, again, of the lack of communication and coordination. For example, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAP funding, which is a reimbursement back to local law enforcement agencies, has been woefully underfunded.

Here in the Tucson sector, just last year we had 380,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants coming into our sector. Almost 400,000. Yet, we don`t have the bed space, we don`t have the magistrates available to even prosecute the people that are coming in and have felony backgrounds.

So, you know, again, my concern is that we have some very good systems in place, law enforcement is working very hard, but not enough resources to provide them to do their jobs effectively and correctly.

BECK: But you know what? You know, you talk about your border town. I grew up in a small town in Mount Vernon, Washington. It`s my understanding -- I just heard from a friend who lives there that they`re building a new $80 million jail to deal with the illegal alien problem.

That`s in Mt. Vernon, Washington. That`s north of Seattle. It is a problem in every town all across the country. What happens in your district affects the entire country.

Congresswoman, please let us know in the future what we can do to help fight the battle with you side by side. I`m an Independent, you`re a Democrat, but we`re all Americans. Let`s get this things fixed.

Thank you so much.

GIFFORDS: Well, thank you for getting this word out to people. Thank you.

BECK: You bet.

Coming up, I tend to look at England as a sign of things to come for us, so emergency room waiting, four hours or less. No, no, no, really. Don`t hold your breath. Seriously, no doctor`s going to see you in time.

Details in just a bit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: So I heard Americans like the words "hope" and "change." But I thought we`d do something a little different today. This is called thinking about an issue. And it may seem a little foreign to many Americans, but let`s give it a whirl. What do you say?

You know that little thing called universal health care? It sounds great. It`s universal. Not a single person will have a cough, ever.

Over in the U.K., they`re lucky enough to have it already, and the government must have hoped for a change, because they`ve just made a pledge. And if a government pledge can`t solve a problem, what can? I hope there`s no more change.

They pledged that if you go to the emergency room, you will be seen by a doctor in less than four hours. Wow. Reaching for the stars.

How are they meeting that lofty pledge? I don`t know.

I did some investigation. They actually call it something called patient stacking. And the union that represents the ambulance staff in the U.K. says it`s rampant.

Basically, when a patient arrives at the hospital, instead of moving them inside so they can be seen by a doctor, no, no, they make them wait in the ambulance until they know they can be seen by a doctor within the four- hour time limit. Some patients have had to wait in the ambulance for up to five hours before going inside, where they could wait an additional four hours. That`s not just bad for the patient, that`s also bad for the person who needs the ambulance, because they can`t get one because they`re all parked outside the hospital with sick people inside.

The worst example is the tragic story of Luke Galamore (ph). This is a 16-year-old leukemia patient.

His doctor requested a transfer to intensive care, calling it extremely urgent and absolutely critical. He waited an entire hour, contacted the ambulance control. They said, sorry, we have threw crews ready to pick them up, but ER wouldn`t let them offload their patients. He added, "It`s politics and it`s not fair on your patients."

Well, while waiting for the transfer, Luke Galamore (ph) slipped into a coma. He died 16 days later.

If you think this is an isolated incident, then you`re wrong. Guardian reported there were more than 33,000 ambulance delays of an hour or more in the last 15 months alone.

What a pledge that is. Universally cool.

Now, I know a critique of universal health care isn`t effective as saying, you know "hope" and "change" 3,000 times in a row, but it is something to think about.

If you want to know what else is in store for us, sign up now for our free e-mail newsletter on our special report on liberal fascism. It`s happening all this week, exclusively, for free at glennbeck.com.

From New York, goodnight, America.

END