Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Accountability Issues and Lying Lead to Problems in U.S.; Mexican Sheriff Asks U.S. for Sanctuary; Ohio Cancels Treatment for Sex Offenders

Aired March 24, 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, disenfranchisement in America. Why this country is being torn apart before our very eyes. All for power? To fix the problem, we have to identify the cause. And tonight, I`ll do just that.

Plus, a Mexican sheriff afraid for his life is seeking asylum in the U.S. Is this proof the drug gangs have won the battle on the border?

And the three candidates for president, all senators. The problem is, senators three lack key experience needed to do the job. I`ll tell you why the media is ignoring this story.

All this and more, coming up tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Well, hello, America.

With everything that`s going on in our country right now, here`s a headline we just didn`t need: "Witness Troubles Stymie Police." That`s great. It`s getting harder and harder now for cops to solve murders, because witnesses won`t talk to the police. They`re being told not to snitch. And sometimes threatened.

And now, 78 percent of police agencies surveyed cited a decreased willingness of witnesses to testify. Sweet, huh?

This is played out real well with a man who raped a woman in a St. Paul, Minnesota, hallway. Five to ten witnesses standing there witnessed the whole thing. Not one of them willing to talk.

From snitching to gangs to anti-American statements, many of us are being lied to for power. So here`s "The Point" tonight. America, we are tearing ourselves apart. And here`s how I got there.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. You probably heard that phrase, but you probably thought of it as a warning. But we need to remember that others, who hate what America stands for, see it as a road map. And they use that road map as a path to their own power. You see it everywhere from the 9/11 conspiracy freaks to Reverend Wright and his comments.

Much of the coverage on Wright has understandably been focused on Barack Obama. But let`s take Obama out of it for just a second. The point is, far too many people are cheering this guy on. Far too many people actually believe him. That leads to distrust of police and government and much, much worse.

For example, here`s one of the reverend`s most outrageous statements.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT, TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST: The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Great. How prevalent is that view? Well, according to a 2005 Rand Corporation/Oregon State University survey of African-Americans, an amazing 53 percent of those surveyed believed that, quote, "There is a cure for Africa, but it`s being with held from the poor." More than one in four believe that AIDS was produced in a government laboratory.

Now, once you believe this stuff, of course you`re not willing to trust the government. Of course you`re not willing to help police solve crimes. But where are the leaders, standing up and saying, "It`s not true"?

Here is what you need to know tonight. This type of disenfranchisement is real, and has spread throughout all of the races and all of religious, and left and right. Luckily, personal responsibility is the world`s cure-all. We just have to make sure that those who do wrong take responsibility, or the rest of us are going to force them to do it. We`ll cover all of these stories tonight.

One, if you`re a politician who lies to us, you get thrown out of office. If you`re an illegal immigrant, you`re going to be treated as if you`ve broken the law. You go to jail and then you go home. If you`re an incompetent businessman or a bank, we let you fail. If you were too stupid and couldn`t figure out your mortgage, we let you fail. And if you`re a murderer or a child rapist, we lock you up forever, and we find the people who will speak up against you.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American-Islam Forum for Democracy, and T. Rodgers, co-founders of Bloods, the street gang in West L.A. and the author of "The 50 Most Asked Questions about Gangs."

T. Rodgers, I just have to ask you -- I don`t have time. We`ll have you back. I want to know what the No. 1 question is about gangs. But let`s talk about the -- let`s talk about the culture.

No snitching. The code of silence and all of this stuff, it has led us down a path where we are tearing ourselves apart. Can you tell us a little bit about the culture and how it relates to the next generation?

T. RODGERS, CO-FOUNDER, L.A. BLOODS: Well, t he whole topic of the subject tonight is disenfranchisement. And gangs, as a subculture of America, have been disenfranchised. They`ve been locked out of America. They`ve been locked out of the mainstream of America. And within that being locked out, they developed their own code of -- their own code, their own sign language, their own everything. It`s a world within a world.

It is this need to survive that America has put upon those that have been disenfranchised is what you see now. Very briefly, we`ve given birth to a generation of people, a generation of kids that have been bred only to do one thing. And that one thing that they`re going to do is change, be it a peaceful change or a violent change.

BECK: That`s frightening. Zuhdi Jasser, where do we -- where do we go from there? Let me go to Minneapolis. Because it`s -- it`s in all sectors of life. This isn`t just the code of silence that rappers talk about.

It`s also happening in Minneapolis. It`s happening with the Somali community up there, with the -- with the rape of this woman in the hallway, where there was a code of silence. Don`t say anything. You can`t trust the police. America can`t be trusted.

ZUHDI JASSER, FOUNDER, AMERICAN-ISLAM FORUM OF DEMOCRACY: Glenn, you really hit the nail on the head when you talk about disenfranchisement. Because what happens, it is much easier for those that lack moral courage, those that lack a moral fiber to attack the messenger and shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message.

And this is the issue, is that it`s all about tribalism, collectivism, and especially for various minorities, whether it be the Muslim community, Arabic community. Often, rather than deal with real problems within our own communities, deal with the morality.

I mean, the Islam I was taught, taught me in the Koran that it`s important for me to fight for justice, even if it is against my own family. But gangs and others, it`s really more about just maintaining unity and circling the wagons, and forget morality and forget the truth.

BECK: So T. Rodgers, help me out with -- with this one. Because it sounded like your last answer started of with, you know, African-Americans have been disenfranchised, so we had to come up with gangs. You don`t believe that, do you? I mean...

RODGERS: No, sir. No, sir. When you trace back the history of gang, we can go directly to the movies, "Gangs of New York." From that, there was a gang called the Spook Hunters that hunted nothing but African- American -- African-American youth. So this gang phenomenon came out of protection and protection of the community.

It has developed into something that is vile, vicious and immoral now, because the standards that once were the code for the black family has now dissipated. There`s an evolution of -- or an influx of crack cocaine that made the child the head of the household now, and without...

JASSER: But Glenn, one of the problems I see in this is that, rather than look at the problems, there`s a constant deflection of responsibility and an excuse for finding a reason to collectivize groups based on skin color, religion or whatever, rather than have us live under one constitution with one morality that unites us under a common vision of immoral culture that stands for a reason, rather than stands for identity politics.

BECK: OK. Here we are. We`re three Americans from wildly different backgrounds, the three of us. And yet, I bet you that we can agree on right and wrong. I`ll bet you that we can agree that, you know, killing is wrong, you know, child molestation is wrong, that, you know, that good people know the difference between right and wrong and are empowered to be able to do the right thing, and to carve out their own niche in today`s America.

And yet, for some reason or another, me, Zuhdi, T., the three of us would be stereotypical people that would be separating -- people would be trying to separate us. Do you understand what I`m saying? Why is that, when we most likely agree on values and principles?

JASSER: Because it`s so much easier to slide down the slope of collectivism rather than morality and topics of ideas, rather than just group politics.

BECK: T., does e pluribus unum exist anymore? Does the idea of a melting pot exist anymore?

RODGERS: Well, not actually, man. On my side of the table, I have to go back to the Constitution of the United States where three-fifths of man -- did I say that? But it is that -- it is that type of history that has been put upon us, as a people of color.

BECK: Please, I have to tell you, I wasn`t here. My family members weren`t here. You weren`t here. What you do with your life today does not reflect on what happened 50 years ago. You have a choice.

RODGERS: I can`t agree with you. I can`t agree with you, Beck -- Glenn. I can`t agree with you, because that wrong has not been righted. I could stand here. I could sit here and say 40 acres and a mule. But I won`t do that.

BECK: What difference does it make? You have Oprah Winfrey, the richest woman in America. She`s an African-American. She was a rape victim. My gosh, this woman has had more bad things happened to her, but she turned it around.

You know, I have to have you back, because we`re out of time. I`d love to have you back.

And Zuhdi, as always, we`ll have you back, as well. Thank you very much.

Now coming up, disenfranchisement moves to the border where a Mexican official is looking for U.S. -- for asylum. We`ll speak to America`s sheriff, Joe Arpaio, coming up in just a second.

Then we`re going to examine exactly how the Democratic super delegates have the chance to do the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers intended. They are taking power away from the people.

And will the government take advantage of the dismal economic times we`re facing to get their filthy hands even deeper into our pockets of financial independence? You bet they will.

Tomorrow, in my free e-mail newsletter, the first in our exclusive three-part series on black liberation theology. What does the church that Barack Obama attended for nearly two decades really preach? Find up for sending out for my free e-mail newsletter right now at GlennBeck.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, not since John F. Kennedy has a sitting senator been elected to the White House. No, I`m just saying there might be a reason behind that. Maybe because senators would suck as president, or many of them don`t have the experience to be commander in chief. I`m just saying.

Now, come November, all of that changes, because we`ve got three that are all senators. Let`s see, out of the cast of characters, if any are ready for the Oval Office and who, if not all, are exaggerating their preparedness. Don`t miss "The Real Story," coming up.

But first, the whole program tonight is about disenfranchisement, people trying to cut us apart, and personal responsibility. Well, about 70 percent of Americans are against illegal immigration, but do you have anybody -- do you check anybody`s I.D. when they`re mowing your lawn?

And why is it that our politicians, including the three presidential candidates, won`t do a damn thing about this problem, and it`s a problem that`s getting so bad that even the people actually in charge of dealing with it are running for their lives?

Last -- last week, federal officials announced that the police chief in Polamis (ph), Mexico, south of New Mexico showed up at a border crossing, saying, "Could I have asylum, please?"

Chief Emilio Perez says his two deputies walked out on him and the explosion of gang and drug violence in his once quiet, peaceful border town has caused him to reconsider the whole police thing.

So today, the border, at least in part, is literally lawless. You know, I was reading the Associated Press`s write-up on this story. One thing that caught my eye, besides the obvious, is that when the reporter called the Mexican consulate in Texas and the federal police headquarters in Mexico for a comment, no one answered the phone. It just kept ringing.

And I thought to myself, hmm, you know, it`s not really any better on our side. How long before our border-town police chiefs and sheriffs abandon their posts in the face of rising kidnappings, violence and murders that have spilled over from Mexico. Their calls for help continued to go answered -- unanswered.

And I keep thinking to myself, "Washington, the phone`s ringing. Might want to pick it up. Call me."

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County in Arizona.

Sheriff, how are you, sir?

SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA: OK. Thank you, Glenn.

BECK: The -- you know, I read a story in "USA Today," front page today, that said the people that are being sent back now, they`re facing lawlessness. And that`s all they`re trying to get away from, is lawlessness.

And I thought, so they`re trying to escape to a country that is entering lawlessness. I mean, you can`t solve and run away from lawlessness by creating lawlessness in our country, can you?

ARPAIO: You know, we do have a problem in Mexico also over a year or two. I spent four years head of the DEA, federal drug enforcement in Mexico and then Texas, Arizona. I know a little bit about the border. There`s always been violence in Mexico.

Now, what`s concerning me, these people in Mexico are coming into the Maricopa County, Phoenix area. And they`re killing people.

BECK: Yes.

ARPAIO: Kidnapping and everything else, and they`re using their own philosophy in this country now.

BECK: We were just talking about that a few minutes ago. I mean, that`s -- that`s what it`s turning into, gang. I mean, e. pluribus unum is out the door. I remember my folks talking to me about the melting pot. That doesn`t exist any more. You don`t melt in. You bring your own culture with you and do whatever the hell you want and expect to get away with it.

Let me go back to the sheriff. How much danger do you think this guy is really in?

ARPAIO: Well, I don`t know. I don`t know if he`s just trying to get a free ticket in the United States. Usually, political asylum is confined to the State Department on political situations and foreign countries. I don`t know how far this has gone.

BECK: Haven`t they -- what -- what town is it? It might be Laredo. That has killed the sheriff there? Like, he has life expectancy of, like, 36 hours or some ridiculous thing like that?

ARPAIO: Yes. They`re chiefs of police. They don`t have sheriffs on that side of the border. But yes, they`re wiping out elected officials, and they`re wiping out law enforcement officials.

But we have a problem here. I`ve had a lot of threats on me, and I`m 70 miles from the border. It doesn`t affect me, because I`m going to continue to lock up illegals. Good Friday, we locked up 58. I`m taking a lot of heat from the elected officials when I came into Phoenix.

BECK: Do you have the Barabbas Law there in Phoenix, where you`re supposed to let people go on Good Friday?

ARPAIO: You know.

BECK: Why were they taking -- you were taking heat because of locking people up on Good Friday?

ARPAIO: Well, also how we operate. We do arrest illegals. We`re the only ones doing it, and I`m going to continue to do it. So I`m not concerned about politicians.

BECK: May I ask you -- God bless you, Sheriff, I love you. May I ask you, why does somebody do your job, particularly down on the border, or these border guards that nobody seems to really, you know, care about in our government?

You guys are repeatedly asking for help. You`re not getting any. It`s become more and more dangerous. I just saw on -- you know, on some this B-roll here that we`re running, that you`re asking, hey, join Sheriff Arpaio and become a deputy. Why would somebody do that?

ARPAIO: Well, I don`t know. It`s just we enforce all the laws. We should do that. Everybody should and give us the resources. The Border Patrol does a great job, but they`re always being accused of assaulting the bad guys, if you know what I mean.

So they have to be backed up. We back up our troops in Iraq, in Afghanistan, which we should. We should start backing up our law enforcement, especially at the border and start fighting back. We are at war, this war, illegal immigration and drug trafficking coming in from Mexico.

BECK: Sheriff, I appreciate all you do. And we`ll talk to you again. Stay safe.

ARPAIO: Thank you.

BECK: Coming up, ordinary citizens in Ohio must be wondering what the heck has gotten into their government after the state agency decided to stop treating sex offenders because of budget problems.

And we talk a lot about race and gender and age in this presidential contest. But we`ll take some time to talk about senatorial experience and whether a senator has what it takes to lead this country, as if it even matters. I mean, look at them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, continuing our theme of disenfranchisement tonight, all the things that piss us off that we think we can solve but nobody will.

Let`s go to our government for a second. Sometimes they have really tough choices. Sometimes those choices leave ordinary law-abiding citizens scratching their heads and saying, what the heck happened? Like the one made by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

They`ve decided that, because of budget constraints, funding therapy sessions for paroled sex offenders is not something they`re going to do. Critics are outraged. Many of them suggest that the chances of high-risk offenders repeating their bad habits will skyrocket.

I`ve got an idea. How about we don`t parole these people at all? I say then everybody wins. Darn, except for the child molester. Oh, well.

James Orlando is a clinical psychologist in Ohio.

You don`t look happy. You don`t -- you don`t look happy. You don`t look happy. So what about the idea, let`s leave them in jail?

JAMES ORLANDO, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: You know, Glenn, I think that that`s an option. And I think that we have to decide as a country what we`re going to do. If we`re going to leave every sex offender in jail for the rest of his or her life, then that`s one way to go.

But at this current time, that`s not the way we`re going. What we do is we parole sex offenders out. The vast, vast majority of sex offenders return to the community. And if that`s going to happen, then we have to have in place a monitoring system that helps ensure that we`re going to cut down on the recidivism rate so that there are less future offenses.

BECK: Come on. Make sure that it`s going to cut down the -- it did cut down on the rate, but it cut down 8 percent on the people, who were like, you know what, that 8-year-old sure looks hot. I mean, 8 percent reduction.

ORLANDO: Well, Glenn, I guess we have to look at it two ways. An 8 percent reduction means that there were a lot of kids that weren`t offended against. You know, that 8 percent translates into 8 percent of lives.

BECK: I want to know how to reduce it by 100 percent. How about we keep them in jail?

ORLANDO: Well, again, and if the country decides that they want to take that option and they want to implore their legislators to keep everybody in prison, then that`s an option to take.

The question is, at this point in time, what method are we using? And if we`re using a method of putting people in prison for a period of time and letting them back out, then what we have to do is focus on that 8 percent and try to keep that 8 percent from re-offending.

BECK: OK. You didn`t really -- you haven`t really been quoted as saying that it`s a lot like alcoholism. Tell me I`m -- tell me I have that wrong.

ORLANDO: Well...

BECK: Treating -- go ahead.

ORLANDO: Is your question that the treatment of sex offenders is a lot like alcohol or drug and alcohol treatment?

BECK: Yes. Yes.

ORLANDO: Well, in this sense I am quoted as saying that. In this sense. There is no cure. There is no cure for drug addiction. There is no cure for sex offending.

BECK: Yes.

ORLANDO: What you do is you try to put in place a management model that cuts down on the likelihood of a person having a relapse or a likelihood of a person reoffending if they`re a sex offender. So in that sense, there is a similarity.

BECK: OK. Because I -- I mean, you know, if I -- because I`m an alcoholic. And you know, if I want to go out and, you know, have a relapse, I go get a Jack and whatever and I`ve destroyed my life.

But if I`m thinking about having a Jack and Coke and I`m looking at that 4-year-old saying -- then, really, they can`t be compared. And they should be kept in jail. Go ahead.

ORLANDO: Absolutely. That comparison is not the one I`m making.

BECK: OK.

ORLANDO: But as a recovering alcoholic, I assume that you are supportive of Alcoholics Anonymous?

BECK: Absolutely.

ORLANDO: The most successful drug and alcohol treatment in the world.

BECK: Yes.

ORLANDO: The fact of the matter is...

BECK: I got you, doctor. We`ve got to go take a break. Thank you very much.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, welcome to "The Real Story."

Tonight`s program is all about disenfranchisement and lack of personal responsibility, because I think all of our problems just boil right down to that. And the topic begins and ends with our government. Oh, they`re our great teachers.

Now, when it comes to our presidential elections, most of us -- as least I have lived my entire life believing that we have a pretty good system in place. You know, you can count on the vote to be right. Then Florida happened. And that went right out the window.

A lot of people began to question the blind trust that they put in the process for all these years. Holy cow. Oh, look how easy it is for those Republicans to steal the election.

Wait a minute. Now eight years later, the same thing is happening. Except it`s the same people saying, oh, my gosh, look how half our party is stealing the election.

Americans are sitting in astonishment watching Democrats try to change the rules in states like Florida and Michigan in the middle of the game, all to avoid having their race decided by elite superdelegates which they invented. Each of these superdelegate basically have about 5,000 times more voting power than you and me.

While party leaders will still no doubt try to spin this ridiculous system as a good thing for the party and America, "The Real Story" is this is exactly the kind of thing that our founding fathers warned us about. In fact, they were so concerned that the people`s will one day be subverted by party elites, that they said in the Constitution -- no, I don`t think so.

If I may quote that outdated document, "No senator or representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall be appointed an elector of the president."

Well, guess what? Two hundred and sixty-four out of the 795 superdelegates are exactly that -- senators and representatives. Now, some of those superdelegates, you know, may choose a side simply based on the issues or the facts -- I doubt it. It`s a crazy outdated concept. But the rest are going to require a little more -- jobs in the administration, promises of funding for pet projects in their district, and outright cash.

All of it is likely happening behind closed doors right now. And guess what? It`s all completely legal.

Will it work? Yes. Yes, it will. A recent study showed that in every single case where a superdelegate received money from one candidate but not the other, the delegate is backing the candidate who gave them the money.

Let`s go back to our founding fathers for just a second here, because it`s not just about the money. At least it wasn`t for them. It was also about power.

They knew that having politicians elect our politicians was a dangerous idea because they tried it themselves. When we first started the country, they saw the legislature elect the leader the governor of these states.

What happens when that happens? You wind up with nothing but a leader who is indebted to the legislature. And unfortunately, that is exactly what may end up happening to all of us.

Peter Brown is a columnist for the Politico and assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Peter, the president is going to have to -- he`ll be indebted to Congress. Many very powerful people who will say, you know what? I need to have your support on this, Mr. President.

Right or wrong?

PETER BROWN, COLUMNIST, POLITICO: Well, if indeed the Democrats carry the White House, the Democratic nominee will obviously have been indebted to superdelegates along with the elected delegates. What the Democratic Party has is a standoff, and they`re looking for people to be the tiebreaker. And in this situation, it looks like the superdelegates may well wind up being the tiebreaker.

BECK: This is the craziest system I have ever heard of, and even the arguments on it are crazy. For instance, many people, including me, have been saying, wow, you cannot go against Barack Obama, because if a superdelegate overturns his state`s vote and says, I`m going to vote the other direction, and he votes for Hillary Clinton, it would cause mass troubles in this country. Yet, you have John Kerry and Ted Kennedy overturning the vote in Massachusetts, and you have Bill Richardson overturning the voters` will in New Mexico.

It`s double standard here, is it not?

BROWN: Well, it may be a double standard, but look at it this way -- the Democratic process -- big "D" Democratic process -- may be a bit small "D" democratic, undemocratic. But it`s much better than what they used to have.

Remember, the Democrats, like the Republicans back in the `60s and before, picked their candidates in smoke-filled rooms with only old white guys smoking cigars getting a vote. Then the Democrats went full circle the other way.

In the `70s, they came up with these reforms that gave more power to voters. But they found out they weren`t winning elections, so they made a midcourse correction in the middle `80s, and that`s when they instituted the superdelegates.

Now, superdelegates are essentially career politicians. So, it is reasonable to assume that they want to be with a winner. Because if they`re with a loser, they have a problem after the election.

BECK: So, you`re saying that, for instance, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, it`s about nothing but politics?

BROWN: Oh, I think so. Both of them are so secure in their seats, I don`t think it matters. But most of the other superdelegates are not nearly as politically secure. Half of the superdelegates are members of the Democratic National Committee. They`re party insiders.

BECK: Peter, may I ask you this? This is a very politically incorrect question I doubt you`ll answer, but I`ve got to give it a whirl.

Do you believe that the Democratic leadership wants to be for the African-American candidate? And many because, you know, they believe in what they say? But many also just because we can`t be -- it`s almost reverse racism -- they`re for him because of what it will mean to the party and what it says about us and all of that stuff?

BROWN: Well, I think you`re probably right. And here`s why.

Members of the Democratic National Committee and Democratic-elected officials are people who believe in a policy agenda that is promoting the opportunities for minorities in America. I think it is unlikely that if Senator Obama emerges from the primaries with the most unpledged delegates, that superdelegates will want to overturn that verdict and stop the nomination of the first African-American presidential candidate in this country.

BECK: Yes. There`s no chance of that.

All right, Peter. Thanks.

Now, nobody even blinks an eye anymore when a politician says, sex with hookers? You bet. Or lies, or should we call it exaggerates the truth, to fit their own agenda? But have you ever stopped to ask yourself why? Why doesn`t anybody care anymore?

Why don`t we hold our leaders to the same standard of accountability for their words and their actions that we hold our kids to? The media, of course, is supposed to anchor our system of checks and balances to be the voice of the people back to the government, but "The Real Story" is it`s hard for them to represent the people when they don`t even understand the people.

Trust me. I know I, you know, live in Manhattan, but I`m a misplaced fly-over state heartland kind of guy. They don`t know I`m here yet.

I think about 90 percent of the media newsrooms have no clue as to who you really are or what you really care about. For example, you probably saw nonstop clips from Obama`s historic speech on race last week. But how many times did you hear Senator Obama say this...

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn`t. But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn`t know, you know, there is a reaction that`s been bred into our experiences that don`t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way. And that`s just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BECK: Now, some people will tell you what Jimmy the Greek -- what Obama just said there doesn`t matter. They`ll claim that it, you know, doesn`t matter because it wasn`t a big story in the media. But that is circular logic that`s happening.

It wasn`t a big media story because it didn`t fit into their ratings or political agenda. So, does that mean that the ratings are the ultimate barometer for whether something is important to you? I don`t think so.

I think that`s why this show is different. We strive to be different, for better or for worse.

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in accountability. I hold myself accountable to the truth as I understand it and believe it. And you know what? Sometimes that means we don`t run with the rest of the pack. Sometimes -- actually, a lot of times, that means lower ratings as a result.

But I`m cool with that. I don`t need this job that bad.

But I am dedicated to making sure that what I really believe is said and what you really believe is said. Right now, I hear you loud and clear. Whether it`s in your life or politics, you`re just ready for the truth to matter again.

Senator Arlen Specter is a Republican from Pennsylvania and the author of "Never Give In."

Senator, you are quoted as saying sometimes senators will take a little extra credit that they don`t necessarily deserve. And you cite an example with you, Senator Kennedy and Senator Obama. Can you tell this story?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, Senator Kennedy, Senator Obama and me...

BECK: You`re not -- maybe I`ve got the wrong senator. Apparently, Senator Obama came up to you and said, "Hey, can I just get involved here in this immigration bill?" And was very late to the party, and then...

SPECTER: Well...

BECK: ... elbowed his way in.

SPECTER: ... it is true that Senator Obama only attended one session when we were working on the immigration bill. I never heard him take too much credit, but it`s not too unusual in my line of work if somebody may claim a little more credit than they`re entitled to. But the Senate is a collaborative effort. There are 100 of us working on the same thing at the same time.

BECK: You guys are -- I have to tell you, I mean, I -- you know, everybody has -- well, I shouldn`t say everybody. People have respect for reaching across the aisle. I have no problem reaching across the aisle, but not with people that I just think are completely wrong on things.

And John McCain reaches across the aisle to -- you name the most liberal person in Congress and he`s, you know, glad-handing them. I don`t see John McCain reaching back to the most conservative on his same side of the aisle and saying...

SPECTER: Well, you`re wrong, Glenn, on two counts. First of all, Senator McCain does reach across the aisle to the most conservative. I`ll give you specific examples.

BECK: Wait, wait, wait. Has he ever said to Kennedy, to Ted Kennedy, I need to you join hands with these people?

SPECTER: Well, because you have only 100 senators. Every vote is like hen`s teeth. It`s very precious.

What we frequently say, it`s not the last vote, it`s the next vote. And we really agree on very basic principles: freedom, integrity, hard work.

But John McCain works very closely with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Now, Senator Coburn is about as conservative as you can get. But we have different ideas with different senators at different times.

And our job is to try to accommodate. Our job is not to -- in my view, not to be ideological purists...

BECK: Sure.

SPECTER: ... but to try to work something through in a pragmatic way to serve the people. And we may fight like hell, frankly, during the day. And afterwards, we`ll go out and have a beer together. And that`s the way it ought to be. We`re not enemies, we`re collaborators, although we may disagree on a lot of matters.

BECK: Senator, thank you very much.

That this is "The Real Story" tonight.

Coming up, ever wonder what happens when you turn the economy over to the government? I`m going to spoil the surprise for you next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, all night we`ve been talking about how Americans are sick and tired of people splitting us apart, trying to come up with answers that they don`t have. Sick and tired of the government and our voices being ignored.

So why, may I ask -- because I don`t understand this -- are so many here in America willing to give that government that we all hate more power over us? Every time this country faces a crisis, a knee-jerk reaction is exactly what our government has in store for us. More power.

You know, if they just had more power, then this crisis would have never happened. It happened after Enron. It happened after 9/11. We had the Patriot Act. And now in the midst of the credit crisis, it`s giving our government sweeping new powers to regulate our financial markets.

I have good news for you. The solutions to our problems, never more laws than regulations. Unfortunately, bad news -- nobody will pay attention to that.

It`s always about personal responsibility. It`s about free market. It`s about letting people and businesses who have failed experience the pain of that failure. That`s better than any regulation you can come up with.

Going the other direction by lending, you know, even more of our power to the government is not only the wrong answer, it`s what got us into this position in the first place.

Ken Rogoff is the economics professor at Harvard University and the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund.

Boy, your career is just spiraling out of control. Now you`re on this program? I mean, jeez.

Ken, let me start with this. I think that we are creating yet another bubble. I see the stock market just going up, and I don`t think any of this stuff is real because it`s just the Fed dumping money in, and I believe socializing us. I don`t think there`s a chance that we`re not a European socialist nation in five years.

You`re laughing at me. Do you disagree?

KENNETH ROGOFF, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Well, we`ve got a ways to go to that, but I think you`re right to worry about that here.

BECK: OK. And why do you say that?

ROGOFF: Well, I mean, we have a disastrous housing crash going on, and a lot of people are losing money, a lot of financial firms are losing money. And the government`s not able to take the heat really.

I mean, they don`t want to let a bank fail. They don`t want to let mortgage holders seem to be in default. And there`s tremendous temptation to just come in and say, we`ll put money in everywhere and make everything all right.

BECK: Yes. I have to tell you -- I mean, I read in the newspaper that Krispy Kreme is in danger. Now, there`s a case for a government bailout.

I mean, look at me. I`ll help you, Krispy Kreme. Call me.

Here`s the problem that I see -- everybody is talking about bailouts, and they`re talking now about more regulation. As I understand the 1930s, the reason why the Depression was so long in America is because we were playing with regulation and we were playing with bailing everybody out.

We had the New Deal. You couple more regulation with a new New Deal, and we`re dead. I think that`s what we`re going to get.

ROGOFF: Well, I don`t know what we`re going to get out of this. I mean, when we had Enron, we came out with a set of laws which were really too much, an overreaction. And certainly if I had to identify the biggest danger here, it`s that we take our financial system, which is the most vibrant in the world -- it`s actually in many ways our strongest export industry -- and we end up just crushing it with regulation.

There are some legitimate concerns here. I mean, we do backstop banks, and the banks have been lending to a part of the financial system that`s not regulated. And we end up bailing out that sector because we promised to bail out the banks, and also because we care about the mortgage holders.

This is not a simple problem. But you do worry about an overreaction that were set off on that train, and that`s not going to stop.

BECK: Ken, tell me about -- because I read a story this weekend that banks are actually getting together and saying, why don`t we just have the government -- why don`t we all go to the government together and say, buy up all of our bad debt?

Did you read anything about this?

ROGOFF: Well, they`d like that. And, I mean, I think some of the reason that Wall Street is euphoric and why financial stocks are going up, they`re in expectations that there are bailouts coming on down the road. I think what the Federal Reserve is hoping is what they did somehow props up housing prices, and that props up the banks, and then the problem goes away for a while.

BECK: I`m sure that will happen.

Ken, thank you very much.

We`ll be back in just a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, in case there was any doubt, we now have confirmation of the ongoing strategy to get you fired up about global warming. This is a quote from "USA Today" and the director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change. "The more people are inundated with facts and figures, the more emotionally turned off many become. You have to have an emotional response, bad or good, to put a high priority on doing something."

I get it now. Less facts, more emotion. Is that even possible in the global warming debate? Did you see the pictures of the polar bears and the penguins?

I know it sounds like a great way to form public policy, but maybe it`s just me. Perhaps a bigger problem for environmentalists today is trying to find a solution that they can be happy with.

It seems like everything proposed winds up being a bigger problem than fossil fuels are in the first place. Let`s start with biofuels.

When I say they don`t make any sense economically or environmentally, I get called a Holocaust denier. But today, Britain`s chief environmental scientist said that biofuels might just be worse for the environment than fossil fuels. He said that it would be insane to have a policy that actually is -- quoting here -- "leading to an increase in the greenhouse gases from biofuels."

Not insane, quite frankly. Just par for the course. Because it`s not just biofuels.

"The Washington Post" reported large-scale environmental hazards in China now due to mass industrial dumping from the creation of solar panels. Residents are forced to close their windows and doors because of the poison air.

Then there`s my personal favorite -- I like this one -- walking certainly more green than driving, right? No, not according to environmentalists now.

What people tend to forget about us humans is we`re sort of like little engines ourselves. The little engine that could or can`t, in some cases. We need fuel in the form of calories. That`s how we survive. Even environmentalists are now acknowledging that if you walk one and a half miles and then replace those calories by, I don`t know, having a glass of milk, for example, the greenhouse emissions connected with that milk, about as high as the emissions from a car making the same trip.

You can bet that I`ll be trying out the, "Honey, I can`t walk, I`m killing the Earth" excuse tonight. I`ll let you know how it turns out.

Until that time, from New York, goodnight America.

END