Skip to main content
Search
Services


 

Return to Transcripts main page

GLENN BECK

D.A. Removed from Duke Rape Case; Questions Arise Over Found Boys; Christian Fundamentalist Defends Murdering Abortion Doctor

Aired January 15, 2007 - 19:00:00   ET

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


GLENN BECK, HOST: What would Martin Luther King have thought of Mike Nifong and the Duke lacrosse team?
Plus, the latest on that bizarre kidnapping in Missouri. That and more coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by Mike Nifong, attorney at law. Why let a lack of evidence get in the way of a good lawsuit? Mike Nifong has gone after Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Freddy Krueger. Mike Nifong, attorney at law. He`ll fight for you no matter what.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: All right. Every time I read the story about the Duke lacrosse team this weekend, I couldn`t help but think that all of this is in the paper around Martin Luther King Day.

Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong, he is the man who aggressively pursued the rape charges against the three Duke lacrosse players. He had to be taken off the case on Friday, amid the rumblings that he might face ethics charges and even disbarment. Good.

Just to catch you up here, the alleged victim has changed her story multiple times. The rape charges have since been dropped. But let me start here. Let me start with the point tonight.

What happened to the Duke lacrosse team was practically a lynching without the rope. And for the first time in my life, Mr. Oreo Cookie without the chocolate on the outside can understand why people celebrated when O.J. Simpson was acquitted.

Here`s how I got there. The guys on the lacrosse team were immediately found guilty by the media, the prosecutors, the public, without the benefit of a trial. Tragically, when you look back at it, that`s the way the African-American community have been treated for so long by our own justice system. We are now just starting to see the chickens come home to roost.

With this case, when it first broke, I thought the guys were guilty. I was appalled on several different levels. First, the inappropriateness of the initial event. I mean, I`m not a prude. I get it. Guys do this stuff, et cetera, et cetera.

But you know what? The lesson for my son right away, from the very beginning, I thought to myself, you know what? You want to be believed that you had nothing to do with stuff like this, then you don`t go to parties like that.

But as the case started to unfold, it also began to unravel. The victim changed her story a few times. There were whispers about Nifong perhaps withholding DNA evidence which would have exonerated the accused. He never talked to them. The "60 Minutes" story came out.

And of course, all of this was taking place against the backdrop of his reelection race. Well, what was that about, huh? I then began to realize that this case was handled not in a sloppy manner but what appeared to me, at least, to be an unethical manner, which was intentionally obstructing the truth for personal and political gain. That is when I just about went out of my mind.

Now, this weekend, as I was thinking about Martin Luther King, I listened to some of the "I have a dream" speech. I started to think about what African-Americans have been through.

Now granted, I am the whitest white man in America. You won`t meet whiter men than me. It would be naive for me to say I now understand what the African-American experience has been. But you know what? I kind of do.

If I would have grown up in the South and my people would have been railroaded over and over and over, not for in this one case but for hundreds of years, you know what? I wouldn`t trust the police. I wouldn`t trust the judicial system. And if I could stick it to the man with somebody like O.J. Simpson, I am sorry to say I think I would.

So here`s what I know tonight. We have come a long way since the days of Martin Luther King. I mean, we`ve gotten better as a nation. We`re not fixed but we`re a lot better. Racism is, unfortunately, still very much alive in America, but we`re on the right path.

And you know what else is alive and well? Political corruption, greed, bribery. Reverse racism, which it`s now called, is rearing its ugly head.

We can`t allow ourselves to be separated yet again. We have to unite, celebrate when justice is served, regardless of skin color or political leanings. However, when justice is trampled on, we all lose.

Here`s what I don`t know. Will the leaders who rallied the troops against the Duke lacrosse team now take a stand and say lynching is bad, no matter what the color?

Defense attorney Mickey Sherman, he joins me now.

Mickey, how did the wheels come off of this thing?

MICKEY SHERMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, I think one of the problems is when we elect our prosecutors and our district attorneys, it kind of invites the district attorney perhaps having a motive to suck up to the public to worry about the election instead of worrying about justice.

And, you know, people forget that it`s classically not the job of the prosecutor to convict. It`s the job of the prosecutor, regardless whether it`s state, federal or anyplace else, it`s their job to see that justice is done. And that really went down the toilet here.

BECK: How soon should this guy have known? Personally, in retrospect, when you see a case like this, and Jackson and Sharpton don`t come down to rally the base, that should have said something right there.

SHERMAN: They went down there. I don`t think they ever unpacked their suitcases. It was a very brief -- a very brief appearance together with a high-profile African-American attorney who everyone thought was going to bring a major lawsuit.

I mean, very quickly from the get-go, he came out -- Mike Nifong came out swinging, and that`s not just appropriate for the prosecutor to do either. And then he -- when he realized he didn`t have a lot of ammunition, he tapered it down but then kind of dug himself into a hole and let a lot of bad things happen.

BECK: OK. Did he -- do you believe that, as he went along, that he really believed this, or do you think this was just a political opportunity for this guy?

SHERMAN: Well, here`s the problem. And I do not fault him for going forward. When you`re a prosecutor -- I was one for four years. Most criminal defense attorneys were prosecutors. And we prosecute a rape case. It`s not up to us. It`s not up to some lawyer, whether it`s a prosecutor or somebody else to say to an alleged rape victim, "You know something? I don`t believe you." The better way is to let the jury decide.

But it went beyond that. There became situations where there were so many signs that she was wrong, she was lying. The evidence was physically not there. And the crowning moment, Glenn, is when he hid, hid the actual evidence that was going to absolve the case with DNA.

BECK: I mean, not only -- not only did he hide the DNA, it started the first week into it. He started whipping this up and started going after these guys and trying them in the media. It`s not his position to do that either, is it?

SHERMAN: It`s not. But you know, it`s very difficult for somebody in his position. I`m talking about literally a small town prosecutor, when you`ve got 25 satellite trucks outside your office and you`re getting calls from Nancy grace and Glenn Beck and Larry King -- notice I`m just using this network, by the way.

BECK: Yes.

SHERMAN: No schmuck here.

BECK: Good.

SHERMAN: Bottom line is when you get -- when you`re getting grilled by the media, it`s your chance to be in the sun. And a small town prosecutor is not used to that. I think he was overwhelmed by it. I think he was entranced and intoxicated by it, and it got him into trouble.

BECK: You know, I am -- maybe it`s just me. I just see this as a lynching. I mean, it really was a lynching without the -- without the rope. How often does that stuff happen?

SHERMAN: You know, obviously, too often than we know about. You know, here it`s weird because it`s happening to upper class -- or upper middle class white kids. God knows how many times it`s happened to minorities all across the country, not just in the south and not just in the inner-city.

BECK: Yes. You know, it doesn`t even need to be minorities, per se. But, I mean, think about how many times, if "60 Minutes" wouldn`t have gotten involved, and "New York Times", whatever, if they wouldn`t have put that pressure on...

SHERMAN: Right.

BECK: ... this thing would have just been swept under the rugs, and these guys would have been torched.

SHERMAN: Don`t forget. It`s not over. These charges are still pending. They`re still pending, and who knows what a jury is going to do. As we learned from Robert Blake, O.J. and several other cases, ain`t no such thing as a locked case either way. These kids are still on the docket. They`re still going to get a trial. And they may find 12 jurors on there who are going to believe Mike Nifong`s successor.

BECK: So wait a minute. You don`t think charges are going to be dropped? You don`t think these guys are going to walk away?

SHERMAN: I would think so, but you know something? It hasn`t happened yet.

BECK: It`s insane. Does this woman have any credibility at this point?

SHERMAN: Well, it`s certainly getting diminished. What I think is happening is that the prosecutor out in Colorado did with the Kobe Bryant situation. I think the prosecutor -- this prosecutor or Mike Nifong`s successor is going to be hoping and wishing and waiting that the victim, the alleged victim comes forward and says, "Hey, I want out."

And this takes the prosecutor off the hook. They can say, "Hey, I was ready to prosecute these guys, but she doesn`t want to cooperate."

BECK: OK. Your prediction for what`s going to happen to Nifong?

SHERMAN: I think he`ll be a really good prosecutor in the motor vehicle court, doing overtime parking cases.

BECK: Wow. So you don`t think that he`ll be disbarred?

SHERMAN: No. I think he`ll be censured. I don`t think he`s going to be -- to -- to disbar somebody these days, you`ve got to steal a boatload of money. You`ve got to, you know, not just hide the evidence but falsify it.

He did something wrong. I think he has a record of decency other than this. I think he was just overwhelmed. I don`t think he`s going to jail. I don`t think he`s going to be disbarred.

BECK: OK. Mickey, thanks.

SHERMAN: My pleasure.

BECK: Coming up, two missing Missouri boys found, one right after another, one four days after he was kidnapped. The other was four years after he was kidnapped, both being hidden in plain sight. What the heck happened here?

And I know you think this show is all about crazy Muslim extremists, but you`re wrong. It`s all about crazy religious extremists. Killing in the name of Jesus. Why no religion is immune from nut jobs.

And nut jobs, a natural segue to Congress. The GOP is all up in arms about some apparent hypocrisy with Speaker Pelosi. But "The Real Story", unfortunately, not always what it seems. Don`t miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: All right. Now, we`re -- OK, we`re seeing the message of "24". Not all Muslims are bad. And then it turns out that that Muslim is bad. You think, holy cow. Did the Islamic community in America -- not going to be real happy at least right now with "24".

It`s going to turn out that the Muslims are going to save the entire world, mark my words. It will be some white German oil man that`s behind the whole scheme. But right now it`s pretty intense, isn`t it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, almost 60,000 children are abducted each year by non-family members. Thankfully, the vast majority of them are returned safely.

However, there are over 100 cases that involve children abducted for longer periods of time, put up for ransom, or killed by their abductors. Each year, just over half of those children make it back home.

It`s every parent`s worst nightmare. I don`t know about you, but this story has been driving me crazy. One minute your life is normal and your kids are safe. They`re out riding their bike or getting on the school bus. Then, they`re gone, vanished without a trace, and things couldn`t ever be the same again.

Two families in Missouri finally got to wake up from that bad dream last Friday when their children returned safely to them. However, the story is yielding far more questions than answers.

The two boys were kidnapped from different families, one just six days ago, the other four years ago. Both being held captive by the same guy, just an hour drive from their home.

Why didn`t the older boy, who`s now 15, try to escape or try to call home or tell somebody that he had been kidnapped? Why would the kidnapper who`d managed to hide one boy for over four years risk it and take another kid? And even though both of them seem physically unharmed, what kind of nightmare scars are on these kids and these families that we can`t see?

Caryn Stark is a clinical psychologist.

Caryn, help me make sense of this. It`s my understanding that the 15- year-old teenager stayed with the kidnapper, had even been stopped by police away from the kidnapper and didn`t say anything. Why?

CARYN STARK, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: I know that`s so hard to understand, Glenn, but this is so typical of this syndrome. It`s the Stockholm syndrome is what they call it. And it`s when someone is with their captor, and they begin to identify with the person who captures them.

This boy was only 11 years old when he was first captured, and he was very vulnerable. And if you put somebody in this situation where they feel threatened, they can`t escape, they`re isolated, they really begin to identify with the person who has captured them.

And so he doesn`t see the world any other way except through this man`s eyes. He`s frightened, and this becomes his reality.

BECK: OK. So how much -- I feel so bad for this kid.

STARK: Yes.

BECK: Because now, how is he going to deal the rest of his life, once he gets out of this syndrome? Is he going to say, "What kind of a role did I play in this? Did I want to stay with him?" What kind of stuff is going to be going through his mind through the rest of his life?

STARK: Well, what you hope, Glenn, is that he really gets some help here, and I`m sure that he will. Because it`s like brainwashing. And so, even though he might blame himself, in the end he will understand that this was not his fault.

BECK: Right.

STARK: He gets back into a situation where he gets the right kind of nurturance, and he gets to see a wider world. He`s with his family, and he will be OK again.

BECK: OK. Now let me switch gears here and go to Mom and Dad. Because I watched this as a parent. And one of the things, when I saw him and he -- you know, everything was fine. But then I started hearing that he had been caught by police, you know, late at night, you know, causing trouble, et cetera, by himself, didn`t turn himself in.

Now I thought, well, as a dad, would I be thinking, "How come my son doesn`t love me?" Or what are the parents going to go through now?

STARK: Well, I think at first they might wonder why that was the case. But I think if they get the kind of explaining that I`m doing with you, they`ll begin to understand that he really didn`t have the ability to do that.

You think about Elizabeth Smart. And everyone wondered why didn`t she -- why was she hiding herself and why didn`t she turn herself in? It`s exactly the same thing.

He really doesn`t have the ability to do it. It seems like he should, but he can`t. He`s afraid, and this has become his reality. It has nothing to do with his parents or love or having that freedom to choose to do that.

BECK: Let`s go to the younger kid, the one that was just kidnapped and found after a few days. Explain -- he comes home. The first thing he wants to do is play a video game. Is that normal?

STARK: Very normal. Because he is so young, and he really can`t express what he`s feeling. Children aren`t capable of doing that. And what he wants to do right now is go back to normalcy. A video game, he can get lost in it. He doesn`t have to think about what happened to him. And he could feel like he`s himself again.

BECK: Is -- they found child porn, or we think that they found child porn. Supposed to hear Wednesday whether or not there are any charges on this. We think they found child porn on this loser`s computer. He`s been a pizza delivery guy or whatever for, like, 25 years. And now child porn. Is there a chance that he wasn`t abducting these kids to sexually abuse them?

STARK: Well, you know, there`s no way to really know, but I would be surprised, since they found child porn that he hadn`t been. You have to figure out, and think about it, Glenn, why would he be abducting these children to begin with? It doesn`t make a lot of sense unless he had abuse in mind. And one would fear that he had sexual abuse in mind in this case.

BECK: So was -- is there a possibility that the new kid was a refresher because the other one is getting too old or whatever it is?

STARK: And also if you take a look at criminal activity and the way that a criminal mind works, he already had his abduction. He went through being able to do that. And it`s as though he has this need that`s not satisfied that has to get satisfied again.

BECK: OK. You brought up, a second ago, Elizabeth Smart. What are the parallels between what we see here and Elizabeth Smart?

STARK: A situation where someone is taken from their home, they`re not exposed to the public, they`re isolated at first, they`re in an abusive situation, often a sexually abusive situation. They feel that their life is threatened, and they have no recourse except to be attached to the captive -- to the person who has captured them.

You also have to assume that, every once in a while there`s an act of kindness that goes into the situation. So that they`re abused and they feel frightened, and then the person nurtures them a little bit. So it`s a mixed message.

BECK: So it`s kind of like -- it`s just like an abused wife or an abused spouse that the guy comes and says, "I`m so sorry, honey."

STARK: That`s it, yes.

BECK: OK.

STARK: It`s just like a battered wife syndrome or child abuse.

BECK: OK. Thank you very much.

STARK: You`re welcome.

BECK: Coming up next, it is not just Islam that has a problem with fanatics. Christians now have used the name of Jesus to justify a murder. Stick around for this one, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. If you`re a regular viewer of this program, you know that I am the first to challenge moderate Muslims, to speak out, condemn the actions of their extremist fringe and say, "These guys don`t speak for me or my God."

Members of every faith need to do the same when something happens in their faith: Jew, Buddhist, Mormon, Catholic, I don`t care. It`s not your privilege; it is your responsibility to speak out against those who were corrupting your religion.

Today I want to take a look at the lunatic fringe of Christianity. This guy`s name is James Kopp. He is a member of the radical anti-abortion organization, God`s Army -- or Army of God. He`s on trial in Buffalo for the murder of an abortion doctor.

This guy, I want you to know, does not speak for me or my God, and I say that as a Christian.

Here now is Scott Applebee. He`s a professor of the -- of history at Notre Dame University.

Scott, what is the difference between this guy and a Muslim terrorist?

SCOTT APPLEBEE, PROFESSOR, NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY: There are a lot of differences. Muslim terrorists coming from a different part of the world and have a different cause to fight for. What they hold in common is that they both have changed the rules of the game of engagement, because they`re fighting for something more than land or territory or money. They`re fighting for eternal life.

BECK: Now, I have heard -- where was it? I think it was on TV recently, maybe in one of these dramas where the guy was defending himself. And he said, "I`ve got to do it. I have to speak out. I have to speak out, because abortion is murder."

And I thought, it`s the same thing that Muslim terrorists are saying for a different reason.

APPLEBEE: Well, it`s the same in the sense that they believe there`s something more important than human life. And a number of groups and religions believe that. There`s something more precious, and it`s the will of God, because the immortal soul will live forever. But the body will die in historic time.

So yes, you`re right. There`s something more important than simple murder or killing or warfare in this time and space.

BECK: OK. I get so many calls on my radio show from people who are always saying, "Glenn, you haven`t read the Koran. The Koran is just full of death and destruction and everything else."

Look, I`m a Christian. I read the Bible. Have you read the Bible? The Bible is also full of that. It`s how you interpret it. Am I wrong to say that the real difference here between our scriptures is that one haven`t been interpreted or seen yet through the eyes of reformation?

APPLEBEE: Well, that`s -- that`s true. Let`s bring the Jewish text in, too. Deuteronomy says, "I set before you life and death. Choose life." And these scriptures have life and death. It`s a response to the experience of God as all powerful.

And Judaism and Christianity have gone through several reformations in their history, in which they have distanced themselves for various reasons, at times, from the political order. Islam is still struggling with that, the relationship to the state.

BECK: How do you stop a guy like this guy who -- who believes that shooting abortion doctors, I mean, is the right thing to do or a Muslim terrorist? Can you stop them and turn them?

APPLEBEE: No, you can`t. I mean, you stop them the way you stop any criminal. You do whatever preventive measures, take whatever preventative measures you can take.

But this is too far gone when you have someone who is a member of an organization like Army of God, who believes God is the general and we`re in a cosmic war. There`s no stopping that.

BECK: OK, Scott, thank you very much.

Now, listen, if you are standing up against anybody who is hijacking your religion, I want to hear about it. This is the place where you can hold them accountable. Draw me a line at GlennBeck@CNN.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Now, by now, you`ve probably heard the news that President Bush personally ordered the raid on an Iranian government office inside Iraq last week. But what you may not have heard is that the military now believes that the five men they detained are connected to a special Iranian Revolutionary Guard unit.

If this is true, this is a very big deal, because that unit has been known to provide funds and weapons, including IEDs, to insurgents -- i.e., terrorists -- that are attacking coalition troops. Get it? But even though this latest raid got the most publicity, it was far from the first time that Iranians were found inside Iraq.

On both December 20th and the 21st, U.S. forces found Iranians in the country with links to -- as a U.S. general delicately put it -- with links to illegal activities that have occurred there. Hmm.

The real story tonight? Iran is committing acts of war against us, and no one in our government wants to acknowledge it. People are afraid that they`re going to be accused of either trying to provoke Iran or they`re just trying to set up some sort of smokescreen to distract everybody from a war in Iraq.

Well, distraction or not, people in America need to hear it. They need to hear it now, and they need to hear it from our president. Honestly, President Bush is like a Navajo wind talker at times when he gives these speeches. It like he`s developed some sort of code that he just hopes that people will be able to decipher on what he`s really trying to say.

Now, the reason why he makes such big news when he says something about Iran is because people believe, "Oh, my gosh, look what he`s saying now. this is the first time I`ve ever heard him say that." Reality is he`s been talking about Iran for years. He just -- in typical George W. Bush, God bless him, typical George W. Bush style, he never expresses it clearly.

For example, I went back and I read all the State of the Union speeches recently. I know, you`re jealous of my life. But he has been talking about that threat from Iran since 2002. That address right after September 11th -- and I quote -- "Iran aggressively pursues nuclear weapons and exports terror. By seeking these weapons of mass destruction, they pose a grave and growing danger. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer."

Again, that was five years ago. Some people still seem to have absolutely no understanding or appreciation of the enormity of this threat that Iran poses.

Next Tuesday, the president is going to give the 2007 State of the Union address, five years, almost to the day, that he first put Iran into the axis of evil. This year, in this speech, the president must decide that enough is enough. He has got to put political repercussions aside.

He has to explain to the nation, plainly and passionately, how deeply responsible Iran is for the chaos in Iraq. He has to describe the line in the sand that we will absolutely not allow them to cross. Because I am curious, Mr. President, if finding their troops killing our troops in Iraq doesn`t cross that line, what does exactly?

Next, about three seconds after the House passed their new minimum wage bill last week, Republicans hit the media to allege, quote, "hypocrisy and double talk" from Democrats, specifically from the new House leader, Nancy Pelosi. Well, it turns out that the new bill excludes just one U.S. territory, American Samoa, a territory that, contrary to popular belief, doesn`t make those yummy Girl scout cookies, but does have almost 80 percent of its workforce employed by Star-Kist Tuna. Now, follow me here.

Star-Kist Tuna is owned by Del Monte, which coincidentally is headquartered in San Francisco, which, to bring this full circle, is in Nancy Pelosi`s district. Got it? Now, I`ve told you over and over, since the beginning of this program, I`m a conservative, so when I first heard this story, I really wanted to use it to show how quickly the Democrats had betrayed their promise to be ethical.

But I have also told you from the first episode of this program that I`m going to try to be fair. And it`s not about parties; it`s not about politicians. This story is a great example of something that is about right and wrong, not left and right.

The real story tonight: There is no hypocrisy. There`s no controversy. Just like about everything else when it comes down to the federal minimum wage, this is about playing politics. And I know that because the American Samoa has never been covered by our federal minimum wage laws, never, not even under the Republicans. They`ve always had a special exemption that allows their minimum wage to be reviewed every two years by the Labor Department.

And why do they have that exemption? Because life in American Samoa, a little different and a little less expensive than, let`s say, life in New York City. But more importantly, because of a dramatic increase in their wage, that could result in massive lay-offs if the tuna companies decide to move their operations elsewhere.

But here`s the thing. The finer points of tuna-canning or determining a fair living wage in American Samoa doesn`t really interest the Republicans, and it doesn`t interest the Democrats. To them, it`s not about the right answer; it`s about the politically expedient one.

If Republicans really wanted to find something in this minimum wage bill to complain about, then why not point out that the bill doesn`t automatically index for inflation like most state minimum wage laws do? That`s important, because it means that the only wage for this wage to be raised again is to find another Congress and have them come together and fight for the little people, probably in an election year, and make a big deal about how they want to help those low-wage workers.

Unfortunately, sometimes political gains have real world consequences like this story does. Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi caves to the pressure and is now apparently going to take away the Samoan exception. This is a colossal mistake that is going to hurt Samoans for decades to come.

And she made this decision partly because of the pressure put on her by people like Congressman Patrick McHenry from North Carolina. Now, this is the highlight of the new legislative session. And you know how stiff that competition could be.

McHenry challenged Barney Frank on the House floor as to why American Samoa is not also exempt from other legislation like, let`s say, the new stem cell bill. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PATRICK MCHENRY (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Would it be appropriate to offer an amendment at this time exempting American Samoa just as it was from the minimum wage bill?

REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: No, it would -- the gentleman will subside. It would not be under the rule that was adopted appropriate to offer an amendment at this time.

MCHENRY: So an amendment has...

(CROSSTALK)

FRANK: No, the gentleman has asked a parliamentary inquiry, and he`s received the answer. The chair regrets that he does not like the answer, but cannot change that.

(CROSSTALK)

MCHENRY: Further parliamentary inquiry? So the chair is saying that I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa...

(CROSSTALK)

FRANK: The gentleman is making a speech and will suspend. The chair is not saying anything.

MCHENRY: If the chair will let me finish my question...

FRANK: The gentleman will suspend.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I mean, this is politics at its best, isn`t it? Congressman, how are you, sir?

MCHENRY: Doing great, Glenn, how are you?

BECK: Well, I`m a little disturbed on this, because I think everybody`s playing politics here. The Democrats were playing with the minimum wage, which is just a bad idea. The Republicans are playing a game with this American Samoa thing. You know and I know they`ve always had an exemption. And now it looks like the American Samoa is going to be hurt.

MCHENRY: Well, as a conservative, look, I believe that all of America should be exempt from this bad minimum wage increase bill. If it`s going to cost jobs in American Samoa, as you point out in your monologue, it`s going to cost jobs here in America.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Congressman, yes, I agree with you. But there is a difference, when you`ve got people competing for jobs at 60 cents an hour, and you have the minimum wage in American Samoa being like, well, what is it, like $3.50 or $3.13 an hour...

MCHENRY: $3.26 an hour is the average for the cannery which...

BECK: Correct. So now it`s going to be -- the bottom will go to $7.25. That`s going to cripple that industry.

MCHENRY: Look, I`m not saying Pelosi`s decision is right. What I`m pointing out to the American people and to you in the press is that, either Nancy Pelosi did not know the contents of this legislation, the speaker of the House either did not know the contents of this legislation or did to benefit a hometown company. It`s a very perplexing question.

BECK: Wait a minute. Look, I`m a conservative, man, but let`s stop playing games with this. She wasn`t going out of her way to help a hometown company. They`ve never had the exemption. They`ve never -- under your Congress, they didn`t have this.

MCHENRY: Look, that`s not the issue here. They`re either trying to slip this by or she didn`t know about the contents. It`s a perplexing question.

BECK: How are they trying to "slip this by"? How is she trying to slip -- they`ve never done it any other way.

MCHENRY: Glenn, Glenn, they include Northern Marianas Islands, which is normally not subject to the federal minimum wage, and they increased the wages there. What they did -- the only territory they exempt or omit from this legislation is American Samoa. That is the only territory of all of our states and all of our territories.

BECK: Congressman, you know what this reminds me of?

MCHENRY: What?

BECK: The debacle of the Dubai ports. When that thing happened, I was outraged that our ports were being taken over by Dubai. But I said at the time, if you really care about it, then get our ports out of the hands of China.

And when everybody in Congress was debating this back and forth I said, look out, man, this is all about politics. It will go away. They`ll make some big grandiose stand, and then nothing else will happen. And you know what? I was right. Nothing`s happened. China still has our ports.

(CROSSTALK)

MCHENRY: The more important debate here, Glenn, is the devastating effect of the federal government setting wages. It doesn`t work. If it doesn`t work in the case of American Samoa, it does not work in the case of North Carolina. Because I`ll tell you, my constituents, the cost of living in western North Carolina is far different than where your studio is located there in New York. It`s very different.

BECK: Congressman, you and I are in complete agreement, but we should have had that argument, not trying to play politics by throwing Nancy Pelosi under the bus. It`s too easy to do in real scenarios.

Congressman, we`re out of time. That`s the "Real Story" tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Because of political correctness, because everybody`s beholden to whatever, because everybody is so afraid, because of corruption, we`re not willing to tell the truth anymore. The truth does not belong to the weasels in Washington; the truth belongs to us.

This is our country. This is my country. This is your country. I`ve put these shopkeepers in power. You put these shopkeepers in power. They`re running our store. They work for us. And they`re treating us like, somehow or another, they can tell us what to do. Excuse me? It`s my store.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: All right. Lasers, I don`t really understand how they work, but they are cool. And the show "Future Weapons" on the Discovery Channel takes a look at lasers, high-tech tanks, state of the art missile launchers, and other assorted killing devices that could destroy you instantly. Oh, yes, my friend.

New season kicks off tonight at 9:00. If you haven`t seen the show, it`s kind of like Sharper Image for deadly, cutting-edge weaponry. It`s also a glimpse into how we`re going to be fighting wars in the future.

Joining me now is Richard Machowicz. He is the host of "Future Weapons." Mack, is it true we have rifles or guns that now shoot around corners?

RICHARD "MACK" MACHOWICZ, HOST, "FUTURE WEAPONS": Absolutely, Glenn. Absolutely. It`s amazing. It`s a pleasure and honor to be here, sir.

BECK: Thank you, sir. So tell me about the new weapons that are coming.

MACHOWICZ: Well, there`s all kinds of things. And really, when you look at "Future Weapons," it`s an inside access to a world that most people never even get a chance to see, which is really just a lot of fun, for me to be able to bring the audience into this world and show some of the stuff that is really incredible, how science and technology transforms the battlefield.

And some of the things you`ll see in the future are weapons that will allow the soldier to be completely networked into the whole battlefield, the ability to take out one guy at a specific point in time with the right weapon at the right time, JDAMs, things of that nature.

BECK: OK. It`s all fun and games until somebody puts an eye out.

MACHOWICZ: Exactly.

BECK: I`m just saying. So, Mack, I have this theory that smart weapons are the dumbest things we`ve ever invented, because if you don`t have smart -- I mean, we used to firebomb cities because that`s all we could do. But now we have smart weapons, which is really a good thing. But as soon as somebody innocent is killed by one of them, they immediately point to us and say, oh, look, they`re doing that on purpose. I mean, is this going to come back and bite us in the butt?

MACHOWICZ: No. I think really, when you`re looking at, what advantage does science and technology give you, it`s really this, increased accuracy, minimizing collateral damage, and getting all the guys home alive in one piece. That`s really what the technology gives you.

And, yes, we are trying to take more responsibility on the battlefield than has ever happened before in the history of the planets. And science and technology give you an access point to do that.

BECK: Right. And it`s a really good thing. I mean, I understand we`re developing non-lethal weapons. Some of the stuff that, like, makes you just throw up and you`re so nauseated you can`t fight, et cetera, et cetera. Do you have any of that stuff?

MACHOWICZ: Absolutely. We have all kinds of cool things. Last season, we saw this weapon that actually shot lightning that just was designed to stun you across a room.

But really, when you talk about giving the soldier, the sailor, the airman, as you would say, my military, the best weaponry that they possibly can have, from new armor to weapons that help you reach out at greater distances, to robots that will actually go in hostile areas and keep you in a safe place, to networking so that everybody knows exactly where everybody else is so you don`t have friendly fire and you can get the guy you need to get.

BECK: I know this is a non sequitur, but you can kill me with your bare hands, can`t you?

MACHOWICZ: See, if I told you, I think you would know the consequences.

BECK: Yes, I think so, too. So what is it -- you know, you talk about some of the things that we have in use that are cool. What are some of the things that we have in use that are cool that most people don`t know?

MACHOWICZ: Well, there`s a lot of things that are coming to the battlefield that I think, when you think of land warrior, when you see Stryker, who has just arrived -- it`s this armored vehicle that is just the smartest, fastest, most flexible vehicle that you`ve ever seen, increased new armor that`s going on these vehicles, stuff like dragon skin, which is this new body armor that`s created, which we put through a torture test on the show, you get to see some of these new things coming.

And just smart bombs, the small diameter bomb which can fly from 60 miles away. A pilot drops it off at high speed, say, from an F-22, which is coming, and you can see that go 60 miles and hit a target within four feet.

BECK: OK, so now what is the thing that you think we have coming that nobody is talking about yet?

MACHOWICZ: I think there`s a lot of new capabilities. There`s this thing called the Intelligence Munitions System, which will give us the capability -- no more mines on the battlefield. Now you`ll have these things that are so smart they can actually hear what kind of vehicle is coming by with their acoustic ability and identify that.

They have seismic sensors on it, as well, even radars. And so now there`s a man in the loop that can control it, so he knows exactly when to turn it on, when to turn it off. And if you want to go back and pick it up, you can do that. So there`s all kinds of new things coming to the battlefield that will give our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our Marines, our Coast Guard guys, the ability to actually have more responsibility on the battlefield.

BECK: Mack, thanks a lot. Great show.

MACHOWICZ: My absolute pleasure. Thank you, sir.

BECK: You bet. Coming up, there`s a couple of love letters to me coming up. But don`t forget, you don`t have to leave all that adoration anonymous. You don`t. You can say it with a Web cam. Just think, you can tell you`re your friends that you are going to be on national TV. And then I and the other three people that watch this show can make fun of you. No, no, I kid because I love. We won`t -- I mean, we wouldn`t make fun of you on television, but when we get out of the studio, we of course would. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: You know, last night, the president was on "60 Minutes" with Scott Pelley, and to me this is how George Bush should announce every policy. Forget about the speeches in front of podiums. He should just do it matter of fact, off-the-cuff interviews, because that`s where he`s at his best. Here is the president talking about why he`s discussing the mistakes made in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We got a bunch of good military people out there who are doing what we`ve asked them to do. And the temptation is going to find scapegoats. Well, if the people want a scapegoat, they`ve got one right here in me, because it`s my decisions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: He went on to talk about an argument that I get all the time in my e-mail, which is basically, why don`t we just get out of their way?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Some of my buddies in Texas say, "You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours? You got rid of Saddam. You know, just let them slug it out." And that`s a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America in the future.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Translation: Guess who`s next door? Guess? Our good buddies from Iran. If we let Iraq turn into chaos, Iran winds up controlling the whole region. It will turn into Darfur. They want to put themselves on the map, because it makes it easier for them then to wipe Israel off it.

And Pelley did go on to ask about Iran. This was the president`s response when Pelley asked, hey, if your officers say Iranian agents are killing our soldiers in Iraq, isn`t that an act of war?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSSTALK)

BUSH: I think what they`re saying is, is that the Iranians are providing equipment that is killing Americans and, therefore -- well, either way, it`s unacceptable.

SCOTT PELLEY, CBS NEWS: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?

BUSH: If we catch your people inside the country harming U.S. citizens or Iraqi citizens, you know, we will deal with them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: For any of you who say that Bush is dying to go to war with Iran, listen to the response there. You know, we talked to Tony Snow on the radio on Friday, and I asked him the same question. He didn`t answer it, just like Bush really wasn`t answering it. It didn`t feel truthful to me.

Tony Snow actually called back on the program to clarify that, no, he absolutely, positively, 100 percent, definitely was not saying that it was an act of war by Iran. If it`s not an act of war, I`m not really sure what is. Maybe if they write a declaration of war on a Post-it note, you know, maybe then we could be really, really sure that they want war?

We`ll have more on this on the radio tomorrow. And you can find out where by listening to glennbeck.com or logging onto glennbeck.com. We`ll see you tomorrow, you sick, twisted freak.

END

Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines