Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

The Truth about Comprehensive Immigration Reform; British Marines Selling Stories for Big Bucks

Aired April 09, 2007 - 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, Bush on the border. The president renews his push for immigration reform.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We`re securing our borders.

BECK: And protesters push back. But which side has the most muscle?

And cashing in on captivity. Former British hostages could get big bucks for selling their stories about their accidental trip to Iran.

FAYE TURNEY, RELEASED SAILOR: I was offered a lot of money.

BECK: Also, the I-man`s big mouth.

DON IMUS, RADIO/TV TALK SHOW HOST: Those are nappy headed hos.

BECK: Civil rights leaders outraged over the radio cowboy`s controversial remarks about the Rutgers women`s basketball team.

REV. AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER: Terminate Don Imus.

BECK: Are the I-man`s days numbered?

All this and more tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Well, President Bush gave a speech today touting the "comprehensive immigration package." Really?

Here`s the point tonight. This new "comprehensive immigration package" is nothing but a "comprehensive lie." And here`s how I got there. This is what the president had to say earlier today, in his glorified photo op.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Congress is going to take up the legislation on immigration. It`s matter of national interest, and it`s a matter of deep conviction for me.

I`ve been working to bring Republicans and Democrats together to resolve outstanding issues so that Congress can pass a comprehensive bill and I can sign it into law this year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: That all sounds good. Don`t be fooled. There is nothing permanent here in this bill. It`s all for show. Mark my words: this is all about amnesty. It`s what Mexico wants. It`s what the president wants. It`s what Congress wants. It`s what big business wants, but it is not what the American people want.

You want to talk about amnesty? That`s cool. But not a single second before we talk about security. That`s what America wants. Security. Fix the border. Seal it up and make it permanent. Then, and only then, we`ll talk about amnesty.

You know what? I know that we`re a country riddled with ADD. I know that our government will talk about this to death. The president will do his photo ops with the Border Patrolmen. They`ll make a few arrests.

And they`ll think that everybody in America is thinking, "Oh, gee, look, the border looks like it`s fixed now. Let`s give them amnesty. They`re working on it."

The truth is the border will still have more holes in it than Sandra Bullock`s last five movies, and that includes "Premonition". I saw it. That`s bad.

Here`s the terrifying fact that I want you to think about tonight. There are about 12 million illegal immigrants in this country right now. Six hundred thousand of them have been ordered to return home, but didn`t. They`re completely unaccounted for. They`re fugitives, running around America doing God knows what.

Even more surprising is that that number has doubled since 9/11. Do you remember the whole debate about, hey, we`ve got to know who`s in this country?

Also, border arrests are down 30 percent in the past year. Now the government is spinning that as good news. Are you kidding me?

How dare politicians on either side of the aisle say they`re serious about security when we all know they`re not? At least, not in any permanent fashion. This is about show. The American people are the ones who are serious about security.

So here`s what I know tonight: do not pay one ounce of attention to the "comprehensive immigration reform" bull crap. Separate this from border security. You take and fix border security, then we`ll give you your little present, Mr. President.

These people in Washington, I swear, have been treating us like we`re children for years. I say it`s time for us to treat them like children. You want your little "big business/special interest" cookie? OK. But do your chores first. First, permanently fix the border. Then, look who gets a cookie. You do.

Here`s what I don`t know. How long will it be before America`s ADD kicks in and we start buying the government`s bull crap? Will we collectively say, "Hey, look, Marge. Looks like the president`s walking with a border guard. He must really mean it this time." I hope not.

Joining me now is Congressman John Culberson. He is from Texas.

Congressman, why is it we can`t separate these two issues? Why do we have to talk about amnesty and fixing the border? This is 1986 all over again.

REP. JOHN CULBERSON (R), TEXAS: Well, we can`t permit this to happen again, Glenn, as it did in 1986. We have to separate the question of a guest worker program, which ultimately is necessary.

But right now the levy is burst. The border is wide open and unprotected. It`s common sense that you sandbag the levy and stop the flooding before you even talk about what to do with the floodwaters.

And it`s just not reality for any White House official to say that the border is secure, that they`ve stopped catch and release.

And Glenn, you`re absolutely right. The border is -- when you hear these numbers thrown around, that catch and release has been stopped, people don`t realize, they need to know that, according to the government`s own figures, of the 1.3 million people apprehended in fiscal 2005, 1.1 million of those were Mexicans who are immediately released.

Now, in Texas, if you`re from Mexico and picked up on the Rio Grand River, you`re turned loose back over the river in time for dinner the first seven times you`re picked up.

In Arizona, if you`re picked up and you say you`re from Mexico, you`re back in home in time for dinner the first 15 times that you`re picked up.

So this stop and catch and release stuff that you hear about only applies to maybe 200,000 or less than 15 percent of these people picked up on the border. And that`s just one falsehood.

BECK: Congressman, I`ve got to go back, because I think this is something that America needs just to hear this over and over again. Because on 9/11, did we not promise each other that we were going to take our security seriously?

CULBERSON: Yes, sir.

BECK: Did we not say these visas, what do you mean they`re just disappearing on these visas? That problem has doubled since 9/11.

CULBERSON: On my subcommittee, Glen, I serve on the homeland security subcommittee, on the appropriations committee. And we got testimony under oath that there are about 600,000 aliens loose in this country, fugitives from justice that we don`t know where they are.

And 42 to 45 percent of these are -- of the -- 42 to 45 percent of the illegal aliens, about 12 million loose in the country, are on visa overstays. So we`re not keeping track of these people, Glenn. Border security is a matter of national security. It`s a law and order issue.

BECK: Then -- then, Congressman, tell me then why we won`t separate these two issues? Why is it we can`t get them separated, other than the only reason I can come up with, and that is nobody`s really serious about border security?

CULBERSON: Well, there`s a large group of us in the House of Representatives who are very serious about border security. And we`re not going to rest. We will not relent. We will not give up until we have secured the border first, Glenn.

And an issue that I`d like to give you to talk about, every time you talk about this plan, that no matter what they call it, legalizing illegals, a guest worker program, no matter what they call it, Glenn, the way to stop it cold in their tracks is to point this out.

The public does not know that the administration in June of 2004 signed a totalization agreement with Mexico that is right now at the State Department waiting for approval.

And if the White House plan passes, if the Senate plan passes, if we legalize illegal aliens under that totalization agreement, Glenn -- get this -- every illegal alien from Mexico and their entire extended family will be put on the already overburdened and almost bankrupt American Social Security system.

BECK: Now let me let that sink in. Where -- where am I finding this again? I want to show this on the -- go ahead.

CULBERSON: I`m going to have my staff send this to your producer immediately after I`m off the air. Because this is the most single important piece of information we can get to the American public to stop this amnesty plan cold. And that is this.

In June of 2004, the administration, Social Security Administration, signed a totalization agreement with Mexico that is now at the State Department awaiting approval.

If this Congress, if this White House passes this bill legalizing illegals, the totalization agreement, coupled with that legalization, Glenn, will put every illegal alien from Mexico and their entire extended family anywhere in the world on Social Security.

BECK: I believe we hit this about six months ago on "The Real Story", but I`ll have to look it up and see if it`s the same thing.

CULBERSON: It is. And this will stop this deal cold if we let the public know that legalizing illegals means putting them all on Social Security.

BECK: Unbelievable. Congressman, thanks you very much.

CULBERSON: God bless you. Stay after them.

BECK: You bet.

Now let me update you on the men I believe are America`s first political prisoners: Gilmer Hernandez, Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. They`re U.S. border agents serving time for doing their jobs, just trying to protect our borders.

Hernandez has now been in prison now for 130 days. Compean and Ramos have both been locked up for 82 days. Please don`t miss my conversation with the wives of these men.

Plus, Dog the Bounty Hunter on his recent trouble with Mexico, it will make blood shoot out of your eyes on Thursday night this week.

Now coming up, what`s the reward for being taken hostage by Iran`s evil dictator? How about a million dollar book deal? I`ll tell you how some of the British sailors are actually cashing in off their ordeal.

Also, "The Sopranos" kicked off its final season last night. But did it live up to all the hype? We`ll have all the details from last night`s premiere, and I`ll tell you if anybody got whacked.

Plus, radio host Don Imus been hating people since 1971. Did he cross a line? We are going to be joined by the Reverend Jesse Jackson, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Happy Iranian national nuclear day. I know, I know -- it`s hard to believe that it was just a year ago that Iran had their first success at enriching uranium. Seems just like yesterday.

And in Tehran, over 200 students decided to mark the occasion -- there they are -- by forming a human chain at Iran`s atomic energy organization. And they chanted "death to America" and "death to Britain" while they burned the flag there. Look at those guys. Those crazy college kids. You do remember what college was like?

Hey, by the way, it`s not just the Iranians who have cause to celebrate. You remember the British hostages who claimed that, while in Iran`s custody, they were bound and blindfolded, kept isolated in cramped stone cells and coerced into making statements or face up to seven years in jail? Yes.

See, here`s the thing -- this new tape released over the weekend that shows the Brits living large, laughing it up, lounging around in track suits, watching soccer, playing ping-pong. Were they being held prisoner or filming a new Tehran edition of "The Real World"? I`m not really sure.

Plus, some of these soldiers are now selling the rights to their harrowing stories for as much as 150,000 pounds, which is about $300,000.

Lt. General Mike DeLong, United States Marine Corps, retired. And Andrew Crosby, retired British army chaplain.

Let me start with you, Andrew. Is this the way British sailors handle themselves?

ANDREW CROSBY, RETIRED BRITISH ARMY CHAPLAIN: Happy Easter, Glenn.

BECK: Happy Easter to you, too, sir. Is this the way they handle themselves? Is this what they`re trained to do?

CROSBY: Can you explain in what sense? Do you mean in the sense of telling the stories?

BECK: No. The whole -- the whole just being overly friendly on camera. "Hey, President Ahmadinejad, you`ve been a very gracious host. And we love you and that`s great. And we`ll miss you and let us wear the suits"? I mean, they didn`t even look like they were uncomfortable.

CROSBY: Well, how many guns were off-camera?

BECK: So you`re saying that you`re proud of the troops the way they behaved?

CROSBY: I think it`s impossible for any of us who were not in the circumstances to actually realize the whole picture. And I don`t think it`s appropriate for us to comment on what happened in Iran with the hostages -- because remember, they were hostages, Glenn.

BECK: All right. Let me go to Mike.

Mike, if these were American troops, you being a retired Marine, would you be happy with this behavior? Would you expect this from your compatriots?

LT. GEN. MIKE DELONG (RET.), U.S. MARINE CORPS: No. I think if it was Americans, it would have turned out differently.

Now, while they`re there as hostages, whatever happened there, I don`t know. And we need to be very careful about being critical. But just getting captured, given that the rules of engagement were -- I don`t think the Americans would have gotten captured. They probably would have died.

BECK: OK. I mean, John McCain comes to mind, having, you know, having his shoulders dislocated and living in a bamboo cage before anybody was -- what I believe was aiding the enemy. Can either of you deny Ahmadinejad is the big winner in this -- in this whole thing?

DELONG: I would agree that he won when he captured the British hostages. He won when he released them, because it was such a jovial party. Whatever happened in the middle, it played well in the Middle East.

BECK: Right. Andrew, let me -- let me now take you to them selling their stories. I find this outrageous, as well. How is this playing?

CROSBY: I think -- I think the majority of the people in the United Kingdom find it outrageous, as well. No one can understand why the ministry of defense has effectively suspended the rules that normally govern earning money when you`re a member of her majesty`s forces. To the ordinary soldiers and officers and to the ordinary naval personnel, it seems astonishing.

BECK: Well, let me -- let`s just be honest with each other. The reason why they`re doing it is because it`s propaganda. I mean, they wouldn`t do this with a soldier that had a horrible experience. Would never let them sell their story if they had a horrible experience with an ally. You know that.

This is trying to reverse the propaganda. Is that not their reasoning?

CROSBY: Yes. But it`s just not the way we have traditionally conducted ourselves from the British forces. We -- the normal procedure would have been for the personnel to have returned here.

They would have been debriefed. They would have been interviewed. And they would have then been granted leave. During that leave, they would have been ordered not to speak to anyone. This is a completely new invention.

BECK: General -- right. General, let me take you to what I find disturbing on the -- you know, the people over in England and the people here in America that felt more sympathy for the woman sailor, Faye, because -- because she was a woman.

Isn`t this insane to now say this and put off these signals? Doesn`t this put every soldier and sailor and airman that is a woman in greater danger because they know now we care more, sympathize more with a female? Doesn`t this hurt the female soldier in the future?

DELONG: We`ve had -- the U.S. has had -- as has the coalition, has had female prisoners of war before. And it`s always -- it`s always been an issue. But they`ve conducted themselves appropriately.

BECK: And are some sailors not selling out? I noticed a picture that was in the -- I think it was in the "Times". And he had almost been cropped out of every picture that I had seen.

There was one sailor that was standing there with Ahmadinejad. All the sailors were all smiles. And he stood stone-faced. You could tell he was not happy. Are there some sailors that are not selling out, that are saying this is a disgrace?

CROSBY: I think -- I think there are some. There`s certainly one Scottish marine who has been happy to tell his story, such as he has told it to the press for free. And has stated that he wants no money and wants nothing to do with any payment for his story.

I just don`t think it`s appropriate that he should be telling his story at all.

BECK: Andrew, thank you very much.

And General, one last question to you. We`re not trained this way, are we? I mean, we would just not -- our soldiers would not -- this is not the way we`re training them, is it?

DELONG: No, it`s not. But to be fair, it`s not the way they were trained either.

Whatever happened, the -- this is not the first time the Iranians have come out and challenged us in the disputed waters there. And things have always worked themselves out before. And it should have worked themselves out this time. It didn`t.

BECK: Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Coming up, TV`s first family of crime is back in business. We`ll find out if "The Sopranos" can still make viewers an offer they can`t refuse.

Plus, radio host Don Imus in the hot seat over some racially charged comments. We`ll be joined by the one and only, Reverend Jesse Jackson. You don`t want to miss it, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Every day, you can hear my radio program on stations all across the country, including KTRB AM, 860 AM in San Francisco, and WCKG 105.9 FM in Chicago.

And by the way, if you can`t find an affiliate in your area, sign up and listen online at my web site, GlennBeck.com.

Buzz today really is all about the beginning of the end for "The Sopranos" as the first of the mob drama`s last nine episodes debuted on HBO last night.

Joining me now is my good friend, Dave Glover, talk show host for KFTK in St. Louis, 97.1, one of our affiliates in St. Louis.

David, you watch it last night? What did you think?

DAVE GLOVER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I watched it last night. I was pleasantly surprised. I was not a big fan of last season. I thought it was a little too touchy-feely. I get the whole irony of a mob boss who`s in therapy. But I mean, it`s HBO. I want one good mob gangland killing per episode.

BECK: Really? I loved "The Sopranos", watched it up -- oh, I don`t know -- up until a few years ago. And my wife and I, we gave up, you know, rated "R" movies. We don`t want to watch man`s inhumanity to man anymore.

GLOVER: Sure.

BECK: And I`m like, but it`s a mob show, honey. Really. This one`s probably OK.

GLOVER: Surely there`s a loophole in your faith for that. I mean, come on.

BECK: There has to be one. But it`s one of the best mob shows ever made but extraordinarily violent. I really like the Gandolfini character. I love the struggle inside.

Want to guess on how it ends?

GLOVER: Yes. I`m going to -- obviously, they`re going to have to go out with a big bang or people are going to be disappointed. It would be too obvious to kill him off. I think he turns state`s evidence in sort of a rip-off or homage to "Goodfellas" and he ends up in witness protection. That`s my guess.

BECK: Let me just say, I`ll put money on there`s no way they ever kill him, because there`s way too much money to be made for a movie.

GLOVER: I don`t know if you know this, but my first case as an attorney 17 years ago obviously was three months representing the mob. Or they were alleged to be the mob.

BECK: Really?

GLOVER: And I spent three months living among them, and every night going to this little Italian restaurant and watching them interact and having them interact with me. And "The Sopranos" is incredibly accurate, incredibly close to at least my own experience

BECK: Well, good to know that you were a mob attorney for a while.

GLOVER: That`s right. Absolutely. I`ve done a great many things you don`t know about.

BECK: So Tony Soprano, would you say that he`s just a wealthier Bob Denver?

GLOVER: Yes.

BECK: Really? I mean, he`s never going to be able to do anything else. Bob Denver was Gilligan on "Gilligan`s Island".

GLOVER: Right.

BECK: And he was out kicking rocks in a parking lot, going, I don`t know what the hell I was thinking. I can`t get another job.

GLOVER: It`s one of those things. I mean, before "The Sopranos," he was a great character actor.

BECK: Yes.

GLOVER: I`ve seen him in many other things. But I mean, he doesn`t have to work anymore, and he may not be able to work anymore. He`s Tony Soprano.

BECK: Yes. Yes. Well, the key here is he doesn`t really have to work anymore.

GLOVER: Like you and me.

BECK: Made a lot of money in that mob thing, huh?

GLOVER: A couple dollars.

BECK: Real quick, we only have 30 seconds. Why do you suppose we`re so fascinated with the mob? My theory is that it`s because they solve their own problems and they don`t need anybody. And wouldn`t you like to be able to do that from time to time?

GLOVER: I think it`s because it`s a bunch of guys who do exactly what they want to do, exactly when they want to. And there`s this bizarre juxtaposition of how bad they are, yet they have this code of honor.

BECK: Yes, yes.

GLOVER: That`s what`s fascinating to me.

BECK: Sometimes more honor than everybody else, in a weird sort of way.

GLOVER: Yes.

BECK: Dave, thanks.

Coming up next, a prominent child psychiatrist is accused of molesting 24 different children. He can`t be charged for any of them. Don`t miss tonight`s "Real Story", coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Welcome to the "Real Story." This is where we try to cut through the media spin to figure out why a story is actually important to you.

The media has worked itself up into a frenzy this weekend about a story about how President Musharraf in Pakistan is apparently in trouble. Yes, believe it or not, there are a few people over there who don`t appreciate Blockbuster Islamabad selling "Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down." Who would have thunk it?

Now, these people say their goal is, quote, "a morality crackdown," but when I run that through the bull crap-to-Pakistani dictionary, what you find out is their real goal is Islamic Sharia law.

Of course, behind all of it is what the media loves to call a "firebrand cleric," just like al-Sadr in Iraq, who wants all of our soldiers now dead, firebrand cleric. This guy in Pakistan isn`t a terrorist. No, no, he`s not an insurgent. Uh-uh, he`s a "firebrand cleric."

Well, this peace-loving man of the cloth told about 3,000 of his radical -- sorry, "firebrand" -- followers last Friday to take up jihad, and then he announced that he`s setting up his own Sharia court. That`s where the mainstream media coverage ends.

Well, allow me to show you a clip from Saudi Arabian television, where this cleric explains how he`ll be defending this court.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (speaking Arabic)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Wow, martyrdom operations? Kind of sounds a lot like what we used to call suicide bombings. What a "firebrand" this cleric is!

The "Real Story" is, this isn`t about how much trouble Pakistan is in. Hello, "New York Times"? It`s about how much trouble we are in. I hate to think selfishly here, but I care about us.

Pakistan already has the nuclear club jacket, along with about 60 nuclear weapons. Honestly, if I`m sitting there in Tehran or in some cave in Afghanistan, my mouth is literally watering thinking about those nukes. And I`m funneling every dollar I can into these Pakistani insurgents to destabilize the region so I can buy black-market nukes once in a while if the government falls.

Despite the way the media spins it, what happens if Pakistan, you know, doesn`t stay in Pakistan anymore? What happens? You know, in fact, let me go the extra mile. What happens in Pakistan may easily be strapped to a missile that ends right in the middle of Los Angeles someday. That`s why this story matters to us.

Danielle Pletka, she is the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Danielle, who are these people? Musharraf is surrounded. He`s got the Taliban. He`s got Al Qaeda, now these nut jobs. How does he survive?

DANIELLE PLETKA, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Well, there have been several attempts on his life, and the way he has survived is with pretty good security and a lot of help from the United States.

But, Glenn, I don`t think we should be confused. These people don`t represent the majority of Pakistanis. If there was a democratic election in Pakistan tomorrow, I don`t think people like this firebrand cleric would be elected to the presidency of Pakistan.

BECK: Well, Danielle, you know that the same thing could be said true for the government in Iran. The same thing could be said about the Taliban in Afghanistan. That`s not how these people deal. They deal with a bunch of nut jobs and students that will take it by force and through fear. This is the same story over and over again.

PLETKA: Well, part of the problem there -- and your suggestion isn`t unfair, that there could be a coup, they could try and take over -- the biggest problem we have in Pakistan is one that we`ve had for a long time, and that is that the military and the intelligence services are all too sympathetic with these kinds of clerics, as they are with the Taliban and, frankly, with Al Qaeda, as well.

BECK: So are you telling me that I`m nuts for thinking that a black- market nuke -- if that region is destabilized -- well, don`t answer the nut thing generally, on a real broad -- I mean, on this particular issue, if the region is destabilized, are you telling me that these nukes are secure enough that someone couldn`t go in with a lot of cash and buy one on the black market?

PLETKA: Well, history tells us that, in fact, somebody has gone in. The head of the Pakistani nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, for years ran a sort of nuclear Wal-Mart, in which he sold component parts and nuclear technology and materiel to the likes of Libya and Iraq and other countries in the Middle East. So to suggest it can`t happen is ridiculous. Of course it can happen, and that`s a real risk that we face. That`s why we`re all worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

BECK: Yes, Musharraf is probably our best friend over in the region, but he also has moments of Chamberlain in him, where he`s just -- he`s in bed with everybody. He`s in bed with us and our enemies, all at the same time.

PLETKA: That`s exactly right. He could do a heck of a lot better. He would be serving his country and his own political longevity if he did a lot of different things. He took on the madrassas in his country. He got rid of the folks in the military and in the intelligence services who are right now funneling arms and money into Afghanistan. He could do a lot better.

BECK: Anybody notice that she didn`t call me nuts? She was thinking it. Danielle, thanks a lot.

Up next, 75-year-old child psychiatrist in California arrested last week on charges that he molested three patients that were ages 9, 11 and 12 at the time. It is a disgusting case. But the worst part is, there are likely a ton of victims who are never going to get the justice they deserve.

The "Real Story" is, this monster -- and let me say his name very clearly here in case there are still victims out there -- Doctor William Ayres, there`s his picture -- allegedly, he has been molesting kids under his care for so long that the statute of limitations has run out for many of them.

Listen to this. Under a California law that just went into effect last January, child victims can pursue criminal charges only until their 28th birthday. Before that law, they only had 10 years from the day of molestation. But either way, why is there a statue of limitations at all?

You know, I have been saying on this program for a while that we`re separating ourselves in this country. Usually, it`s about politics. We`re just dividing ourselves between, you know, left and right instead of right and wrong. The separation goes deeper than the elephant and the donkey.

This is it. It is a disconnection from our own laws and we, the people. We say we care about children, right? But then somehow or another we`ve got arbitrary statutes of limitations for a crime that changes the life of a child forever. Are you telling me that these monsters aren`t going to molest again? Are you telling me that the pain of a child being raped ends when they`re 28?

If you believe that, you know what? I want you to send me a letter, because I guarantee that it`s going to be written with something like pig`s urine and crayon.

Honestly, the number of non-insane people who will send a letter, you know, supporting this will be zero. In fact, I`ll bet you that I could get more coherent, more well-reasoned letters from people who believe this guy should be castrated with a pickle fork than I do from apologists.

When a child is molested, a part of them dies. To me, that means the statute of limitations for child molestation should never die.

Wendy Murphy is a former prosecutor and law professor at the New England School of Law. Wendy, a statute of limitations, what?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You know, first, let`s clear up one misnomer. You know, people think of this as a constitutional rights problem. That`s one of the reasons we`re not getting the job done, in a lot of states in this country.

Defense attorneys, the ACLU and all their friends run to the legislature and say, "Come on, you`re going to violate the constitutional rights of these guys if you let the statute go on and on." But, you know what, Glenn? They are wrong, and that`s why it`s called a statute of limitations and not a constitutional right to a limitation period.

BECK: Hang on just a second. We don`t have a statute of limitations for murder, do we?

MURPHY: We don`t, and we don`t have to have one for child rape, is exactly my point, but there are people in positions of power who think we can`t get the job done in the legislature because it`s unconstitutional to let the clock keep running. And I really want to hammer this point home: There is no constitutional right to stop the clock on child rape, period, end of discussion.

BECK: There are 21 people that have come forward and said, "This man raped me in his psychiatrist`s office," 21. Only three are under 28. Only three now can press charges against this guy, out of 21, and those are the ones who have come forward. This is an outrage.

MURPHY: Look, there is no question that, of those 21 -- and only three are allowed to come forward -- that even that collective total probably represents only a small percentage of the kids he actually hurt, because so few kids ever report. And you know what, Glenn? The message sent to guys like this, in positions of trust -- and he`s just not like a coach or teacher. He`s a psychiatrist who once headed up the child abuse subspecialty for the APA.

BECK: Oh, my gosh.

MURPHY: And this is a guy who abused that position of authority, abused his position of trust, and has the capacity to so manipulate the victims into silence that he knew damn well, as long as he kept them quiet long enough, he could literally spit in their faces.

And that`s the problem with the statute of limitations. It incentivizes the abusers to be especially brutal and manipulative in the abuse, because they know, if they keep the victims quiet long enough, they walk away scot-free.

BECK: Wendy, thanks.

That`s "The Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about this or if you`ve found a "Real Story" of your own, please tell us about it. Visit glennbeck.com, click on "The Real Story" button.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: ... radical Pakistani cleric threatening suicide attacks if they don`t take certain DVDs out of video stores. Wow, you`re going to -- you know, there`s a lot of things to blow yourself over. I think what`s playing currently at Blockbuster isn`t one of them.

Don`t get me wrong. There have been times when I`ve been stupid and went into Blockbuster, you know, on a Friday night and you`re looking at, you know, the garbage that`s in there, that you think, "I wish I could just blow myself up right now." Sure, I understand that. But what`s playing at the video store, not worth dying for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: All right. Now, by now, you`ve probably Don Imus` controversial remark about Rutgers University women`s basketball team. But in case you haven`t, let`s pile on. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DON IMUS, RADIO HOST: That`s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and...

BERNARD MCGUIRK, RADIO CO-HOST: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That`s some nappy-headed hos there. I`m going to tell you that now, man, that`s some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Well, there you go. It`s kind of what you expect from Don Imus and his program. Imus has since apologized for his remarks, and he made an appearance on Reverend Al Sharpton`s radio program earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

IMUS: Now, I understand it`s not funny. I understand there`s no excuse for it. I`m not pretending that there is. I wish I hadn`t had said it. I`m sorry I said it.

THE REVEREND AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Now, let me ask you this. If you realize that something must be done, why would you then feel that we are out of order to ask that you step aside?

IMUS: I didn`t say that.

SHARPTON: Oh, you don`t think we`re out of order?

IMUS: No, sir.

SHARPTON: So did you come to sign your resignation?

BECK: No. I`m not signing anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Another of Don Imus` most vocal critics has been the Reverend Jesse Jackson. He joins me now.

Reverend, why, if he`s apologized for it, if he said it wasn`t funny, it was just stupid, why should he be fired?

REVEREND JESSE JACKSON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Well, first of all, this is repetition. He has been there before. To that extent, he was on a kind of probation that he broke.

Secondly, Mr. Beck, this was not just a slip of a lip. This was a rather involved conversation, when one person said, "These are hardcore hos." These first-generation young women in college at Rutgers, "hardcore hos," and then, no, "nappy-headed hos," no, they looked like Toronto Raptors basketball players, men. No, looked like Memphis Grizzlies. I mean, this was a conversation of great insult and pain. And so here we see in that and we also see, Mr. Beck, a pattern of behavior that is unhealthy.

BECK: Yes, but I have to tell you, Reverend, I mean, I think it`s an offensive remark. I do. But it`s Imus. You know, do you think he`s a bigot? Do you think he`s a racist?

JACKSON: Well, I`m convinced that these words are bigoted and there is a pattern.

BECK: But, wait, wait, wait.

JACKSON: Wait, wait. The references to Venus and Serena Williams, they should not be in "Playboy," they should be in "National Geographic," as if they`re animals, the references, the mimicking of the poet Maya Angelou. Even when Hillary Clinton went to Selma (INAUDIBLE) since she`s appearing before all the black people, she should have on corn rollers, and gold teeth, and maybe gang signs. This is repitious and painful and just wrong.

BECK: Reverend Jackson, I am not here to defend Don Imus, but Don Imus hates everybody. He`s been saying hateful things to people and about people forever. I mean, I think he hates everybody equally.

JACKSON: I don`t think he hates everybody. No, no, he has a point of view. Earlier today, he was saying why he wouldn`t let Hillary Clinton on his program, for example. He has a political point of view.

And now his show is no longer shock jock. It`s more mainstream. Look at who`s on his show. Lieberman, Senator Lieberman, Harold Ford, and the various journalists. And so he has this access to people`s minds everyday. The question for me is not just what will we say about Imus. What about NBC using its airways in this way or CBS`s radio waves in this way? They, too, must answer some questions for the public.

BECK: OK, let me tell you what happened to me today. I went to -- you know, my teeth are nice and clean today. I went to have my teeth cleaned. I was sitting in the dentist`s office, and two people were talking about this.

And one woman -- it was husband and wife -- one woman said, "I mean, what`s the big deal?" And I`m just sitting here listening to them. I didn`t say a word. She said, "What`s the big deal? So he said `nappy- headed hos.` What`s the big -- I`ve said that before." And the husband said, "Yes, but he can`t say it."

The interesting part of this story is they were both African-American. And they made the point to each other that an African-American can say that but he can`t say that. Do you agree with that?

JACKSON: No, I don`t. It is just as wrong, just unethical. It`s like, no one has the right to violate anybody. If there is this kind of double standard, you know, if a black kills a white, it`s the electric chair time. A white kills a black, it`s riot time. Black kills a black, it`s Miller time. It`s just not right. There must be some ethical chin bar that we must all honor toward each other as human beings.

BECK: OK. Would you then -- if, because, see, I think the white community would feel -- and don`t take this wrong, because I am not defending Don Imus on this. However, there is a double standard, and I think a lot of people feel this in race relations on the white side, that it`s the same as if I said, "Yes, those people down in Duke, they`re nothing but a bunch of toothless hicks," and I could see myself saying that. But then I would come after you if you said, "Look at them. They`re a bunch of toothless hicks." For me to say, "Excuse me, you can`t say that. I can, you can`t."

JACKSON: But no one should say that. But I thought there are other times...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: But they do, especially when you`re into stupid comedy entertainment. That`s what Imus does. He`s been doing this forever.

JACKSON: Well, stupidity must be expensive and not prosperous. Let`s go a step further. All the all -- the MSNBC does not have a single black host of a show. And there is no -- and neither CBS and its radio distribution.

So there`s no sense of diversity, no sense of balance. So he has, unlike a private conversation, he has the power to influence and to hurt. These young women being called "nappy-headed hos" is just immoral, and there must be some price to be paid so others will not do it anymore.

BECK: Reverend Jackson, thank you very much. See you again.

JACKSON: Thank you, sir.

BECK: Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: One of the big topics in the last week or so has been fundraising. I want to take you back to 2004, the election cycle back then, it was a huge story, as well. In fact, when a generally unknown governor from a northeastern state who had just left office surprised the field by winning his party`s fundraising race, he was everywhere. His name, Howard Dean, there he was, the hope of all mankind in 2003. He was on the cover of "Time." Do you remember that? Dean was literally everywhere, a true media darling.

So if surprising fundraising from a former northeastern governor brings gushing and constant media attention, where is Mitt Romney`s face on every magazine in America? In the equivalent quarter during Dean`s run, he raised $2.6 million. The next quarter was the true Dean breakthrough, where he raised a whopping $7.6 million, about $1.7 million more than his closest competitor, eventual nominee John Kerry.

But Mitt Romney raised an amazing $20.65 million, close to three times Dean`s breakout quarter and seven times his equivalent quarter. And, yes, everybody is raising more money this election cycle, but Romney beat his closest Republican competitor, Rudy Giuliani, by 38 percent, while Dean beat Kerry by only 29 percent.

Well, some will say, Romney isn`t as much of an underdog as Dean was in this race. Well, in some ways, that`s true, but the "Time" article said that Dean had yet to poll above 12 percent in any poll. Skimming 50 polls for the Republican nomination going back all the way to October, Romney had yet to poll any higher than 10 percent.

But, some will argue, that the story with Dean was the Internet. The media embraced him because of the innovative fundraising ideas. Well, if that`s what really landed him on the cover of "Time," Mitt Romney, I may point out, has launched a plan that lets students who raise over $1,000 for his campaign keep 10 percent of what they raise, using the principles of capitalism to motivate people. Gee, who would have thought that would work, huh?

So we`ve got two guys who held the same job in two states from the same region from underdog status to leader in fundraising, except Romney won in a bigger state -- a Democratic state -- raised more money, beat his competition by more, and, if I might say, is actually a viable candidate, unlike the vein-popping-out-of-his-forehead Howard Dean. Yet Dean was everywhere, and Romney struggles for any attention at all.

I`m not saying that Romney is the right guy. I need to learn more about him. But maybe the media should help on that. Hopefully, Romney will accept our invitation to be on this program.

END