Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Judge Rules Against Hazelton Anti-Immigration Law; Pedophile Blogger Raises Concerns; Woman Suing Over Steam Pipe Explosion

Aired July 30, 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, Hazleton, Pennsylvania, a small town that tried to pass anti-illegal immigration. Law, rejected.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This decision is extraordinary. This decision is activist.

BECK: We`ll have the latest on the ruling, and I`ll talk to Hazleton`s mayor about what`s next in this case.

Plus, outrage over a pedophile web site. Why is this self-professed pedophile actually allowed to post pictures of children online? And what some moms are doing to fight back.

And Newt Gingrich says it will be Hillary-Obama in `08. I`ll tell you tonight why, if that`s so, they`ll win.

All this and more, coming up.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Hello, America.

I`m sorry to report tonight that border security and common sense have died, alone, in a federal courtroom. A federal judge has struck down legislation aimed at punishing those who do business with illegal immigrants.

So here`s the point tonight. There are cities and towns across the country that are desperately trying to hold their heads above water, trying to save themselves by stopping illegal immigration because Washington won`t. But now it seems our own justice system and the judges within it are working against them. And here`s how I got there.

Hazelton, Pennsylvania, was a sleepy little Pennsylvania town, population of about 2,300, and that was seven years ago. Today, due to illegal immigration, Hazelton`s population has risen by almost 50 percent, but the tax base hasn`t increased along with it. That`s weird.

The city is at the point where it can`t provide basic essential services to its citizens, let alone the new unwelcome residents. Hospitals, the fire department, police, all been stretched to their limit. Listen to the mayor of Hazelton explain it himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR LOU BARLETTA, HAZELTON, PENNSYLVANIA: Thirty percent of the gang members we have arrested in Hazelton are illegal aliens. 30 percent of the drug arrests in the last two years are illegal aliens. I don`t have a magic number that I need to convince me that I shouldn`t be spending taxpayers` money on people who shouldn`t be here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Any system that is allowed to run unchecked will run out of control. And that is the current state of our national immigration, dare I say, policy.

There are already an estimated 12 million illegal aliens living here in the U.S., and half a million more arrive each and every year. So cities like Hazelton have decided to take back their own streets by enacting tough legislation that would fine landlords who rented to illegals, punish employers who hired illegals.

But last Thursday, it took a U.S. district judge, James Munley, 206 pages to tell them exactly why they couldn`t do it. In this decision, which is disgraceful, Judge Munley struck down Hazelton`s anti-illegal immigration act because, quote, "immigration is a national issue, and allowing states or local governments to legislate without regard to the employment of unauthorized aliens would interfere with congressional objectives."

My gosh, I can hear the Founding Fathers dig their way out of the graves only to hang themselves. I hate to blow the judge`s mind, but state and local government is what they had in mind, and curbing illegal immigration is already a congressional objective. That`s why it`s called a felony.

In his ruling, Judge Munley didn`t use the term "illegal" to describe these immigrants but unauthorized. Well, that`s a great idea. I was thinking maybe we should start saying that bank robbers are just making unauthorized withdrawals.

In order to protect these people, Munley also allowed his unauthorized immigrants to testify without revealing their identity and without even going to the courtroom. Welcome to the new double standard where you get more rights by not being a citizen.

Judge, I`m sorry if you think Hazelton`s common sense approach to law isn`t fair to the illegals who want opportunities they don`t deserve or to businesses who want to skirt the law for cheap labor. But Hazelton is fighting for its very life, and you`re on the wrong team, my friend.

So tonight here is what you need to know. In the last part of the ruling, Judge Munley said that Hazelton`s legislation violates the rights the Constitution guaranties to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not. There it is. A federal judge decided to interpret the law in favor of illegal immigrants against American citizens, in favor of law breakers instead of the law.

I know justice is supposed to be blind. I just didn`t know it was supposed to be stupid, as well.

Lou Barletta, he is the major of Hazelton, Pennsylvania.

Mayor, I`ve got to tell you, when I talked to you last Friday on my radio program, you blew my mind. What did -- what did the judge ask you while you were testifying about Mexico?

BARLETTA: Well, actually it was the ACLU`s lawyer who asked me if, before I passed this law, if I called President Calderon to ask him -- to tell him what I was doing. I guess I should have gotten his OK before we considered passing this law.

I thought it was a joke. But obviously, he wasn`t kidding, and the judge was paying attention.

BECK: And the judge, was it the judge that actually said that the government wants illegal aliens here in the United States?

BARLETTA: The judge, in his decision, said that bypassing this law, it would affect our relations with foreign nations, our foreign alliances by passing this law.

So, you know, it was -- at the time, as I said, I thought they were joking, but they were very serious that we need to ask permission of other countries first and see how they feel about us enforcing our laws on our -- in our country and in our cities.

BECK: Mayor, this is what makes it so difficult for people who really understand illegal immigration. There -- to me, there are two sides of illegal immigration. One, security, which tells me we need to secure both the north and south.

I was just up in Detroit. That border is -- I mean, I could come across in a rubber raft at any time in Detroit. It`s a joke on the north. So it`s about security.

But it`s also about economic security. Tell me about the economic security that you`re experiencing now in Hazelton.

BARLETTA: Well, you know, our small budget, which, you know, we are already stretched beyond our capacity. Our taxpayers are taxed to the maximum allowed by law. Our population grew by 50 percent, but our earned income tax remained the same, which means that I`m trying to provide services for more people with people, obviously, who are not paying taxes.

When that happens in a community, it starts to affect the quality of life, because I can no longer provide the level of public services that I should be providing.

BECK: I know that there are a hundred towns nationwide that are trying to do what you did, and now they`re a little spooked by this. You have a web site. What is it, SmallTownDefenders.com? What is that?

BARLETTA: That`s right. SmallTownDefenders.com is a web site that I set up for anyone across the United States that wants to help Hazelton to continue our fight. We plan on appealing this to the Third Circuit Court in Philadelphia and then on to the Supreme Court, where I believe this will prevail.

But again, it will take money for us to continue that fight. The ACLU`s goal is obviously to bankrupt the city in hopes that we`ll roll over. But we`re not going to back down, and we`re not going to roll over.

BECK: I mean, Mayor, it`s only a matter of time. You either go bankrupt quickly by trying to defend this or you go bankrupt -- bankrupt slowly due to illegal immigration.

Mayor, we`ll stay in touch. Thank you very much.

Now, let me turn to Tom Fitton. He is the president of Judicial Watch, a conservative group dedicated to transparency in the judicial process.

Tom, this ruling fairly transparent. Who is this judge?

TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH: Well, he`s a Clinton appointee, which doesn`t necessarily mean he`s a bad judge. But when you read the ruling, you can see it was activist; it was liberal.

The ruling is permeated with an attitude towards Hazelton that what it was doing was improper, that it had improper motives, that it was racist. And the judge, I think, misread the law.

The law allows -- the federal law obviously regulates immigration. Hazelton isn`t regulating immigration. What they`re saying is that if you`re here illegally, you`re not going to get a business license. Or if you`re employing folks illegally, you`re not going to get a business license. Or you`re not going to be allowed to rent in the locality. And there`s nothing in federal law that contravenes that.

BECK: When did we some -- when did we start asking Mexico if we can enforce, enforce our laws?

FITTON: Well, should a cop, when he pulls over someone and realizes they`re an illegal immigrant, check with the Mexican embassy before arresting him because of the impact on international relations?

The judge`s reasoning, I think, is bunk and I would encourage the mayor to appeal this. I don`t think it`s going to withstand an appeal. We`ll see. You know, let`s take a step back here, though, Glenn.

The ACLU came in here. They were using Hazelton as a test case. They want to go after every locality that tries these moderate approaches to enforcing our nation`s immigration laws, protecting themselves from the ravages of the illegal immigration crisis.

ACLU is going to take this court decision, go and threaten other localities. And other localities need to be shored up here and be told that the law is on their side. They should not be afraid of the ACLU, and they should -- they should do right by their citizens, not by the illegals.

BECK: I will tell you that, until this is settled in the Supreme Court, you are going to have people that are scared witless, and that`s why I put that in there. If we can put it back up there on the scene, like with that web site up there, SmallTownDefenders.com.

If you happen to be on the same side that I`m on, you know, that`s where you should be pouring your money. If not, you can pour it to the ACLU or what`s the other special interest group? Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund.

FITTON: Right. The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, they`re all over on these issues. And of course, they`re not -- they`re not going after localities that are undermining and violating federal immigration law by subsidizing illegal immigrants.

BECK: Well, that`s what I was going to say, New Haven -- the deal with the Constitution is, is that you can expand but it`s contracting rights. So this ruling in -- in Philadelphia doesn`t affect New Haven, right?

FITTON: No. And the federal government -- the federal court system, New Haven is governed by a different district. But what`s happening is that some localities like Hazelton are taking an aggressive approach to illegal immigration by -- by trying to restrict it.

BECK: But New Haven and Los Angeles and big liberal cities, they`re undermining federal law. Those are the big problems.

BECK: Tom, thank you very much. Wait, in "The Real Story" tonight, going to tell you what`s happening in Madison, Wisconsin.

Also coming up, if you could stop a crime before it happened, would you try? The unbelievable story of a self-described pedophile who spends his days blogging about the best places to find children and why authorities can`t do a darn thing about it.

Then a woman is suing New York utility Con Edison after the steam pipe explosion a few weeks ago. She`s having visions of 9/11 all over again, and she`s having visions of a big payday to be quite frank with you.

Also, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Newt Gingrich said this weekend they`ll be the ticket in `08. And if they run together, if that does happen, I guarantee they`ll win. It says less about them than it does about us. I`ll explain. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Coming up in just a bit, I will make the not so stunning prediction that our next president of the United States will be Hillary Clinton. Yes, it is true. Newt Gingrich made the same prediction over the weekend, but we differ in why. The Clinton/Obama ticket will be the ticket to beat in `08.

But first, instead of leading this next story with a long monologue, let me get right to the point. This guy is Jack McClellan. He is a pedophile, a disgusting freak who sexualizes children and lives in the Los Angeles area. We didn`t find this out during some police raid. This scumbag proudly admits it on his web site.

McClellan maintains a detailed online blog, where he rates the best public places to watch young children. He then posts photos he has taken at events like the children`s book fairs, and he even rates locations based on how many little girls, or L.G.`s as he calls them, are there.

So why hasn`t this guy been arrested? Police say it`s because he hasn`t done anything wrong. I don`t know about you, but I am sick and tired of dangerous sexual predators like this guy -- I mean, look at the hat. Instead of being protected by the law, he is hiding by the law. We`re being crushed by it.

If it`s not illegal to do what this guy is doing, it should be. If there`s not a law out there that can put this guy in jail for it, make one. Remember, if it walks like a child molester and talks like a child molester, I say we decide to trust him before he decides to prove it to us.

Wendy Murphy is a former prosecutor and a professor at the New England School of Law.

Wendy, have you ever heard of a pedophile who has talked about molesting children but never actually did?

WENDY MURPHY, PROFESSOR, NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW: I don`t think such an animal exists, Glenn. Nobody just talks about it but doesn`t want to do it. Let`s be clear about that one.

BECK: Well, he has admitted that he is a pedophile. When asked on camera, "Are you a pedophile?"

"Yes, but I don`t do anything about it."

Can he be held responsible if somebody commits an act against a child and it happens to be at one of the sites that he -- you know, he was saying this is a great site?

MURPHY: Right. In other words, they follow his instructions.

BECK: Sure.

MURPHY: Yes. I think so. But look, a lot of people out there are going to jerk their First Amendment knees when they hear this story and say free speech, free speech.

And frankly, I think there are two points. One is, if this is speech, then he`s doing what everybody knows is called incitement, which is a very big exception to free speech. We know what it means in other contexts. You can`t yell, "Fire" in a crowded theater.

This is like yelling, "Go rape kids" in a crowded theater. It`s just crowded on the Internet instead of in a small space.

And if it doesn`t work under incitement exceptions, then how about this, let`s just call this, non-speech, which we do for all kinds of things like child pornography. We don`t protect it, because we call it something other than speech. A lot of action here, for example.

When you mix action with words, the Constitution tolerates a lot of bending, so we don`t have to worry about freedom in this one.

BECK: This guy is really frightening. If I put a site together that talks about the best places to see him, to watch him, to keep your eye on him, would I get away with it?

MURPHY: I`ll tell you who would come down on you with a big hammer, would be the ACLU, because they love to protect the predator`s ability to preach the joys of raping children, but they sure don`t like protecting your free speech rights to identify these guys and condemn them and say they`re not nice people and let`s avoid them. Isn`t that a funny way the ACLU functions in this context?

BECK: There`s two things, Wendy, that I want to talk to you here. We`ve got a couple of minutes. First of all, I`d like to propose that we change the law. I call it the 18-12 law. If you`re 18 years or older and you have sex with a 12-year-old child or younger, you get automatic, mandatory life in jail.

Do you think that would pass?

MURPHY: Not in some states. Not in Vermont; not in Massachusetts. I mean, there are a lot of states where we can`t love our sex offenders enough. And I have to live in one. Massachusetts really protects sex offenders, sadly.

But you know, it`s constitutional, and that`s the point. In fact, in about four states we actually have the death penalty for repeat child rapists and that should be -- I`m not even in favor of the death penalty, but that should be at least part of the discussion. We punish these kinds of people with big deep discounts, because we don`t respect kids nearly enough.

BECK: Today on my radio program I talked a little bit about this story, I`m going to talk about it again tomorrow, about vigilantism. There are people that called me up today and said, "It was happening in my neighborhood and we, as neighbors, all went together and went to the doorstep of a child molester that had molested three children and was out on parole. And we told him, `You might as well consider yourself gone. We don`t ever want to see your face.` And he moved away."

Vigilantism, he`s walking right up to the edge of the law. As long as you`re walking right up to the edge of the law and you are just constantly watching him, is there anything wrong with that? Where -- where does the neighborhood go wrong?

MURPHY: No, I think it`s irresponsible as parents and neighbors, irresponsible not to know who these guys are and talk to each other about who they are. It`s funny. You go up to this guy and say, you think he`s dangerous and scary and you`re called a vigilante and people condemn you for violating his civil rights, right, but he can set children up for rape en masse and somehow that`s acceptable in this country.

BECK: Wendy, would you -- would you come, because we`re out of time? Would you come back tomorrow and maybe we can talk to you a little bit about vigilantism and where is the line here? Where is it where a neighborhood would go wrong with a guy like this?

MURPHY: You bet I will.

BECK: OK. Good. Thanks, Wendy. We`ll, hopefully, have you on tomorrow`s program.

Coming up from the files of our highly litigious society, one grandmother`s lawsuit against a utility company, Con Edison. Posttraumatic stress from a steam pipe explosion in Manhattan has prevented her return back to work, and she can no longer focus on reading her romance novels. I`m not kidding.

Then, Hillary Clinton is not a liberal. She is now, according to her, a progressive. I`ll tell you why that`s just about the same thing as aligning yourself with Stalin. That`s tonight`s "Real Story", coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, when a steam pipe exploded here in Manhattan two weeks ago. Lawsuits were expected. Businesses had to be closed. Some people received serious injures. I`m sure the Con Edison utility responsible for the pipe figured they` d have to pay up.

But I`m sure they didn`t expect a lawsuit from Francine Dorf. She`s a legal secretary -- what a surprise there -- from Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. Francine was not physically hurt, but she, of course, has posttraumatic stress disorder.

And in the days since the explosion, she has been unable to ride the subway, and she also -- and I`m quoting her -- cannot focus enough to read the romance novels that she`s checked out from the library. Oh, the humanity.

I`m joined now by a man representing Mrs. Dorf. His name is Kenneth Mollins.

I understand that she did lose a loved one in 9/11, but honestly, Ken, this is not the same thing as 9/11.

KEN MOLLINS, REPRESENTING FRANCINE DORF: Honestly, that`s correct. And it`s good you understand that. It`s also your sarcasm indicates that you don`t have any faith in the legal system.

BECK: Oh, no, I absolutely do. I`m just really concerned about her not being able to finish those romance novels.

MOLLINS: I`m concerned about that also.

BECK: I mean, how much is it -- how much is it worth now that she can`t read that darn -- gosh darn it, is Fabio on the cover?

MOLLINS: I`m just not certain that you understand the basis of the suit. First of all, this suit is there, one, to protect you. And you should understand that. When you walk outside this studio, do you believe it`s OK to take the risk if the street were exploding beneath you...

BECK: If I were the guy driving the truck and I happen to have burns over 80 percent of my body, I`d probably sue. I`d probably talk about it.

But if I were in a window and went, "Oh, no, I`m living in New York and there was an explosion. I can`t handle it," I`d move. You`re living in New York, sir.

MOLLINS: And that automatically creates a certain additional burden on you because you`re living in New York.

BECK: Yes, it does. Yes, it does.

MOLLINS: That`s not what the law says. That`s not what the law says.

BECK: Well, that`s what life is all about. I don`t know if you know this. People are trying to kill us, especially in New York.

MOLLINS: And people are trying to kill us, especially in New York. And that`s why people who have been involved in 9/11 are living with what`s called a residency of fear.

BECK: She wasn`t involved in 9/11.

MOLLINS: No, she was not. But she was living with what`s called a legacy of fear. And the experts say -- and we`ve spoken to experts. They say that people who were directly involved in 9/11 live with this legacy of fear. It`s a preexisting psychological injury.

BECK: Oh, my gosh. Let me ask you this. I got an idea. We should sue her therapist, because she had to have therapy after 9/11. We should sue, because obviously, that didn`t work. Is there money to be made there?

MOLLINS: You should sue her therapist? Maybe we should talk about your therapist at this point because you`re...

BECK: No, you should sue -- you should have her put together a suit to sue her therapist, who clearly charged her for services where clearly she isn`t cured.

MOLLINS: Well, she has a -- she was -- at the time of this incident, she was fine. But she was living with what experts in general are calling a legacy of fear.

BECK: So she had no therapy prior?

MOLLINS: She had no therapy prior.

BECK: She should -- maybe I should sue her for a waste of the public`s time, because she should have had therapy when a loved one was killed in 9/11 and she decided to continue to live here under the kind of conditions that we live in, in New York.

MOLLINS: I`m not quite sure if you`re questioning the fact that Con Ed was -- the allegations are that Con Ed was negligent or you`re questioning the doctors do say that this lady is injured.

BECK: Right.

MOLLINS: Which part of the case are you questioning?

BECK: I`m questioning all of it, Ken. But luckily for you, I`m not the judge. Because I`d tell you, if I were the judge, get the hell out of my courtroom.

Coming up, if this last story didn`t prove you can get something for nothing, stick around. Universal health care, "Real Story", next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Coming up, a sad day at supermarket checkouts everywhere. The paper that got the scoop on the Clinton-Bigfoot `08 ticket will publish its last edition next month. Where are we going to get the news? "The Weekly World News" always had the best Clinton insider information. I don`t know what we`ll do.

But, first, welcome to the "Real Story." In the last debate, somebody asked Hillary if she thought of herself as a liberal. I don`t know if you saw her answer. It`s worth watching.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Hmm, has a real American authenticity, doesn`t it? Yes, you go, girl. Unfortunately for Hillary, the "Real Story" is, most people don`t have any clue as to what a real American modern progressive even means. And that`s the whole point. Calling yourself that lets you avoid the big, bad "liberal" label, while implying that you`re somehow on the cutting edge of politics. Well, the re-branding and the spin stop here, which, you know what? Somebody write that down. We should trademark it and then sue any show that uses it.

If you believe that the traditional view of things like marriage or family values are so -- I don`t know -- outdated, then progressives are for you. They believe there are no moral absolutes -- really, look it up -- that morals change with the times and, really, when you think about it, I mean, they`re right. How could you expect that our forefathers or grandparents got it right when they didn`t have things like Google or Wikipedia? I mean, they didn`t see that coming.

And then you have individual freedoms. Progressives love to say how they stand for individual liberties and smaller government. But then in the very next breath, they talk about how -- and this is a quote from a progressive Web site -- quote, "government intervention is the solution to society`s problems," end quote. Of course it is. That`s absolutely right. That`s why we should all use those individual freedoms to choose governmental, mandated, universal health care, because that will fix it. And that`s also why they believe we should reign in these big, bad corporations that are just making too much money because they`re running their businesses too efficiency.

Here`s another one of Hillary`s greatest progressive hits.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Oh, well, when you say taking somebody`s profits away from them and you explain it that way, it still sounds like a horrible idea. She`s talking about taking free-market profits and giving them to the government! That`s not small government; that`s socialism. If Hillary Clinton is going to try to distance herself from the liberal brand because of how tarnished that word has become, then she better pray that people don`t start figuring out exactly what progressive really means.

John Fund is a columnist with "The Wall Street Journal." John, I don`t know if this is just re-branding of the highest order or unbelievable honesty.

JOHN FUND, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, how about chutzpah? Rather than progressive, I think her platform is reactionary. Look, in an era when government-run health care systems from Sweden to China are integrating private-market solutions, she wants to go to universal health care. At a time when the world economy is making us all more prosperous, she`s against free trade. At a time when millions of inner-city schoolchildren are trapped in failing schools, competition might help them find a way out, and actually learn how to read and write and become productive citizens, she is opposed to school choice. This is reactionary; it`s complete re-branding, except it`s not going to work.

BECK: It`s amazing to me that she was very specific, early 20th- century American progressives. Those are the people that brought you the first income tax; those are the people that did prohibition, which, I mean, if you look at prohibition, I mean, this is the trans-fats, this is the smoking thing. She really is this person.

But they also believed that certain essential corporations or certain essential businesses should not be run by the private sector, which brings you to hospitals, and health care, and oil companies, et cetera, et cetera. A lot of this stuff is what you`re seeing coming out of Latin America.

FUND: Well, for her to say, as she said also in that CNN debate, that she strongly supports individual rights and personal freedoms, it`s almost Orwellian.

BECK: Let me ask you this. Another thing that I saw, the big tactic that they used in the `20s was, if you disagreed with them, they claimed that you were uneducated -- i.e. stupid -- or you were just in bed with large corporations. Does that sound familiar to you at all?

FUND: You know, there`s a new book out by Amity Shlaes, a former colleague of mine, called "The Forgotten Man." It`s a new history of the Great Depression. It`s a fascinating story of how the progressives basically infantilized the American public, basically convinced them they couldn`t solve problems on their own, they had to have big government come in. And, of course, if big government comes in and gives you handouts, ultimately it controls the rest of your life.

BECK: But at the same time in the early 20th century, they said that it was government that was a problem. It`s a schizophrenic kind of "I hate government, but love government" at the same time. It`s Michael Moore, nothing -- government can`t do anything right, yet let`s do health care.

FUND: Government doesn`t work if they`re not in charge. If it does work because they`re noble and have all of these good intentions, of course, if they have the power, then, of course, it will work. Actually, it will work for them and against us, but that`s a separate issue.

BECK: John, thank you very much. And, by the way, these are the same people that brought handicapped into handy-capable. Changing socialism to progressive doesn`t change it from being socialist. John, thanks. We`ll talk to you again.

We`re talking about progressives now and health care. What better way to segue into a story from Wisconsin? Progressives in that state`s Senate don`t want to wait for Hillary. They`re moving ahead now with plans for universal health care that would insure every state resident under the age of 65. Total cost: $15.2 billion. That works out to about $510 a month in additional taxes for every single worker in Wisconsin. But they`ll tell you it`s a cut.

That tax would be collected essentially by doubling the payroll tax -- get your duct tape out and wrap your head so it doesn`t explode -- double your payroll tax by 30 percent. Breathe deep. Stay with me. The "Real Story" is, it`s not just the cost. It`s about the common sense.

The plan is exactly like New Haven`s illegal immigrant I.D. cards. It`s going to act as a nationwide beacon, "Come here." It will attract exactly the wrong type of people to Wisconsin. Since you don`t actually need a job to qualify for coverage, under this bill, every poor, unemployed, uninsured, dare I say illegal -- no, no, "undocumented immigrant" in the country -- yes, they`ll be covered, too. They`re going to make a beeline for Madison, Wisconsin, and the entire state of Wisconsin. Meanwhile, every hardworking employee and growing small business is going to march across the border to states like --= can you believe this -- Minnesota that would be more sane or Iowa to get an instant 15 percent tax cut.

I apologize to the people in Wisconsin, but believe it or not, I actually hope this passes, because, by bankrupting your state, it may be the best chance we have to prevent the other 49 states from making the same ludicrous and disastrous decision.

Jon Erpenbach is a Wisconsin state senator who supports the proposal. Hello, Senator, how are you, sir?

JON ERPENBACH, WISCONSIN STATE SENATOR: Hi, Glenn.

BECK: You`re going to convince me this is a state tax cut?

ERPENBACH: Well, it is. It actually is a tax cut. Glenn, listen to me.

BECK: I`m there. I`m ready now. Yes.

ERPENBACH: In the state of Wisconsin, all the employees and the employers spend about $17.3 billion a year on premium cost. Healthy Wisconsin will cost about $15.1 billion to $15.2 billion. Right there, that`s a $2 billion savings just in the premium.

BECK: It`s a savings.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: The current state budget of about $15 billion -- in fact, I believe this is $3 billion more than your entire state budget, is that right?

ERPENBACH: Glenn, what you need to take a look at is what we`re spending right now for health care in the state of Wisconsin. Right off the top, we spend $2 billion, and we cover everybody in the state of Wisconsin.

BECK: OK, this is generally a tax cut?

ERPENBACH: You have to take a look at what we`re spending.

BECK: No, I would just have to -- what I`d have to look at, Senator, is that there is a 15 percent increase on employment wages, to bring it up to about 30 percent. You have a 10 percent hike in corporate taxes, $1.25 on cigarette taxes. You have new fees on cars, trucks and real estate transactions and hospitals.

ERPENBACH: That has everything to do with Healthy Wisconsin, nothing to do, none of that.

BECK: That would have everything to do with higher taxes.

ERPENBACH: No, it doesn`t, but it has nothing to do with health care. For the average person in the state, this is what health care is going to cost. It will be $140 a month to get the same kind of benefit package that I, as a state senator, have.

BECK: OK. When I have to have my -- as a small business owner, because I am, I have 10 employees -- when I have now 30 percent in payroll taxes instead of 15 percent, why won`t I go do business elsewhere?

ERPENBACH: Do you provide health care to those employees?

BECK: Sure do, done the math.

ERPENBACH: How much does it cost you?

BECK: It doesn`t work out, my friend, 30 percent...

ERPENBACH: So how high are their deductibles then?

BECK: Pardon me?

ERPENBACH: Under Healthy Wisconsin, it`s $140. That`s all it costs every month, $20 to go see a doctor if you`re sick.

BECK: Your taxes for a family will be about 20 percent of your family income, 20 percent, and that`s for the state. That`s higher than the federal in most cases.

ERPENBACH: Glenn, you can`t take the entire state budget and everything else, with the tobacco tax, and lump it all together with Healthy Wisconsin.

BECK: Oh, of course not.

ERPENBACH: You have to look at it separately.

BECK: Of course you do. That way you don`t realize that you`re paying 20 percent to the state.

ERPENBACH: Glenn, Glenn, there are businesses who save millions and millions of dollars under Healthy Wisconsin.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: I have 30 seconds. Let me just ask you this. Illegal aliens are going to get health care. If you have a company that is paying these people off of the books and they get health care, will you prosecute the companies for paying people off the books?

ERPENBACH: Well, I would hope that a company isn`t doing anything illegal in the state of Wisconsin...

BECK: Hope...

(CROSSTALK)

ERPENBACH: At the very least, if you`re an illegal alien and you have a job, you`re going to be paying for your own health care, just like I am.

BECK: I guess that`s a no. Thank you very much. That`s the "Real Story" tonight.

Up next, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the Clinton-Obama ticket is the team to beat in the `08 presidential election. I have to tell you, he`s right, and I will tell you why they`ll win, if it`s true. Details in a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: As long as she has Barack Obama as her vice president, Americans will overlook it and they`ll say, "This is an important election. This is a chance to show that we`re not racist in this country. Isn`t it time to say a woman can have the highest office in the land? And isn`t it time for an African-American to be by her side?" Well, yes, if they`re the right candidates.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Well, Newt Gingrich went on "FOX News Sunday" yesterday. He did a little `08 election forecasting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH (R), FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: But I think that either Mayor Giuliani or Governor Romney or Senator Thompson would be a very formidable opponent for what I expect will be a Clinton-Obama ticket.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Obama in `08? I can`t wait. I can already see the people trying to scrape their faded bumper stickers off their cars right now. I have to be honest with you, I thought about this for the last few days. Honestly, even though a lot of Republicans don`t want to admit it, that ticket is going to be the ticket that will win. I think the secret to this next election is our narcissism.

There was a study that I read a couple of weeks ago. It was on global warming and Priuses. The number-one reason why people buy a Prius is not the environment. It`s not gas mileage. No, that`s actually number three and number fourth reason. It`s actually -- the number-one reason, "It says a lot about me." Oh, my gosh, we`ve made the environment about us.

Forget about whether or not voting for Clinton-Obama is the right thing for the country. This vote will be bigger than that. This vote is personal. This vote is about me. "I remember, when I was your age, I voted for the first woman and African-American." If Republicans want to win in `08, they better start figuring out a way to beat that, our narcissism.

Peter Fenn is a former adviser to Al Gore and a Democratic strategist. Amy Holmes is a Republican strategist.

Guys, I don`t even know who to start with on this one. Peter, I`m going to go with you. How am I wrong?

PETER FENN, FENN COMMUNICATIONS: Well, I don`t think you`re all that wrong. I will tell you, your interesting comment about the Prius, though, that was also a figure that jumped 15 points in two years in narcissism. But I`ll tell you what, I think it is, Glenn, on this ticket: It`s the ultimate change ticket for the United States.

BECK: It is.

FENN: And I don`t know whether it`s going to happen, because there`s a long time between now and these nominations. It has to be about chemistry. Those two are going at it right now a little bit. We`ll see what happens.

BECK: Oh, that always happens.

FENN: That`s true. It does always happen. Look, but I think that, when you look at where people are right now, they are really searching for change. And if this is the right ticket, they`ll go for it.

BECK: But, Amy, when people say they want change, usually they don`t know what kind of change they want. I mean, when people, and they`re so stupid, they just want change for change`s sake, that`s when we really should say, you voting? Not so much. If you want to talk about change, people always say, "It`s driven by the war." Then explain to me, Amy, why Rudy Giuliani, who`s not exactly a dove, does so well with independents?

AMY HOLMES, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, he`s a change candidate, as well. He`s outside of Washington. He was mayor. He`s America`s mayor. But getting back to your point about the Prius and people driving it around just so they can prove to their neighbors that they`re environmentally friendly, what you have to remember about voting is that it`s in secret. You pull that curtain behind you, and you can walk out and say you voted for them, but maybe you didn`t. Just like with polling, we know that Americans tell pollsters that they go to church more than they actually do, that they drink less than they actually do, so the Hillary Clinton-Obama ticket is exciting. She`s the steak; he`s the sizzle. But when it comes down to who the voters are really going to pick in the booth, that is still a long way away.

BECK: I am telling you -- you`re right. You`re right. But I`m telling you, if it`s Hillary Clinton and Obama, the Republicans really have their work cut out for them, because it will become, "You`re a sexist, you`re a racist." You will...

HOLMES: You know what?

BECK: Hang on. You will have people who will say, "I want to be able to tell my children and my grandchildren I voted for the first African- American and voted for the first woman." It`s the narcissist thing to do.

HOLMES: But, Glenn, but if I can jump in there, that attacks it. If you don`t vote for Hillary, you`re a misogynist. If you don`t vote for Barack, you`re a racist, that can really backfire on the people who are trying to make that charge. Americans don`t like to be told that they`re intolerant, bigoted people.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: I don`t think their camps would ever -- their camps would never say that. It would never come from their camps.

HOLMES: Yes, but we know the media is going to say that. We know that, in 1992, that any criticism of Hillary was always chocked up to anti- woman, that it wasn`t actually Hillary Clinton making poor choices.

BECK: Peter?

FENN: I do think -- I`ll tell you, I think Hillary is doing a tremendous job, standing on her own two feet here. I think Barack Obama is immensely charismatic and immensely substantive. As Martin Luther King said, and it should be about women, as well as African-Americans, judge them for the content of their character...

BECK: I agree with you.

FENN: ... and the quality of their ideas. And that`s to your first point, Glenn, which is, look, if folks say, "You know, we have some folks we really like. And it is a historic election, and we think they`d make a great president and vice president, they`ll go for it." I`m less worried I think then Amy that, when people get behind that curtain, that they`re going to do something strange and against their own best interests.

BECK: You said a minute ago -- and you`re so good, man, you are so -- I almost believed you -- that you believe that she`s doing a good job standing on her own two feet. Honestly, Peter -- and I say this, listen to me carefully -- I say this about Newt Gingrich as well as Hillary Clinton, because I believe they`re both from old school. They are in the public`s perception from independents as divisive people. Don`t tell me that you actually think Hillary Clinton can win this on her own. She`s unelectable.

FENN: Actually, no, I`m not -- look, has she got high negatives? Of course. But, listen, this is a woman who co-sponsored legislation with 35 senators who voted for her husband`s impeachment, including one who is in the Congress and managed it. I mean, she -- what I think will happen, if she`s elected president, she will be a lot more moderate than people think, she`ll be a lot more pragmatic than people think. She`ll work with the Congress much better than people think. You`ll get a lot more done with this woman as president than initially people would think.

HOLMES: People, I`ve got to jump in there. She`ll campaign that way, but whether or not she`ll govern that way is another story.

BECK: The great thing is, both of you guys, when she starts enacting some of these things, I`d have a heart attack, it will be covered. Peter, Amy, thanks a lot. Talk to you again.

HOLMES: Thank you.

FENN: Bye.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, there is sad news to end the show on tonight. The world of publishing has some sad news, the announcement that "The Weekly World News" is closing up shop. At one time, the "Weekly World News" was one of the top-selling newspapers in the country, but sadly times have changed. I guess with the advent of the Internet, many of us no longer rely on getting our news exclusively from waiting on supermarket checkout lines. "Weekly World News," you`ll be dearly missed. And now, if I may, a remembrance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK (voice-over): It was called the world`s only reliable newspaper. And, over the years, "The Weekly World News" grew to become one of the most trusted names in news. It covered the gamut, from the environment, from sports to technology. And while the paper achieved worldwide fame for its uncanny ability to scoop the competition, it also wasn`t afraid to tackle the hot-button issues of our times, like gay marriage or adoption.

In fact, its coverage of American politics was considered by many to be second to none. But such is the circle of life. And while we must bid a sad farewell to "The Weekly World News," with its death, a new life is reborn, in the form of a contraceptive device known as the sponge. Many of us might remember the sponge as a mysterious contraption that somehow or another did something to keep us from -- well, you get the idea. But to fans of the hit TV series "Seinfeld," the sponge had an altogether different meeting.

JERRY SEINFELD, ACTOR: I take it he`s spongeworthy?

JULIA LOUIS-DREYFUS, ACTRESS: Oh, yes.

BECK: The sponge is back. Oh, sure, the packaging is different, of course, but the purpose remains steadfast. Let us together just hope that the sponge proves to be as reliable as "The Weekly World News."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Tough day, America, but we do have the sponge to brighten things up. Don`t forget, if you want to hear what`s on tomorrow`s radio or television show, or if you`d like a little more in-depth commentary on the news or the sponge, you can sign up for my free daily e-mail newsletter at glennbeck.com.

Before we go, I want to welcome a new affiliate on radio, 990 KWAM in Memphis. From New York, good night, America.

END