Return to Transcripts main page

GLENN BECK

Renewed Efforts at Rewarding Illegal Immigration?; Lawyer Hopes to Help Jailed Border Agents; San Francisco Nixes Marines Commercial Shoot; Should President Share Inside Scoop on World Affairs with Candidates?

Aired September 26, 2007 - 19:00:00   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, the controversial back door amnesty bill, the DREAM Act, returns to Congress. This dream is actually an immigration nightmare.

Plus, is blind justice really blind? A radical lawyer convicted of helping a terrorist mastermind is asked to speak on -- wait for it -- a legal ethics panel. Even this guy could see the irony here.

And San Francisco prevents Marines from filming a recruiting commercial, while the city sees no problem in sponsoring this perverted ad for a local street fair. The few, the proud, the obscene.

All this and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Well, hello, America.

I can`t believe I have to say it over and over again in this country today, but I guess I do. I love immigrants. They built this country. It`s illegal immigrants that I have a problem with, those who sneak in the back door when they hope nobody`s looking. I feel the same way about laws, quite frankly.

When Congress puts legislation through in an honorable way in the daylight, it`s great. But when they try to sneak it in when they hope that nobody`s looking, I`ve got a problem with that. And that`s exactly what they`re doing in the dark of night with the new DREAM Act. Sorry, Washington. We are looking, and don`t really like what we`re seeing.

So here`s "The Point" tonight.

While you`ve been sleeping in America and doing other things like, I don`t know, raising your kids, Congress has been screwing you. And it`s time to wake up. Here`s how I got there.

Senator Dick Durbin, Orrin Hatch, a friend of mine, and plenty of others from both sides of the aisle trying to revive one of the worst provisions in their failed amnesty act. It`s legislation that would have allowed millions of illegal immigrants to get away with breaking the law and staying here in the United States legally.

We, the people, said -- I believe the phrase was "No way, Jose." And the legislation rightfully failed. But some in Congress are just like my 2-year-old son. Doesn`t really like "no."

So now they`ve added an amendment to the defense authorization bill that is supposed to be about keeping our soldiers safe, but no, no. They`ve added something called the Development Relief and Education for Alien Minors. Well, nanu-nanu to the new DREAM Act.

Washington, you can call it a puppy dog or a teddy bear act, for all I care; it`s amnesty and all other names stink. Basically, this measure guarantees illegal immigrants a college education at a much lower rate than your kids pay to go to college. It paves the way for illegal immigrant minors to get a green card for both themselves and their family.

It`s a loophole so large Ted Kennedy can squeeze his fat butt through it. It`s an incentive for illegal aliens to continue manipulating and abusing the system. And there`s no sunset in it.

You know, there is so much bull crap in the DREAM Act I don`t even know where to start shoveling. For starters, supporters of this act obviously care much more about illegal immigrants and their special interest groups than they do about you and me, American citizens. It rewards people for breaking our laws, by providing a clear path to amnesty and legal residency.

The American people have already spoken about this issue. We said no amnesty, not now, not ever.

Me personally, I care about security first. Why don`t we patch the holes and put fences on our borders, milk before meat, Washington? Let me ask you another question in Washington. Are you really surprised when we tell you that we don`t trust you? Obviously, you don`t even care.

Tonight, here`s what you need to know. This is how shifty, beady-eyed politicians like Democrat Dick Durbin wax poetic about their precious DREAM Act.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: This is the choice the DREAM Act presents us. We can allow a generation of immigrant students with great potential and ambition to contribute more to America, or give them a future of living in the shadows.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Or maybe they could go back home. I`m just saying, there is a third option.

Senator, you can twist it any way you like. Bottom line is, we don`t want amnesty. We would like you to stop the flow of illegals into our country. Then we can decide to do what we have to do to those who are already here. And here`s a great idea. We`ll do it in the daylight hours.

Senator Jeff Sessions, he`s a Republican senator from Alabama.

Senator, where am I wrong on this?

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: Glenn, you make some fundamental points, strong and clear. Fundamentally, you`re right. If you`re in a hole, you should quit digging. If you want to reduce illegal immigration, you should stop passing laws that reward it by giving them in-state tuition, subsidized student loans, federal work-study benefits.

We`ve got to get our heads straight and create a lawful system of immigration and stop focusing our attention on how to reward and provide benefits to those who came illegally.

BECK: Couple of things. First of all, this is the same act that was rejected three times already in Congress. It also changes the law from 1996, where it says -- where it says you cannot have an in-state tuition for illegal aliens unless you provide it for all Americans.

So if my child wants to go to a school out of state, they can`t get the in-state. But if somebody who`s living illegally down the street from me can go to the same college my kid wants to, and they pay the reduced rate, correct?

SESSIONS: That`s correct. And it`s just not acceptable. That`s not good policy for America. We need -- we need to make sure we send a clear message throughout the world that we are a nation of lawful immigrants, as you said, but we are not going to accept unlawful immigration; and we`re certainly not going to reward it if somebody succeeds in getting past the border.

BECK: You know, it`s also like this SCHIP program that Congress is putting through. They now define children in that, for -- for insurance, they now define children as under 25.

This one also talks about children that have been here since 15. But you can be 55 and still apply, can`t you?

SESSIONS: That is correct. It`s not nearly as -- quite as some would suggest it to be. And you know, it`s 1.3 million people, we estimate, maybe more. And they do, as you indicated -- can bring parents with them once they`re in. This is a very major step toward full citizenship, amnesty, if you will, in a way that was rejected just a few weeks ago.

BECK: Senator, I mean this with all respect, sir. And I asked Orrin Hatch this today on my radio program. I don`t think -- I don`t think you guys in Washington really get it. What part of disenfranchisement do the people in Washington not understand?

You are creating -- and I don`t mean you in particular. I mean everybody is being lumped, Democrats and Republicans, everybody in Washington, they`re being lumped into something -- it`s us against them. You`re not listening to us. How do we get this point across?

SESSIONS: I think we keep at it. I think this opportunity that I have and that you have to tell American people what is really happening here, making sure that people continue to call their representatives is important, but you are fundamentally correct.

The masters of the universe, those guys that think that know more than anybody else, are continuing to move, in any way they can, to pass piecemeal, if not in whole, the same ideas of amnesty and lack of enforcement that we`ve had so long.

So, you know, we need to move toward -- the American people need to insist that their representatives honor their legitimate, decent views about a lawful system of immigration.

BECK: Senator, thank you very much. I appreciate your time, sir.

And I just want to remind you, the American people, one thing. The power comes from God. Those rights come from God, go to me or go to you, and then they go to Washington. Take your power back. Demand they listen to you.

Now, two men who know all too well about illegal immigration and how it`s a danger to Americans are border agents Ramos and Compean. They`re starting down a decade-plus prison sentence each.

But there is a new legal brief now that has been filed on their behalf that could help provide the help that they so desperately needed. With more on it now is Bill Olson. He`s one of the attorneys who filed the brief.

Bill, tell me what you filed and what its chances are. What are you doing exactly?

BILL OLSON, ATTORNEY: Well, we were engaged by Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina and Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia and Ted Poe of Texas to take a look at why these sentences that Ramos and Compean had were so long, that 11 and 12 years, as you say, because 10 of -- 10 of those years was violating a federal law known as 18-USC-924-C, which is a special punishment for people who use a firearm in certain ways, use, possess, or carry a firearm if they`re doing it to promote a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

BECK: Right. It was actually supposed to work against the cartel, and Johnny Sutton went and used it against these two guys.

OLSON: Yes, it is quite perverse that it was designed to be used against drug traffickers; now it`s being used to put in jail the people who are trying to stop drug trafficking.

But the situation we got into when we were engaged to take a look at this was one of the attorneys in our firm, Herb Titus (ph), just harkening back to your comment a minute ago, by the grace of God saw that the U.S. attorney in this case did not indict Ramos and Compean for the -- for a violation of 924-C.

He actually twisted the words of the statute so that they were not charged with any of the three verbs that are required to be charged with, use, possess, or carry. Rather, they were charged with an illegal discharge.

Now, there`s a great difference in criminal law between elements of a crime -- use, possess, and carry -- and what the statute has for additional sentencing enhancements, which were to discharge or brandish a firearm.

BECK: OK. You`re making my head hurt. I mean, really. I`m not an attorney. What are the chance that`s this succeeds?

OLSON: Well, if the court looks at it carefully, they will realize that Ramos and Compean were each sentenced to ten years in jail for the -- for a jury conviction of a crime that does not exist.

It is illegal to use, possess, or carry. I don`t want to go over that again. But it is not illegal to -- to discharge, which is what they were charged with. And this is terribly sad.

Every time -- you have a constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury and to be convicted by a jury on every element of the crime. Congress defines those crimes. The prosecutors do not define those crimes. The prosecutors` duty is to trace very carefully the elements of the criminal justice statute and to present that to the grand jury and to the jury.

In this case they twisted the language in order to accomplish some objective. I`m not sure what.

Congressman Walter Jones on the floor of the House said that he thought it would be very hard to show that guys who have a gun on their -- strapped to their side to go to work should be illegally possessing, using, or carrying.

BECK: All right. Thank you very much, Bill. Keep in touch with us.

And by the way, if you at home want to help agents Ramos and Compean, please, buy one of our shirts. You can find these -- I love this -- "U.S. Border Patrol: To Protect and Serve Time". I don`t think that was part of the job description.

All of the proceeds go to help their families, their legal defense funds. So please go to GlennBeck.com and buy one today.

All right. Coming up, U.S. Marines were all set to shoot a recruiting commercial in San Francisco, until city officials said, "Mm, not so fast." And you will not believe why.

Also, Ahmadinejad may have closed the door on Iran`s nuclear case yesterday, but I`ve got the "Real Story" behind who may be our biggest ally in our efforts to shut down Iran, and it is jaw dropping.

And just a reminder, tonight`s show brought to you by the Sleep Number Bed by Select Comfort. I sleep on one. Find your sleep number today at a Select Comfort store near you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, here`s a quick programming note. Michael Buble will be on the show Friday. I am quite possibly Michael`s biggest fan. I mean, I`ve been fighting the chicks for it. I have. But I`ve got the title.

He`s one of the biggest stars in show business. He is unbelievable on stage. Multiplatinum recording artist. And he`ll be here for the full hour of honest questions. Nothing is off the table, Buble. Nothing.

You don`t want to miss it. That`s coming up Friday.

But first, the few, the proud, the unwelcome. They are the Marines in San Francisco. The silent drill platoon of the U.S. Marine Corps denied permission to film a segment for their new advertising campaign on the streets of San Francisco. Karl Malden will be spinning in his grave like a lathe.

The Marines were eventually allowed to do some filming, just so long as no military personnel appeared in any of the shots. What? The spokesperson for the San Francisco Film Commission said traffic control, it`s just crazy here.

Really? Yes. What else could it be? I mean, it`s not like San Francisco has come out of the closet as a Mecca for the far left of the liberal agenda. I`m sure it was a traffic issue, and, you know, not just another way that San Francisco could wear their anti-troop, anti-war, anti- American politics on their sleeve.

Of course. It would be the troops causing the problem. Couldn`t possibly be the film crew. Yes. See, the film crew could actually film but nobody in uniform. That makes perfect sense.

By the way, Bay Area friends, here in Manhattan, you know, a real city, we were able to accommodate film crews. In fact, we do it all the time. In fact, just yesterday I`m driving into work, and I saw the Marines. They were filming in Times Square during morning rush hour traffic. Right here, Times Square. During the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had First Avenue all closed and 56th was all closed because the president`s motorcade was using that.

If we can handle a job like that, maybe the problem in your city isn`t the traffic but the government, maybe?

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, syndicated columnist and political analyst -- Earl.

EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Yes.

BECK: This is the city that has banned the Junior ROTC, the Blue Angels, and the USS Iowa. When do you suppose we just say, you know what? You guys should defend yourself. Because you know, somebody -- somebody comes after you guys, you know, and some invading army, just throw granola and your Birkenstocks at them and give us a call when you`re done.

HUTCHINSON: Well, you`ve got to remember, Glenn, this is California and this is San Francisco. And certainly, when you talk about the Bay Area and the long history of anti-war activism and radicalism, I`m certain that you can`t be surprised by it.

But here`s the thing that -- that struck me. Many people, maybe the majority of Americans now, have in one way, shape, or another said we don`t like what`s going on in Iraq. We have serious questions about the war. I have raised many questions about the war.

BECK: Sure. So have I.

HUTCHINSON: Maybe even been anti-war in some positions. However, I think there is a distinction between legitimate opposition to the war -- and I think that`s certainly on the table for a discussion -- as opposed to saying the Marines can`t film in the city.

Now, the last time I looked, when you really look at the Marine Corps and the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy and the Air Force, but especially the Marines and the Army, a significant percentage of them are African- American. A significant percentage are Latino. The Marines and the Army have offered generations of African-Americans and Latinos an opportunity to advance, both job-wise and education-wise.

So I think you can be opposed to the war, but you don`t necessarily have to take it out on the men and women that essentially are fighting the war. How about supporting them, too?

BECK: Yes.

HUTCHINSON: But you don`t have to make a statement through them and using them as a ploy.

BECK: Let me tell you something. You want to live in -- you want to live in a country that doesn`t need an army, go move to Tonga. In the meantime welcome to the United States.

Here`s something in San Francisco. Put this picture up. This is a picture. This is a nice rendition of "The Last Supper". You`ll love this. This is for the Folsom Street Fair. Doesn`t it look like fun?

Quote, "Our mission is to create world class volunteer-driven leather events, providing the adult alternative lifestyle community safe venues for self expression, emphasizing freedom, fun, and frolic while raising money to benefit San Francisco charities."

They can do this. They can -- they can put this picture up as a slap across the face to anybody who, you know, looks at "The Last Supper" and sees Jesus, and yet, for some unknown reason we find the Marines are offensive.

HUTCHINSON: Well, and the other part of that, too, which I think anybody would object to about the feeble excuse that they used. First of all, it was traffic control, crowd control, any kind of control.

The bottom line is, look, you can be radical. You can be progressive. You can be liberal. You can be all of these things, but at the same time be consistent with it. If you`re really going to be the liberal and progressive you are, one of the things I think would be a prohibition is censorship.

What in God`s name would the Marines have to do with compromising your politics and principles? I mean, you`re going to do and say what you want to do anyway. So I`m just suggesting that there`s a certain hypocrisy and an inconsistency there.

BECK: Earl, thanks a lot.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you.

BECK: I`ve got to tell you, Democrats, your party has been hijacked. I mean, you know, Republicans, yours has been hijacked by thieves, as well. But -- coming up, President Bush, determined to make sure that we have a secure Middle East. That starts with Iraq, even if it means pushing the presidential politics to the side.

And President Tom`s defiance with the U.N. has culminated with his claim that the dispute over Iran`s nuclear program is closed. I`m sorry, Mahmoud, but America begs to differ. And we may not be alone. Grab your fries for tonight`s "Real Story".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: There`s a new book out by Bill Salmon. It`s called "The Evangelical President". And there`s a story that`s going out that George Bush is calling up Hillary and giving her campaign advice. It`s totally misunderstood.

Actually, I think what he`s doing is honorable. I think that`s what a president, Republican or Democrat, should do to the incoming possible presidents.

Joining me now is former Bill Clinton White House aide Keith Boykin.

Keith, isn`t this what a president should do? Shouldn`t a president, especially at a time of war, call all of the candidates on both sides and say, "Look, this is how I see what`s going on. This is the stuff that I`m privileged to. And you just have to be very careful in what you`re saying because if you are the president you`ve got to be in a position where all options are open to you"?

KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE: It is a responsibility of the president to give advice, not only to the people around him but also to the people who might be succeeding him, because the next president`s going to have to deal with this war in Iraq, regardless of who that is, whether it`s a Democrat or Republican. You can`t just save that information for one party.

I think it`s a great idea, quite frankly, and it`s something that other presidents have done too, to save and choose to share information that`s already out there that needs to be discussed.

BECK: I have to tell you, I think I would share -- with the top-tier candidates, I think I would share stuff that even isn`t out there, if I was allowed to by law. I would say, "Look, guys, just so you know."

Because a, the next president, we`ve got to have confidence in. You know, and if somebody`s out there going, "I`m going to pull all of our troops out," and the president knows something that this new president is going to see, they`ll immediately lose credibility. You know, they need to know what they can know to be measured.

BOYKIN: Although, Glenn, I will have to say this, though. Just because the information is shared doesn`t mean that Hillary or Barack or whoever is reading the information will come with the same conclusions...

BECK: Oh, no. I know that. No, no, no. I mean, if they choose then to say you know what -- here`s the thing, Keith. I am so sick and tired in America of believing that I have to believe in everything a candidate says or a politician says. I want to believe in the principles. And I may disagree with the policies.

So if the principle here is that we`re under attack and we`ve got some really bad, you know, guys after us, et cetera, et cetera, and we`ve got to do something about the war, that`s your policy. The principle is we`ve got to do something. Here are the facts. If you want to choose a different direction, that`s your prerogative.

BOYKIN: I completely agree with your perspective. I think if I were president I`d do the same thing.

The only issue is what don`t people already know about this? We know that Iraq is in turmoil. We know there are people who are bad who are out there trying to get us.

BECK: Yes.

BOYKIN: What else is there to know?

BECK: I think there`s a couple of things that American -- America doesn`t really know. And you know -- I mean, if I know it, the candidates surely should.

We`ve just built a 3/4 of a billion-dollar embassy. It`s the size of the National Mall in Washington, D.C. We`re building the largest air field in the world. It`s going to be bigger than the one in Germany. We`re going to be there for 50 years. There`s no way we`re walking away from this.

BOYKIN: And, you know, to be honest, I don`t think any of the candidates, Democrat or Republican, are talking about never having a presence in Iraq again. Even the candidates who want to pull out...

BECK: Yes, but this is -- yes, I mean, look at this. This is not a presence. This is a command post, just like we had in Germany.

BOYKIN: Well, we have -- we have a command post in Guantanamo in Cuba and occupying that territory in a communist country, too.

BECK: Right.

BOYKIN: It`s not unusual for America to do that. We did it in Korea. We did it in Germany. We`re doing it in Cuba. We`re going to do it in Iraq. The real issue here is...

BECK: Quickly. I`ve got to wrap it up.

BOYKIN: ... what kind of leadership is going to be shown by this president and the following president.

BECK: Yes.

BOYKIN: And it`s important to have continuity.

BECK: "Real Story", next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: I don`t know about you, but this recent trend of liberal colleges playing the sympathy card to known terrorists beginning to drive me, oh, I don`t know, slightly bonkers. It`s an academic epidemic, and that took me all day to learn how to say that. We`ve got the "Real Story" behind the lunacy in just a few minutes.

But first, welcome to the "Real Story." It`s been such a whirlwind couple of days here in New York City for President Ahmadinejad. In case you missed any of it, here`s a GLENN BECK program retrospective, "48 Hours with Mahmoud."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, PRESIDENT OF IRAN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don`t have homosexuals like in your country.

(LAUGHTER)

As for homosexuality, I don`t know where it is. Give me an address.

(LAUGHTER)

Women are respected in Iran, respected more than men are.

(LAUGHTER)

Oh, god, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi, and grant him good health and victory.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I hope he does, too, because that is -- `til next year. So touching. He`s really captured the attention of the nation, hasn`t he? And that`s exactly the problem. The "Real Story" is, for the last few days, we`ve been talking about Ahmadinejad and his homophobia and propaganda. But really the news should have been about the leaders who are finally standing up, ringing the bell, saying, "Enough is enough."

One of those leaders -- and this will blow your mind -- a guy whose U.N. speech you probably haven`t seen one second of -- is President Sarkozy of France. Yeah, France. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICOLAS SARKOZY, PRESIDENT OF FRANCE: But I would like to say also that openness is not renunciation. Understanding is not weakness. Weakness and renunciation are not factors of peace; they are factors of war. In the name of France, I want to say that this crisis can only be resolved if resolve and dialogue go hand in hand. It is in that spirit that France will act.

You have understood my point, that France believes that we don`t have any more time to wait. France calls for action; France encourages action; France will be involved in action in the service of peace throughout the world.

Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I swear to you, I snapped through a wormhole, man, because this is a different universe. It looks like the universe I left, but that`s France. After years of Jacques Chirac following Neville Chamberlain and his playbook, I mean, that`s unbelievable.

But the media`s been too distracted. Most people will never see it. Charles Kupchan is a senior fellow of Europe studies on the Council of Foreign Relations.

Charles, I mean, he talks a good talk and he does it with a cool French accent and everything, but can we actually count on France for anything?

CHARLES KUPCHAN, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, thus far, the sign is yes. And as you put it, nobody has really been paying that much attention to what Sarkozy did at the U.N. yesterday. But after decades of Americans bashing on the French and the French bashing on the Americans, now you have a French president who wants to align Paris with Washington, who wants to walk with Bush to contain Iran. It`s a very important change; let`s see if he follows his rhetoric with action...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: It`s just an unbelievable change. How is he going to get away -- does he know that Johnny Depp lives in his country? How`s he going to get away with this?

KUPCHAN: Well, that`s one of the problems, that he`s still in a honeymoon period. He has a French foreign ministry that continues to hold onto a sort of anti-American outlook. He`s got a French public that still isn`t too content with the Bush administration`s foreign policy. But he is very popular. He does have a foreign minister who`s out there trying to build support for this new turn in French policy, so every indication suggests that he really is going to move the ship of state in a pro- American direction.

BECK: I mean, it`s amazing to me. I mean, everybody in Hollywood keeps saying, "We should listen to France. They`re so enlightened." They`re dumping socialism. They`re getting off of the health care. They`re lowering their taxes. And they`re starting to talk tough about follow-through. I mean, OK, Hollywood, I admit it, I was wrong. We should listen to France.

It`s an incredible change for France. Is he going to be able to -- is he going to be able to hold his -- his un -- or his population that seems to go into unrest from time to time and hold the lid on that, as well? He`s got a lot of alien population that is -- that does not like the French way of life.

KUPCHAN: Yeah, I would say that, if we have this conversation a year from now and look back and say, "Did he achieve his full agenda?" the answer will be no. And that`s because, as you pointed out, the French have a glorious tradition of taking to the streets, of blocking major economic reform. The last government tried to reform labor regulations. They got a bill through the parliament, and what happened? The students and the labor unions took to the streets and had to withdraw.

BECK: Yeah, I don`t mean those. I mean the no-go zones in France with the Islamic populations where they`re burning cars. I mean, the last administration set up no-go zones where the cops had nothing to do with policing those areas. How does he talk tough on Iran and still hold that population at bay?

KUPCHAN: Well, that`s one of the bigger challenges he faces, because during the presidential campaign, he used some rough words about these new immigrants, at one point calling them "scum." There were uprisings. There was violence. Thus far, the immigrant communities, the Muslim communities in particular, have remained pretty quiet, and he has tried to implement a program to pull more Muslims into the socioeconomic mainstream.

BECK: OK, Charles. Thanks a lot.

Now we go to Columbia University. Despite the president`s tough words, inviting a dictator-terrorist to speak at your campus, probably not the best idea. Yeah, we want a debate. We cherish dialogue and free speech. But like all of our freedoms, there is a line. Would Fidel Castro be welcome on your campus? Don`t answer that. The answer`s probably yes. Kim Jong-Il, Osama bin Laden, you`d probably invite all of them, but you should really reconsider.

You have the right to give enemies of our country a platform to speak, but you have a responsibility not to give them a platform for propaganda. Unfortunately, the "Real Story" is our colleges have lost touch with not only that concept, but it seems like with the simple concept of common sense.

In a few weeks, Hofstra Law School, which is here in New York, right, hosting a legal ethics conference. I don`t think they`re going to appreciate the irony of that title. It`s one of the names of the speakers that are coming to speak at this thing really caught my eye, Lynne Stewart.

If you were here in New York and, you know, you remember 9/11, that name might ring a bell. She was the civil rights attorney who was disbarred and sentenced to over two years in prison for smuggling messages from her scumbag terrorist client out of jail and then delivering them to an Egyptian terror group. She`s been disbarred, disgraced, convicted felon, former attorney speaking at a university ethics conference. How exactly does that work? And people wonder why, you know, I`m freaked out about having my kids go off to college. Oh, no reason.

Evan Maloney, director of "Indoctrinate U," a documentary that will be released on Friday. Evan, I`ve got to tell you, I read about your documentary here a couple of weeks ago. I can`t wait to see it. Let`s just talk about this. What the hell happened to our colleges?

EVAN COYNE MALONEY, "INDOCTRINATE U.": Well, this has been something that`s been going on for about 30 years now. This is not a new development. And, you know, one of the things that struck me as very odd about Ahmadinejad coming up to Columbia is that Lee Bollinger kept talking about how this enhanced free speech.

But, you know, that`s a pretty specious argument. It`s not as though Ahmadinejad has no platform for speech, for one. And, for two, Columbia is a place that just last year ran a member of the Minutemen off the stage, actually physically assaulted him on stage and, just last week, renounced another invitation. They had invited him back this year, and just last week they yanked the invitation. And yet they`re claiming that they worship free speech up at Columbia. I don`t know. I`m not buying it.

BECK: Yes, it`s bull crap. You know it, and I know it. America knows it. Lynne Stewart, here she is, she`s a woman who was helping the blind sheik. She`s passing notes to known terrorists. And she`s speaking at this lawyers ethics conference.

Let me ask you this. Do you think there`s a chance that, when Compean and Ramos get out of jail, that Hofstra University would ask them to join them for a conference?

MALONEY: It certainly seems like it. You know, I mean, maybe the only reason they have Lynne Stewart is that they`re trying to illustrate ethics by showing you what not to do. Maybe this is an ironic title for their conference. I don`t know.

BECK: It seems like we`re living in an upside-down world. Tell me, it`s not true that there are now kind of underground reading lists that go along with some classes?

MALONEY: Yeah, this is something I found in researching "Indoctrinate U." A number of students told me that they would never get assigned Adam Smith, they would never get assigned Friedrich Hayek, they would never get assigned Milton Friedman, but they would read Karl Marx in four different classes.

So a lot of these students got together and started researching the types of views that they don`t hear in college. And so a lot of these students have formed groups -- there are actually some groups online -- where they recommend reading lists to one another because they know they`re not getting a balanced education from their institution.

BECK: I have to tell you, when I went to school, I was 30 years old, and I remember my professors saying, "You`re reading such and such, aren`t you?" And I said, "Yes, sir." And he said, "Don`t read that. Don`t read that." And he told me not to read it. He said, "You`ve got to read this." So I went and I read that, and I came back the next week, and I asked him another question. He said, "Are you still reading that book?" And I said, "Yeah, I read the one you told me to, but I`m also reading the one you don`t want me to." He said, "Why would you do that?" And I said, "Because I wanted to know why you disagree with him."

I mean, they don`t really understand how thought works and how you`re supposed to research and not shape people`s thoughts but show them different ways to find information. Thank you very much, Evan. We`ll look for your movie, "Indoctrinate U."

That`s the "Real Story" tonight. We`ll be back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I was watching "Speed Racer" with Raphe this weekend. The police came and asked him for help, and Trixie said...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was making a picnic lunch for us.

BECK: I want to go on a picnic, some chick things to say, which Raphe and I both agree is wrong. And he said, "Trixie, it`s our duty to help the police." And I thought, when`s the last time you saw something where it was, "Stand up for what`s right, tell the truth, help the police, pursue justice"? When did we stop seeing that stuff on television? Because I can`t seem to find it now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Oh, I don`t know. I mean, we`ve got a whole new season. I mean, I have been paying a lot of attention to President Tom coming to New York, but, I mean, one thing I`m really concerned about this week is not maxing out my TiVo. Between the weekend marathons of "Flavor of Love," sure, reruns of "The Golden Girls," this show being recorded 300 times a night, I barely have room to record anything new. And that`s a problem, because it`s fall TV premiere week, and if you`re like me, you hate it when you fall in love with a show like "Studio 60" and then the network yanks it.

And so I -- I`m not getting married to any new shows. I`ve decided it would be a perfect job for our public viewer, Brian Sack, to watch all of these and tell us what`s good, bad, and downright ugly.

BRIAN SACK, PUBLIC VIEWER: That`s right. I watched a lot of TV this past week, and I did not raise my children once.

BECK: Good for you.

SACK: Thank you.

BECK: Good for you.

SACK: So let`s get into this. "Dirty Sexy Money," it`s the show on ABC, got Peter Krause from "Six Feet Under" and Kiefer Sutherland`s dad and one of the 30 Baldwins. And this is a show about a dysfunctional ultra- wealthy family in Manhattan. And it`s based on basically a melange of dysfunctional, ultra-wealthy families that we`re all familiar with from the news.

BECK: I`m sorry, a melange?

SACK: Oh, I`m French. Sarkozy really got in there -- I`ve got Sarkozy fever.

BECK: So do you like it?

SACK: I love "Dirty Sexy Money," and I`m giving it...

BECK: Stop, stop, stop. America, he likes it. He just used the word "melange." You`re going to hate it.

SACK: No, I`m giving it four Ahmadinejads. Thank you. That`s my rating system.

BECK: Out of how many?

SACK: Four.

BECK: Wow, OK.

SACK: Yes, four Ahmadinejads for "Dirty Sexy Money." Moving on to "Cane." That`s the one that`s got Jimmy Smits in it, and it`s on CBS. And "Cane," it`s basically -- sugar is the new oil. That`s the premise of it. It`s about a sugar dynasty. And in that sense, it`s kind of like "Dallas," but there`s a lot of people speaking Spanish.

BECK: Can I tell you something? This is going to be a disaster because sugar is the answer.

SACK: Really, would you power a car with sugar?

BECK: You bet I would.

SACK: You would?

BECK: It would be great. And I could stop, pull off to the side of the road, and make a cake. Are you kidding me?

SACK: All right. It`s a lot like "Dora the Explorer," because they`re always shouting at you in Spanish and stuff like that. They`re not as loud. All right, moving on. Oh, by the way, I give that three Ahmadinejads. Not too bad. Not shabby.

"Viva Laughlin," OK, this is a show on CBS. It`s about a family man trying to open a casino in Nevada...

BECK: When you say family man...

SACK: Yes, sir.

BECK: How do you mean?

SACK: Well, he`s got a kid, a wife, you know. There`s a lot of sex. There`s a lot of drama. And you`ve got people breaking into song.

BECK: So far this sounds like everything that Ahmadinejad was talking about.

SACK: Well, we see "Cop Rock" here. They kind of led into that. But we`ll see if it works this time, although they do have a hard task ahead of them. I am giving it one Ahmadinejad, I`m afraid.

BECK: It`s a musical on TV, where they just break into song?

SACK: They just break into song.

BECK: Family people starting a casino, it sounded so good.

SACK: "Chuck."

BECK: "Chuck."

SACK: This is about chuck. He`s a nerd, and he accidentally downloads all these CIA and NSA secrets into his head.

BECK: Any good? You know, I saw the last couple of minutes of this with my wife, because NBC was trying to trick us and get the ratings, and I watch "Heroes." Is it good?

SACK: It`s like "The Bourne Identity" meets Best Buy. You know, the geek squad. It`s OK. I give it two Ahmadinejads.

BECK: Hold on. Do you like what`s it called, do you like "Heroes"?

SACK: I`ve never seen it.

BECK: He uses the word "melange." Do you like "House"?

SACK: You know, I like the actor in it, because he`s English, but he makes it -- he sounds like American. Yes.

BECK: OK.

SACK: "Bionic Woman," or as Isaiah Thomas might say, the "Bionic Mm- Hmm," woman, you know, it`s based on a `70s premise. She gets all banged up. They replace her parts and stuff. But I think that this premise has been done to death. The artificial woman thing was done very well by Pamela Anderson. Thank you. I give it two Ahmadinejads.

BECK: Really?

SACK: Yes. It`s all right. "Kid Nation," you touched on "Kid Nation" before. I know you talked about this show. It`s 40 kids...

BECK: Careful how you use that.

SACK: ... 40 kids -- hey, hey, hey -- 40 kids on the show, and then they`re breaking all the child labor laws you can find.

BECK: Yes.

SACK: You know, you`re kind of against it, I guess. You were kind of negative about it.

BECK: Yes, I really don`t care.

SACK: You know, I personally as a father of two would love to put my kids to work early because then I`d have more time for my own personal projects.

BECK: Yes.

SACK: OK. And then moving on, "Cavemen," finally.

BECK: Yeah, this is the one based on a commercial.

SACK: Yes. It`s based on the Geico commercials. And full disclosure, my friend did have a part in writing this, a friend of mine. And so -- but that did not affect my opinion whatsoever.

BECK: What are you saying?

SACK: Twenty-five Ahmadinejads. The most brilliant comedy ever.

BECK: Twenty-five, wow.

SACK: Yes, sir.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: That`s incredible. It`s kind of like when you read a book, like "Lord of the Rings," and then you read it, and then you go see the movie, and you`re like, "But they left so much out." You watch "Cavemen," based on the commercial, and you`re like, "But they put so much in."

SACK: You`re right. You thought, how could they make a show out of a one-joke premise?

BECK: Yeah. Somehow or another...

SACK: Twenty-five.

BECK: Mm-hmm, OK.

SACK: Ahmadinejads.

BECK: All right, Brian. Thanks a lot.

SACK: Don`t...

BECK: Yes. Darn. Darn our luck, we cut him off.

With President Tom in town, lots of demonstrations here in New York this week. When we come back, we have helpful hints to make sure your protest really stands out. Don`t miss the "News That You Can Use."

(BREAK)

BECK: Well, as I`m sure you`re all too aware, most of the world`s leaders have been gathering right here in New York City all week at the U.N. Also gathering with them, some of the world`s leading protesters. This has been a week just to make dreams come true for protesters hoping to get their message out to the billions of people watching at home on TV. Sadly, though, the state of protest in America today, not well. But don`t fear: I am here to help.

I have some tips for protesters who are really serious about getting some face time on TV. My first tip, really, is look like you`re enjoying being there. You know, even if you`re hot or bored or worried that your parole officer`s going to recognize you on TV, at least try to look a little enthusiastic.

I mean, look at this guy. Show this one guy. Look at him. I think he`s mentally balancing his checkbook right now. Maybe he could take a few pointers from this protester here. I`m not sure he`s even supporting a cause. He`s just there for the awesome free music.

And props, of course, are very important. Of course, a memorable sign is very important. But I suggest something even better, a foam hand. Where`s the foam hand? There it is right there. Yeah, been a staple at sporting events for decades. You know, "We`re number one." Apparently, this guy is number three.

Also, make sure you really stand behind what your sign says. For instance, in your sign advocates, you know, arrest of the president, odds are you`re probably going to be the one ending up under arrest. I`m just saying. And you`ve got to have a catchy slogan or chant, like the lady I`m about to show you here, who my radio producer, Stu, caught up with yesterday at the U.N. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can`t fool us. You can`t hide. Yes, you`re ugly.

(CROSSTALK)

STU BURGUIERE, "GLENN BECK" CORRESPONDENT: You think Bush is ugly?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, my god. Yes.

BURGUIERE: That`s a good point.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s evil.

BURGUIERE: But the attractiveness, he`s not a good-looking guy?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

BURGUIERE: No?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Yes, so there they are. You missed the best part of that video. You`ll have to go to the Web site at glennbeck.com. You`ve got to watch the rest of that video. It`s fantastic.

Don`t forget, if you want to see what`s on tomorrow`s show, tomorrow I`m in North Carolina for the radio show, then back here in New York tomorrow night. And then Michael Buble on Friday. You want any of this information or more in-depth commentary, the news of the day, sign up for my free daily e-mail newsletter at glennbeck.com. And really click on the rest of that video at glennbeck.com. From New York, good night, America.

END