Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Supreme Court Takes Up Washington, D.C.`S Gun Control Law

Aired October 05, 2007 - 19:00   ET

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

GLENN BECK, CNN ANCHOR, GLENN BECK (voice over): Tonight, the battle over gun control. A law banning ownership of guns in our nation`s capital now being challenged in the court. Could the Second Amendment be in jeopardy?
Plus, my conversation with Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff; all the latest on what we`re doing to control our borders and crack down on illegals in the workforce.

And a judge forces O.J. to give up his beloved Rolex. Could this latest setback disrupt The Juice from his search for the real killer? All this and more, tonight.

BECK (on camera): Hello, America.

You`re right to responsible gun ownership is guaranteed to you by the U.S. Constitution. It is surprising to me that some legal eagles down in Washington seem to have forgotten all of that. After all, the piece of paper with the Second Amendment scribbled on it is I believe in the National Archives, and they should check it out from time to time.

The District of Columbia appealed to the Supreme Court this week, asking them to uphold its decade-long ban of private ownership of handguns. The results could be dramatic. It would be the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the Second Amendment in almost 70 years.

So here`s the point tonight. Every sane American who wants to own a gun should be able to. And neither the mayor of D.C. or the U.S. Supreme Court should say otherwise. And here`s how I got there.

Full disclosure here: I`m a conservative. I`m a gun owner. And for the first time in my life, I`ve joined an organization besides my church. It`s the NRA. I passionately support the Second Amendment. Because as the old saying goes, if we outlaw guns, the only people that will have guns will be the outlaws, or the government.

But let`s look at the bigger picture here. If the U.S. Supreme Court rules on gun rights against gun owners in Washington, it would set a precedent that would have a national impact. We, the people, can`t afford it to be a negative impact. The initial challenge to the D.C. gun ban wasn`t brought by the NRA or any other major organization. In fact, neither side of this argument have any idea how the courts are going to rule and what the true implications would be. So they`ve kind of backed away from it.

Instead, it was six private individuals who stood together to say their rights were being violated. That is truly American. I`ve said it time and time again. When things get going to hell in a hand basket, it`s going to be left up to us, we the people, to protect ourselves and our rights.

So, tonight here`s what you need to know. In the hands of bad people who want to do bad things, a knife or a baseball bat or a Frisbee, for the love of Pete, could be just as dangerous as any handgun. The key here is it`s bad people. Even though I support handgun ownership, I`m not suggesting that we hand them out to everybody like candy. Why, then, is Washington trying to take them away from everyone?

Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they guaranteed us the right to keep and bear arms. And believe me, it wasn`t for hunting or sports shooting. It was for personal protection for your property, for your property, for your life, and against the government as well. The world was a scary place back then. And I believe it`s just as scary, if not more so today. The less we trust our government, the more we have to rely on the Second Amendment to allow us to protect ourselves against them, and the bad guys.

Paul Helmke is the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Chris Cox is the chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

Paul, let me start with you. Why no guns in Washington, D.C.?

PAUL HELMKE, BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: Well, this is a decision that the duly elected representatives in D.C. made back about 30 years ago. And they felt that since D.C. is all urban, there`s no rural areas there, they had a serious problem with handguns. They didn`t ban rifles, they didn`t ban shotguns for defense in the homes. But they banned handguns. They felt it would make the community safer.

That`s the decision they made. I didn`t live here then. I lived back in Fort Wayne, Indiana. And I noticed when they had an election, though, last year nobody argued that point. That seemed to be what the elected representatives, of the people, felt was going to make them safer here in D.C.

BECK: OK. Here`s the thing. And Chris, I`d like your comment on this one. The mayor said, and I quote, "Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die. The District of Columbia has too many handguns. Putting more handguns, even, quote/unquote, `legal ones`, into the hands of quote/unquote `law- abiding` citizens could get in the hands of people who are going to use them in commission of crimes."

It sounds to me like they have a criminal problem, not a handgun problem.

CHRIS COX, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOC.: Well, they do, Glenn. And if Paul`s world was perfect, all the gun laws would look like Washington, D.C. Clearly, Washington, D.C. is a failure when it comes to crime. Their gun control policies have not worked.

And this Supreme Court case is very basic. It`s very simple. It says do honest people have a right to keep a loaded firearm in their home for self-defense? The National Rifle Association believes that honest people do. And Paul, and his group, have filed briefs saying that there is no individual right to own a firearm. Again, this is very basic. It`s whether or not good people have a right to defend themselves, got forbid a criminal kicks in your door in the middle of the night. Paul`s not going to be there. The politician`s not going to be there.

And even the best law enforcement officers aren`t going to be there in time. It`s up to you to defend yourself and your family. And that`s a basic freedom that this country was founded on.

BECK: Paul, the crime stats in Washington, D.C., they were having a problem with handguns 30 years ago. Has crime gotten better or worse since this was put in 30 years ago?

HELMKE: Actually, the statistics show that after they passed this in the mid `70s crime did go down, suicides went down significantly. Crime started to go back up after there was the crack cocaine epidemic in the late `80s, early `90s. The real question, here though --

(CROSS TALK)

BECK: Let me ask you this. I don`t mean to interrupt you, but I just want to make sure we get the point out. Tell me about the crime stats in New Orleans after they went door to door taking away everyone`s guns in New Orleans. Isn`t it true that now that the citizens of New Orleans are completely disarmed it has crime rates equivalent to a third world country?

HELMKE: Well, they`re not completely disarmed in New Orleans. Cities --

BECK: Did they not -- did they not take the guns away from law- abiding citizens? If you have a gun in New Orleans, are you not breaking the law right now?

HELMKE: The -- no. In fact, they had an issue in New Orleans, which is a separate issue, just in terms of what do you do after the police have moved out, but after the people have moved out, too. And what the police were doing may have stepped over the line but a lot of times what they were doing is they were trying to secure so guns couldn`t be stolen by the marauders.

The main point, though, that I want to make is that different cities have different challenges and deal with them in different ways. The real challenge for Chris and I, and I think for all of us, is to say once this case gets decided by the Supreme Court where do we start drawing the line? What makes sense? And after this case is decided, is Chris, and Wayne LaPierre, are they willing to sit down with us to figure out what are we going to do? The Second Amendment is the only amendment that has the word "regulated" in it, and we need to figure out what that means. What does it mean when we --

BECK: We`ve already had that. We don`t put NASCARs onto highways and we don`t put machine guns into the hands of people, either.

HELMKE: That`s an interesting issue because there was a machine gun in effect ban that was passed by the federal government in 1934. What`s the NRA`s impression of that?

BECK: Chris, Chris.

HELMKE: How about the Brady Bill?

BECK: Chris, are you for fully automatic machine guns?

COX: We`ve never advocated fully automatic machine guns and Paul knows it. But, again, Glenn, this is very basic. It`s --

HELMKE: How about Brady background checks?

COX: Paul, let me finish.

You guys supported waiting periods. You didn`t support instant checks. So let me finish. The basic question is do you support an individual, a good honest person, and their right to own a firearm for self-defense? Sarah Brady has said there`s no reason to own a gun, you can`t own a gun for self-defense. Paul, and his group have filed --

(CROSS TALK)

COX: Paul, your group filed in this Supreme Court case briefs saying that the Second Amendment was not an individual right. That honest Americans did not have the right to own a firearm.

(CROSS TALK)

COX: You`re wrong, Paul. And you`re wrong to go on national TV and suggest that you somehow support the Second Amendment, when your actions speak louder than your words.

HELMKE: The lawyers and the historians can have all their arguments. That`s good for lawyers, and I guess that`s good for academic research. The real question that people that live in our communities want to know is in the future are we going to make it easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons? Should we have a Brady background check?

(CROSS TALK)

BECK: Guys, I think everybody says we don`t want criminals to have guns. But I just want to leave it with this. In the First Amendment, freedom of speech, it says "or the right of the people to a peaceably assemble." Who are we talking about? Are we talking about the government, the state, or the actual people to gather in their neighborhoods and assemble? We`re talking clearly about the people. In the Ninth we`re talking about certain rights retained by the people. It says later about the states` rights. We`re talking about the people. actual individuals. In the Tenth, the powers not delegated to the Congress -- to the United States by the Constitution are retained by the people.

When they talk about the people -- when they talk about the people, Paul, they always mean individuals, except when it comes to -- guns?

Well, the point I try to make is that while you have a strong First Amendment right you`ve got laws against libel, laws against obscenity. You can`t yell "fire" in a crowded theater. All of our rights you have to balance something.

BECK: That`s exactly right. That`s why we don`t have automatic guns.

COX: The point -- Glenn, the point is they`ve argued that there is no right, there`s no individual right to own a firearm. That goes contrary to not only our Founding Fathers but there`s no clearer indictment on the failure of gun control than Paul`s utopia in Washington, D.C. It hasn`t worked from a crime policy. It`s unconstitutional.

BECK: Got to go. Paul, Chris, thank you very much. I know you rarely appear together. Got to see why. I appreciate it.

HELMKE: Thank you.

BECK: So where am I wrong? Every sane American who wants to own a gun -- key word, "sane" -- should be able to. Nobody should be able to take that way. Agree or disagree? CNN.com/Glenn right now and cast your vote.

Coming up, we`ll speak to the secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff about how he plans to crack down on illegals, both on the border and in the workplace.

Plus, oil at $100 a barrel. Sometimes the sunshine and lollipops analysis are saying that our economy could survive such a blow if -- yeah, the trouble`s always with the if, isn`t it? That`s tonight`s "Real Story."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: First, as I mentioned at the start of the show, illegal immigrants are getting more and more daring, and why shouldn`t they? According to Mexican President Felipe Cauldron, there`s nothing we can do about it. El presidente told a meeting of Mexican and U.S. governors that immigration is, and I quote, "Inevitable. A natural phenomenon that is socially and economically inevitable."

Bull crap. Mexico can`t take care of its own. Rampant corruption makes it impossible for their economy to generate new jobs. So they encourage their people to leave and come here. It`s just that simple. Of course, if we had, you know, some fences along our borders, it might make it a little harder for the half a million to sneak across every year.

We can talk about fences. We can talk about immigration policy all day long. But one thing that we really need to do, a big component of illegal immigration that needs addressing right now is demand. We also need to crack down on the employers who hire these illegals and make sure that the supply starts to dry up.

There are so many special interests in this issue, big business, organized labor. I begin to wonder, what about my special interest? My family, my country. Just like you and the ones, you know, that you love and you want to protect. What about them? I want my family safe and secure for an America that can survive tomorrow. Not only are you and i not profiting from illegal immigration, we`re losing vital social services and risking national Social Security along the way.

One man who knows better than anybody else and is trying to do something about it is U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

Mr. Secretary, first of all, let me say this. Last time you were on the program with me -- we -- I vented on you, and I want to be man enough to apologize to you, publicly for venting on you. My frustration, and I think all of America feels it on this whole border thing, it drives me crazy.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SEC., U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY: Uh --

BECK: Go ahead.

CHERTOFF: I accept your apology, first of all. I understand the frustration. I get frustrated, too. As you pointed out, we are often at the focal point where a lot of different special interests come together. And that`s one of the reasons we`ve had difficulty over the last 30 years getting this problem solved.

BECK: I will tell you, I thought about you a lot today on this, and thought you`re in a no win situation. Because here you are, I`m quite honestly, and you know this, I am mad as hell at Washington for not taking care of this a long time ago. And it all comes down onto your shoulders. And so I`m mad at you about it -- when probably you`re not the guy to be mad at.

But then on top of it, now all the special interest groups are mad at you because you`re trying to crack down on the other side of it, on the demand side. How are you expected to win in this?

CHERTOFF: Well, you know, I think that a lot of what I`m hoping to do is to demonstrate to the American public, first of all, that we are serious about doing what is within our power to control the border. But also to observe the fact that when we have obstacles thrown up in our way; you have the state of Illinois, for example, which is basically making it illegal for employers to cooperate with us on respecting the law -- that is one of the reasons we`ve had a lot of difficulty over the last 30 years.

BECK: OK, I`ve got two issues here that I want to address with you. First of all, last time you were on we had a disagreement on the number of miles of fence that you had built. What are you up to now?

CHERTOFF: We have a total of 151 miles of pedestrian fence. That --

BECK: Does that include -- that you`ve built, after the Secure Fence Act?

CHERTOFF: No, of which 75, 74, 75 have been built since the Secure Fence Act.

BECK: Okay. And --

CHERTOFF: And we have about 115 miles of what I call vehicle fence.

BECK: And is it -- the 70 miles, is it the double fence as required by law?

CHERTOFF: Some is double fence, some is not double fence.

BECK: Do you know how much?

CHERTOFF: It`s hard to say because I haven`t -- we haven`t calculated the amount that`s double. It just depends on what the terrain is and what the Border patrol requires.

And you have to -- you have to have, I think it`s 350 or something like that miles completed next year according to this law. Are you going to meet that?

CHERTOFF: We`re going to have 370 miles of pedestrian fence and 200 to 300 miles of vehicle fence by the end of next year, provided, Glenn, that Congress gives us the money. You know, every year Congress has to appropriate the money for this. Otherwise, you can pass all the laws you want, and we can`t pay to do the work. So if we get the money, we`ll have a total of about 650 to 670 miles of fencing.

BECK: OK, right now the unions have you in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because you want to send out no match letters from the Social Security Administration, which basically says this name and this number don`t natural. What is the union thinking?

CHERTOFF: Well, I can`t speculate about what the union`s thinking, but I`ll tell you this. The no match thing is very simple. If you`re a businessman and you get a notice from Social Security telling you that a large number of your workers don`t have numbers, Social Security numbers, that match the names, it tells you you`ve got to look into the problem. You can`t just put your head in the sand.

And what we`ve done is we`ve put a regulation out that makes it very clear that if you do fix the problem and pay attention to it, we`re not going to prosecute you or punish you in any way, but if you stick your head in the sand then you may be held liable if it turns out they`re illegal.

BECK: How is it this isn`t automatic? Why is anybody debating? I mean, you send me names and numbers that don`t match up, and I`m just supposed to put this money into a number that doesn`t match up. How does this -- how did it ever stop that you were getting those letters?

CHERTOFF: You know, Glenn, that`s a great question. And a couple years ago when I arrived on the job, I asked the question. Because assumed like everybody else if I got a letter like that I`d clear up what the mistake was. And if it was an innocent mistake, great, if it was an illegal worker he obviously has to fire the person.

But it`s turned out that not only did we have to pass a regulation to make clear this was your obligation, but it then ignited a firestorm of response from the business community and organized labor. And, frankly, the business community was pretty up front that they were concerned this would result in requiring employers to fire illegal workers and that was going to be bad for the economy.

BECK: Well, that`s tough. Tough luck.

Secretary, let me just ask you this last question here. You, in 2005, when you were trying to finish the San Diego fence, there was all kind of environmental issues, you have the authority, under the Real ID Act, just to say, you know what, to hell with you all, I`m just doing it, I have the authority to do it.

CHERTOFF: That`s right.

BECK: Why don`t you have the authority on this? Why can`t you just say you know what, we`re talking Homeland Security, I`m sending these notes out to you?

CHERTOFF: I actually think I have the authority. Evidently, the plaintiffs in the case do not think I have the authority. That`s why it`s in front of a judge.

BECK: When are you going to send them out? When are you going to test that?

CHERTOFF: Right now we`re under a court order that forbids us from sending them out. There`s a hearing in front of a district judge going on today. If we prevail we`re going to send the letters out, if we don`t prevail, we`re going appeal it. It seems to me common sense we should be allowed to do this. And I`m going to fight hard in court to preserve my authority to do it.

BECK: Secretary Chertoff, thanks for being on the program.

Coming up, what do you do with a man who allegedly held on to a sex tape of a three-year-old girl being raped? You throw him in jail for life. That`s what you do. Darren Tuck finally turned himself in to Vegas authorities, and we have the latest.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, time for an update. Last week I told you about a guy who claims to have found a tape in the Nevada desert showing a three-year-old girl being sexually abused. One of my guests on the program last week said something doesn`t seem right here, about this guy. And they were right.

Prosecutors believe now 26-year-old Darren Tuck may be held because he was holding on to this tape for as much as five months. Today they were set to formally charge him with possession of child pornography and possibly promoting child pornography. He faces life in prison. That`s the good news.

The bad news is the alleged abuser is still at large. This is the guy on tape that was doing the deed. He`s been identified as 34-year-old Chester "Chet" Arthur Stiles. I can`t believe the guy was -- I mean, his real name is Chester the Molester. Those who know him say he`ll never be taken alive. As far as I`m concerned, lock and load. Bringing him in alive? OK. I mean, if you have to.

Here`s a further update with Ed Miller now. He`s a correspondent for "America`s Most Wanted." Ed, first of all, the girl that is in the tape, we now know who she is because she was three at the time, but she`s seven now.

ED MILLER, "AMERICA`S MOST WANTED": Absolutely, right. And it was an amazing piece of investigative work. And the fact that America was so touched by this story, seeing the agony and the torture in this little girl`s eyes, that many, many people stepped up to the plate to try to help.

Just to give you a quick idea, the nightgown the little girl was wearing, the manufacturer of that nightgown went to police. And she said I know exactly where I made that nightgown, in South Carolina. I know the year I made it. We can pinpoint the timeline just by that. The television set in the background that had on the tape, the manufacturer of that stepped up and said that television was made in 2004.

In other words, people were so touched by this that they helped police, they rushed to it. This little child really meant a lot to people who have never met her.

BECK: Really quick because I want to get to the bad guys here. But really quick, she -- the parents didn`t know.

MILLER: Well, the mother says she did not know, and by her reaction police say they believe her, that they simply -- that she didn`t know this was going on.

BECK: Holy cow.

MILLER: Of course, that raises lots of questions. How did this guy get access to the child in the first place?

BECK: OK, now, the guy who found the tape, why would you turn it in?

MILLER: Of course, that`s what he`s saying. Darrin Tuck says that he`s being made a scapegoat because he says that he did the right thing, he went to the police and turned it in. Of course, he`s not answering the question, and we did an extensive interview with him, about why he held on to it for so long.

The speculation by police is that he felt for some reason that police were going to -- were closing in on him, and so he went to them thinking that, you know, before they went to him. So --

BECK: So they think that he was part of it with -- I mean, Chester the Molester. I can`t believe that name.

MILLER: Well, they think that maybe perhaps there was an indirect tie, not a direct tie, but an indirect tie, that he knows something more about Chester the Molester, as you call him, than what he`s willing to say.

BECK: And this Chester guy, he`s a survivalist. And that`s why the friends say he`ll never be taken alive, he`ll be suicide by cop?

MILLER: Right. Right. That`s what they`re saying about him. But you know, he`s got ties to Texas, ties to Southern California. He could be living in the desert. He could be anywhere. But that`s what they`re saying about him. supposed tough guy.

BECK: Is there a sign-up sheet anywhere for cops? Because I`m -- I mean, I`m just guessing that cops will be like, oh, suicide by cop, where do I sign up?

MILLER: Yeah, well, we don`t want to talk about that, do we?

BECK: I don`t mind. But Ed, thank you very much.

MILLER: Thank you.

You`re going to have a special on I believe this Friday with all of the interviews involved with this. An amazing story.

Coming up, oil prices rising, no end in sight, but can America find a way to survive the oil surge? That`s coming up in tonight`s "Real Story". Coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Panda bears, Twitter, steroid testing, that girl from the "Pirates of the Caribbean," what`s her name, Keira Knightley, and cupcakes, what do they all have in common? They`re overrated. I can`t believe I just said that cupcakes are overrated. Look at me. Do you think I believe that? I`ll tell you why, next.

But first, welcome to the "Real Story." The "Wall Street Journal" had an interesting article over the weekend concluding that our economy could withstand $100-a-barrel oil. I know what you`re thinking. Wait a minute. "Honey, what channel is the TV on? This Glenn Beck is giving me some good news." Yes, yes, that`s what it feels like, but boop, boop, boop, oh, sorry, not the case.

The "Real Story" is, the article said we could handle $100 oil quite well if certain conditions are met. Yes, too good to be true. Sorry. Mr. Reality is going to take over here for a second because the conditions are ridiculous. For example, we can survive $100 oil if the price rises slowly. It can`t just jump from $80 to $100, which is totally reasonable, as long as you forget about the oil shocks of `73 and `75 or, you know, `79 and `80 and `82, and I think there was one in `90 and `91. But that`ll never happen again.

Condition number two is that interest rates have to stay low. Sure. The current 4.75 percent federal fund rate looks like a typo compared to the 18 percent, 19 percent, and 20 percent rates of the early 1980s. But, you know, Reagan was in charge, and we all know he was loopy. You know, they`ll never go that high again.

And, finally, they say that oil-rich countries -- and this is my favorite -- which I think oil-rich countries is code words for dirt-bag countries, like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, they all need to keep pumping their massive profits back into our economy. And that`s an easy one. I mean, if you can`t count on Middle Eastern dictators and psychotic socialists to keep our economy strong, well, who can you count on, you know?

I hate to ask the question that nobody else wants to, but what exactly happens if, instead of meeting all three conditions -- which I`m sure we will -- we meet let`s say none of them or one of them? Peter Schiff is president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of "Crash Proof."

Peter, you`re a little more pessimistic than I am, but when it comes to oil, I don`t see these things happening. First of all, let`s take them one by one. Gradual oil price increase? I mean, we`re talking now about the possibility of war with Iran.

PETER SCHIFF, PRESIDENT, EUROPAC: I don`t see what difference it makes. I mean, is it gradual? We`ve moved up from $20 a barrel to $80 a barrel in the last five years. I mean, is that gradual? I mean, based on that approach, we`ll be at $100 a barrel next year.

BECK: Right. But I think what they`re talking about -- and, you know, I talk about this on my radio program -- that it`s that shock to the system that the economy can`t take right now. There`s no more give in this economy.

SCHIFF: The real problem -- and, again, it goes to the premise of this whole article, which was completely ridiculous, that high oil prices don`t hurt us as long as we can borrow the money to pay for it, because borrowing isn`t free. We`ve got to pay this money back with interest. So just because we`ve found a way to postpone the pain doesn`t mean we`re not going to eventually feel it.

BECK: OK. So the second thing is modest inflation without major interest rate hikes. What are the odds of that happening?

SCHIFF: Well, first of all, we don`t have modest inflation. We have high inflation. That`s one of the reasons that oil prices are rising in the first place, because the federal reserve is creating too many dollars, they`re keeping interest rates too low, so prices are rising for everything, including oil.

BECK: Yeah. And then the oil-rich nations like Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia keep investing in our economy?

SCHIFF: Well, that goes back to what I said about the people earning all this money loaning us back their profits. Again, we still have to pay back all the money that we`ve borrowed for $50 oil, for $60 oil, but if you look at what`s happening to the U.S. dollar, I think that Saudi Arabia and the rest of that gang is going to realize that they`re better off keeping their oil profits in euros, in yen, in gold, in anything but U.S. dollars, and that`s when the bill is really going to come and hit us hard.

BECK: See, Peter, I think this is where you become more optimistic than me. I don`t think it`s just that they`re going to look at it as an investment. I mean, you know, you had President Tom meeting with Chavez and Russia and everybody else. These people are looking at us as the enemy. They know that they`ve got us by the throat. What stops them from saying, "Just put the pressure on here, squeeze"?

SCHIFF: Nothing. And I think what people are starting to appreciate now more and more -- when I used to talk about this, you know, a year or two ago, people really laughed at it, but now more people are starting to accept this, is that the global economy can do very well without American consumers borrowing and spending money. There`s plenty of new domestic demand being created in places like China and in Eastern Europe, in India, that Saudi Arabia will have plenty of people to sell their oil to if Americans are too poor to afford it.

BECK: OK. Thank you very much, Peter. I appreciate your time.

Now, how many times over the last few years have you heard Democrats like Hillary Clinton complain about government spending and the deficit?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: It breaks my heart that, in 2 1/2 years, we`ve gone back into huge deficits and debt and jobs are down and people are falling back into poverty. I just find that heartbreaking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Me, too. You know, the other thing I find heartbreaking is that Hillary never comes on this show. I mean, you know, let`s pretend, let`s pretend Hillary is here so I can ask her a couple of questions that have really been bothering me.

First, Ms. Clinton, if you hate deficits so much, then why are you so hell-bent on creating another massive entitlement program for health care that, by your own estimate, would cost more to run each year than the Departments of Homeland Security, the Department of Treasury, Labor, Energy, Transportation, and Justice combined? Yes, sorry to interrupt. But why, if you hate spending so much, did you propose this just last Friday?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time so, when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school, they will be able to access it to go to college, or maybe they will be able to put that down payment on their first home.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: That is fantastic. I think we should give every 43-year-old, you know, quasi-news person on TV a new house. I love it. And considering this brainchild would cost more than it costs to run NASA every year -- and by the way, NASA currently trying to send people to Mars -- how would Hillary pay for it? How would you -- I think that`s a picture. I don`t think she`s actually really here.

The truth is: Hillary Clinton does not hate spending or deficits. The real story is: She loves them! Just as long as they`re part of a New Deal. It`s crippling government entitlement programs that Hillary really loves. I know Hillary doesn`t like to herself a liberal or even a Democrat. She`s a New Democrat -- no, no, no, the latest is she is a modern progressive.

Let me try to cut through the bull crap here and tell you what she really is: a socialist! These programs amount to nothing more than a systematic distribution of wealth. You take money and you redistribute it from one group to another. What else do you call that, if not socialism?

Even if her tax proposals are straight out of Marxist 101, she`ll deny it. You tax the rich, give it to the poor. Only one problem with that -- I don`t know if you`ve noticed -- it doesn`t work. The Bush tax cuts that she hates so much has resulted in the highest tax revenues in the history of the United States of America. Yes. See, the spending is the problem here. The spending is out of control. But she wants to spend even more money while decreasing the revenues. That`s definitely not the answer.

Now, granted, I`m not an economist; I`m just a thinker. So I decided to bring an economist on. Stephen Moore, senior economic writer for the "Wall Street Journal," Stephen, holy cow, I can`t believe the socialism that we`re getting jammed down our throat. What kind of tax rate are we looking at coming our way?

STEPHEN MOORE, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, I kind of like this idea of the government giving out free $5,000 checks. I just wish, Glenn, I could get one of them.

BECK: I do, too.

MOORE: But here`s the problem. Here`s the problem. You know, we used to joke about liberals, that they want a cradle-to-grave dependency on government. Well, now we`ve got the cradle dependency, and they`re talking about $5,000 for every child. That would cost, by my estimates, about $20 billion a year. And Lord knows, Glenn, where that money is going to come from. I will tell you this, that it doesn`t -- money is not free in Washington. I know that`s the politicians` view. It`s going to come from your pocket and my pocket, so it`s just going to be a restriction of income.

BECK: Stephen, here is the interesting thing. Correct me if I`m wrong, because you`re a student of economic history, I`m not. I don`t remember "Leave It to Beaver" and having Ward Cleaver coming and going, "Hmm, we`ve got two boys going to college, it`s crippling, have you seen the price of college"? Wasn`t it government assistance that started these tuitions going right through the roof?

MOORE: Well, it really was. And what you get right now is government provides so much assistance to universities, if you provide more assistance, the universities just raise the tuition. That`s why tuitions are going through the roof.

You know, Hillary wrote a book a number of years ago. What was the title of it? "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child." And that`s just a philosophical divide between liberals and conservatives. Liberals really do believe that every responsibility that used to rest with parents is now the responsibility of government, whether it`s child care, health care, college tuition, now pensions, whatever it is, it`s the government`s responsibility, not parents.

BECK: Stephen, how do you get people to understand companies can`t afford this? I mean, she wants to take -- I`m quoting her -- the profits from these oil companies and seize them. How do they expect capitalism to work? How do companies survive currently the highest corporate tax rate in the world?

MOORE: Well, the irony here, Glenn, is that the very people like Hillary Clinton who are talking about these greedy oil companies and the high oil prices are the ones that want to tax them, that`s not going to make us less dependent on foreign oil. It`s going to make us more dependent on foreign oil. Therefore, our debts are going to go up. The best way to help our kids, Hillary, is to reduce the government deficit so we`re not passing these big debts on to our kids.

BECK: It really is immoral what we`re doing to our kids. Thank you very much, Stephen. And that is "The Real Story" tonight.

Coming up, the most overrated things in the world. I`m not sure if Keith Olbermann is on the list, but we`ll check.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I figured the other day that I`m worth more dead than I am alive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`ve been saying that for years.

BECK: Do you think my wife has figured that out?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, she married you, so I`d say yes. I would say that she figured that one out a long time ago.

BECK: I meant financially.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: There`s a lot of hype in this business. Life insurance, overrated. I mean, you`re alive. Who really cares when you`re alive? We work ourselves up to a frenzy over the person of the moment, forgetting that like two days ago they were a recovering alcoholic top 40 DJ. Wait a minute, that sounds like me.

"Radar" magazine has put together a list, the Hype Report, a list of the 100 most overrated people, places, and things. Fortunately, I`m not on the list, but that`s probably because you have to be rated before you can be overrated. So number one is -- well, I`ll let him tell you here in a second. But number two is cupcakes. How are cupcakes overrated?

Tyler Gray is here, "Radar`s" senior editor. Tyler, cupcakes overrated? What, are you mad, man?

TYLER GRAY, SR. EDITOR, "RADAR" MAGAZINE: Well, I`ve heard them called the number-one threat to health in this country. You know, it`s a cheap little piece of cake that you`re supposed to eat with tiny little kid fingers. And people are lining up around the block to order them from Magnolia Bakery here in Manhattan.

BECK: All right. Number one most over-hyped?

GRAY: Posh and Becks.

BECK: Couldn`t agree with you more. I don`t even get it.

GRAY: You know, these are hard-wired robots made for beautiful celebrity. And really, beyond that, there`s no soul. It`s all plastic and metal. And you think you`re going to open them up and there`s going to be some blinking lights and wires inside. I mean, they`re really good at looking good. But other than that...

BECK: You said number six is Oprah`s heart.

GRAY: Right. Well, you know, here`s a woman who surveyed the trouble in South Africa and decided the best thing for kids there would be L.L. Bean tote bags. So you know...

BECK: I don`t -- I mean, she is giving them an education.

GRAY: It`s true. It`s true.

BECK: Number seven is sex with virgins?

GRAY: Right. Anybody who`s ever, perhaps, let`s say gone there might attest to the difficulty and awkwardness in such a thing. And maybe that`s why 72 of them are promised to someone who martyrs themselves in the cause of religious extremism.

BECK: To me that sounds like hell. You have the cult of Stephen Colbert.

GRAY: Right. You know, Stephen`s a great example, you know, hilarious when he first came out, nuanced, funny, but then, you know, as time goes on, everyone just sort of gives him credit for being funny even when he whiffs.

BECK: I kind of feel bad for Jon Stewart, because Jon Stewart was -- he was like everywhere, and then Colbert came on, and you`re like, what happened to Jon Stewart?

GRAY: And he laughs about it, too, even when they`re together. But he`s the nuance. He`s the old way, the way of being not over-hyped and just a slow-burn kind of guy, and that`s what brought us to do this issue, was that, you know, there`s a lot of things out there that it`s the most amazing thing right now, and when everything`s amazing nothing is.

BECK: I see that Keith Olbermann had a special mention.

GRAY: It`s true. It`s true. It`s funny you should pick up on that.

BECK: It is funny, isn`t it? What a waste of skin that guy is. Oh, did I say that out loud? I`m sorry. So why is he overrated?

GRAY: Again, look, I mean, as a...

BECK: Look at you looking down. Look at you. You`re uncomfortable right now.

GRAY: Say what you will about the man`s skills as a broadcaster, but when he tries to inherit the, you know, the gifts of Edward R. Murrow, people start to wonder whether he lives up to that sort of label.

BECK: OK. So tell me the stuff that is underrated.

GRAY: Underrated. You know, oh, jeez, we could talk about...

BECK: I mean, I`ve got -- how about this one? I`ve got a list. I made a list. Are you ready? I`ll do your job for you. Here`s the most underrated. This is my list. It might be a little different than yours. The threat of Iran. Our founding fathers. Making ethanol from sugar. Possibility of terror attacks on our schools. Offensively colored shirts. Capitalism. God. The imminent collapse of our economy. And McGriddles.

GRAY: You know, you got me in stitches over here. I`m dying laughing at your...

BECK: Oh, that`s not comedy. I mean every single word of that.

GRAY: OK. Well, some of our unrated things -- you know, we talked about threats being overrated. I know it`s -- I don`t want to step on your toes here. But, for example, the threat of pedophiles. You know, it`s a huge, huge popular thing right now. You have to be scared of all the pedophiles. Now, it would be horrible if no one was scared of pedophiles, but the way it is now, you fear every guy on the street when, in fact, it`s probably your uncle.

BECK: Yes, we talked about that.

GRAY: Scary thing. Scary thing, but maybe not as scary as it`s made out to be.

BECK: OK. Underrated? You have nothing underrated.

GRAY: Nothing underrated...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: No, I mean, you have nothing that is underrated that should be up at the top. What`s a thing that should be there?

GRAY: Well, I think a thing that should be at the top right now...

BECK: Yes.

GRAY: There`s so many listed on the underrated category...

BECK: You`re lying. Look at you. You`re making this up. You have nothing that you have praise for.

GRAY: And here`s the problem. The reason we came up with this is that there`s so much that`s overrated right now. That`s what inspired us to do this...

BECK: You`re saying Rosie O`Donnell is underrated or overrated?

GRAY: No, it`s more that what`s overrated is coming out of the closet, and Rosie O`Donnell is sort of the poster woman for that. And it didn`t really work out for her so much.

BECK: No, thank God. I`m really surprised that you say the Dalai Lama.

GRAY: OK, the guy -- how much was he charging for tickets at Radio City? And it`s like -- what is it, how much wisdom can you pack into...

BECK: Right. You know, the line I heard from you someplace just the other day was, I mean, free Tibet? It`s still, you know, bumper stickers are still valid.

GRAY: It`s a lot pricier than free Tibet these days.

BECK: OK, great, Tyler, thanks a lot.

Coming up, O.J. Simpson. He has been ordered to surrender his Rolex to the Goldman family. My question is, is this going to hurt his chances for finding the real killer? I mean, you know, how`s he going to coordinate with the stars if he doesn`t have a watch? Find out after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: More bad news today for O.J. Simpson. Yesterday, a judge ruled that the Juice must relinquish his beloved Rolex watch to the Goldmans as part of the civil settlement. I don`t know about you; I feel bad for O.J. But I don`t think that something like this is going to get in the way of his true mission in life, and that is finding the real killer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After being acquitted in the brutal murder of his wife, Nicole, O.J. Simpson made a vow that he would stop at nothing in his quest to track down Nicole Simpson`s real killer. His search for the real killer began in this remote region of southern California. Unable to find the killer here or here or here, O.J. decided to widen the search, focusing specifically on the area surrounding Miami Beach.

To aid in the investigation, he engaged the services of one Christie Prody. Prody`s expertise in the field of cocktail waitressing would certainly prove helpful as the two scoured Miami Beach in search of the real killer, and the fact she looked exactly like Nicole Simpson didn`t hurt.

Of course, like in any major investigation, there was the occasional road bump, like when Prody was allegedly paid $50,000 by the "National Enquirer" to tell how O.J. confessed to her about actually killing Nicole, or when O.J. called the police on Prody, or when Prody was caught using Simpson`s handicapped parking decal and then arrested on a bench warrant for driving with an expired license, or when Prody accused Simpson of entering her home without permission, stealing pages from her address book and erasing her voice mails, or when Simpson was charged with road rage in 2000, or when Prody pleaded no contest to animal cruelty after her cat was found dead from abandonment inside her apartment, or when Prody was arrested for marijuana possession at Thompson Park in southwest Miami-Dade last year, or when Simpson allegedly accused his handyman of having an affair with Prody and then threatened to kill him, oh, and don`t forget about the time he got sued for illegally pirating his cable TV.

No, not even O.J.`s recent Las Vegas arrest and those 10 felony charges against him could get in the way of their search for the real killer. And now with O.J. having to give up his beloved Rolex watch, O.J. will still continue in his search for the real killer, even if he will no longer be able to tell what time it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Well, there it is. Don`t forget, if you want to know what`s on tomorrow`s show or if you`d like a little more in-depth commentary on the news of the day, or if you`d like to hear the audio that I had with Mike Huckabee today on the radio program, sign up for my free daily e-mail newsletter. Do it right now at glennbeck.com. From New York, good night, America.

END