Return to Transcripts main page
Bush Warns About Iran Threat; Airport Screeners Fail Tests at Alarming Rate; Rush Limbaugh Auctioning Off Reid Complaint Letter
Aired October 18, 2007 - 19:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, President Bush warns the world about a nuclear Iran.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you`re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
BECK: So why is it that America is so focused on this?
ELLEN DEGENERES, TALK SHOW HOST: I just want this family to have the dog.
BECK: And not this?
Plus, radio legend Rush Limbaugh. I`ll talk with Rush on how he turned the table on Senate Democrats after Majority Leader Harry Reid`s rush to judgment.
And should a middle school give 11-year-olds the pill, no questions asked? If you`re 11 years old and you live in Maine, this could be your lucky day.
All this and more, tonight.
BECK: Well, hello, America. Tonight I`m going to talk to you about the war. I`m going to talk to you about the border, our sovereignty, drug- resistant infection.
But let`s have our priorities in order, shall we? For the next 30 seconds, let me talk to you about an issue of grave national importance. It`s about a talk show host, her desperate plea for mercy and a little dog named Iggy.
Of course, I`m talking about the plight of Ellen DeGeneres and her puppy adoption controversy. Maybe you saw Ellen talking about it on her show. Or the hundreds of other programs that have latched onto this story about an ornamental dog shuttled between three homes.
If Ellen wants to talk about it on her show, it`s fine. My heart went out to her. But when the major news networks, like NBC, CBS and ABC, jump on this bandwagon, I got to call time-out.
So let`s try for a second, America, to tear ourselves away for just a second and look at a few other clips of another story centering around the number three.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: It makes me sound like a nut job, but I really believe we`re in the early stages of World War III.
This is why I`ve been saying we`re in World War III.
So if it does turn into World War III, we know whose side everyone`s on.
As things start to develop in what I like to call World War III.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: So here`s the point tonight. Don`t believe the hype. Just because most shows don`t cover the real stories that affect your life, really affect your life, doesn`t mean important stories aren`t happening. And here`s how I got there.
I got a little dog. I`ve got -- actually he`s a big dog and his name is Victor. I love him to pieces. He`s part of the family. And if he died or anything happened to him, I would be devastated. But if something did happen to him in today`s world, I`m not going to waste your time telling you about it. He`s a dog, and the world`s on fire. I think we should look at our priorities.
We tend to romanticize the present and the past and the future. But the truth needs to be told.
The world has always been a scary place, but here`s the thing. These days, it`s a really, really scary place. I mean, just look at Islamic extremism. It is a real threat to America and freedom-loving people around the world. Iran is racing towards a nuclear capability, and if they ever achieve it, how can I say this diplomatically? We`re screwed.
I hate to be a killjoy here, gang, but there`s not a lot of time to talk about Ellen`s little dog on network news. So tonight, here is what you need to know.
It`s not just me anymore saying these crazy things. When I had a chance to meet with President Bush a couple of months ago, I asked him why don`t you speak -- why don`t you speak out more in clearer terms about some of the issues in the Middle East?
He told me in as firm and steady and clear of a voice he could, "I`m the president of the United States. Every word I say is dissected and analyzed across the globe."
Well, you know what? He has to choose his words carefully. With that in mind, I want you to take a look at this clip from the president`s speech last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I told people that if you`re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: I doubt this man walked off the stage and said, "Oh, jeez, did I say it`s World War III?"
He just warned you about World War III, and you can be damn sure it wasn`t a slip of the tongue.
I`ve said it before, and I`ll say it again: I wish that I was wrong on this, but I am not. And finally, I`m in some good company. Somebody`s bringing you up to speed.
Peter Brooks is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, as well as an expert on national security, and Ken Silverstein is a writer for "Harper`s".
First of all, Ken, let me go to you. World War III, you think this was a slip of the tongue, or is he preparing us for what possibly is in store?
KEN SILVERSTEIN, WRITER, "HARPER`S MAGAZINE": Well, I doubt it was a slip of the tongue. I mean, I think the president`s rhetoric on Iran has been ratcheted up for the last few months. And so, you know, I see it as being in line with his recent rhetoric.
BECK: OK. So you just think it`s rhetoric?
SILVERSTEIN: I don`t think it means that necessarily, you know, a military attack on Iran is going to take place over the next week or two.
BECK: I`m not saying that. I`m saying he is trying to say to people, this is bad. If we have to go in or if they get a nuclear weapon, all -- everything changes as you know it.
SILVERSTEIN: I think you`re right. I think that he is sending a message to the American people and to the Iranian government, as well, with his rhetoric.
SILVERSTEIN: But when I say rhetoric, I don`t mean to say he doesn`t mean it. I think, though, that, you know, he`s sending messages.
BECK: OK. Perino was asked today at the White House about this. Do we have that clip from the press conference today?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was the president making an offhand remark there, or are people reading too much into what he was saying?
DANA PERINO, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What the president was doing was focusing the world on the consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Peter Brooks, consequences of Iran having a nuclear weapon. How do you see it? What are those consequences?
PETER BROOKS, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: It`s really bad news, Glenn. The fact is, is that it would limit our policy options. I mean, Iran has its finger in a lot of bad stews around the world. They`re in Iraq; they`re in Afghanistan. They`re supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
And if they have nuclear weapons, it makes it very much more difficult for the rest of the world to deal with them, because they have a very big deterrent.
BECK: There are -- there are two things -- and I like both of your comments on this. There are two things that drive me crazy, because people, they`ll always take what I say or what the president says and they`ll twist them all up. And they`ve got to listen carefully.
I think war with Iran is damn near suicidal. It is really bad news. But you can`t take that off the table if no one will push for really hard sanctions. Am I wrong? Nobody is -- nobody is taking them seriously enough, and so you got nothing left. Right or wrong, guys?
SILVERSTEIN: Well, I think that, you know, no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I mean, it`s a real problem. And obviously, the United States and European governments are trying to figure out the best way to prevent that. I agree with you, though, that the consequences of a war, military action in Iran could be very serious.
I mean, you know, remember the famous cake walk we were going to have in Iraq. I think it`s a similar situation.
BECK: I think it`s -- I think it`s much, much worse.
SILVERSTEIN: It`s similar in the sense that the United States could almost surely achieve its immediate military objectives.
SILVERSTEIN: But then what comes after that is entirely unknown. And very, very dangerous.
BECK: OK. So Peter, the other thing people take out of context is, when I say that I think Iran and Russia are allies, I don`t mean it like they`re plotting together and they trust each other and they`re in bed with each other. These guys hate each other.
But I think Russia looks at Iran like we used to look at Stalin in World War II.
BECK: It`s a necessary evil for them to accomplish the things they want to accomplish. That`s bad enough, isn`t it?
BROOKS: Or just like we used the China card against the Russians during the Cold War.
Russia is using the Iran card against us. They have -- they have some mutual interests and that`s the pushback on the United States. And but they do mistrust each other for a lot of reasons throughout history. But they`re going to use one another for -- as convenient allies, allies of necessity to advance their interests at our costs.
BECK: OK. So Ken, a lot of people will say, you know, Russia and China will never get involved, so that makes it really not World War III. I`ve got to tell you, I think when the Middle East is on fire and oil shoots right through the sky, I think everybody starts to really pay attention.
What do you -- what do you suppose happens to oil overnight if, God forbid, we had to do something in Iran?
SILVERSTEIN: Well, I mean, obviously, the price of oil is going to go through the roof. I mean, you know, I don`t know how high it`s going to go, but surely it`s going to spike. I mean, there`s no question about that.
There are all sorts of consequences that are hard to know, but one suspects they will be very negative. I mean, Iran is not going to just sit back and allow itself to be bombed. So you can expect that they will try to strike back at the United States in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere.
So sure, it`s a very, very dangerous situation.
BECK: Peter, ken, thank you very much.
BROOKS: Thank you.
BECK: So now it`s up to you. Where am I wrong? The threat of World War III, I believe, is real. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, that threat becomes a promise. Agree or disagree?
Go to CNN.com/Glenn right now and cast your vote.
Coming up, how soon we forget. You think your flight is safer after 9/11? Yes, not so much. Classified report -- can`t be that classified because I got it -- says two of the nation`s busiest airports have some frighteningly lax security.
Plus, my conversation with Rush Limbaugh from the radio show today. Trust me. You don`t want to miss this.
And tonight`s "Real Story", another example of your sovereignty being stolen right from underneath us. I`ll tell you how our immigration system is being crippled by -- what a surprise -- nations abroad. That`s coming up.
BECK: Well, earlier today, I had the chance to speak with Mr. Rush Limbaugh on my radio program and let me tell you something, it`s not something you want to miss. Everything from the recent charity campaign to how Hillary Clinton will falter in the upcoming election.
I also asked him if I had a gun to your head, Rush, and you had to make a choice today, who would you vote for? The highlights coming up in just a bit.
But first, I`ve got a message to terrorists trying to blow up the planes with, you know, fancy remote-control detonators and liquid explosives made to look like Gatorade and shampoo. Save your time, boys.
The story in this morning`s "USA Today" says airport screeners can`t find bombs that actually look like real bombs.
Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport were the worst. They missed 75 percent of fake explosives. TSA agents tried to sneak these things onboard. Chicago O`Hare, they missed only 60 percent. Well, I feel 40 percent safe now.
What I find especially interesting about this story is that, while the government agency, like the TSA, missed more than half, and three quarters of them in Los Angeles, of the phony explosives, the screeners in San Francisco`s airport only missed 20 percent. Had me thinking, what`s the difference there? How did that happen? Well, they don`t use the TSA in San Francisco; it`s a private company.
So while you`re thinking about, you know, Hillary`s big government-run health care plan, just remember this. They`ll only miss about 75 percent of all brain tumors. That`s a promise.
Here with more is Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department`s former inspector general. And Tom Frank, a reporter for "USA Today".
Tom, you`re the guy who wrote this article that ran in today`s story. It was a great article.
TOM FRANK, "USA TODAY": Thank you.
BECK: What do these bombs look like? I mean, is it like Spy Versus Spy?
FRANK: It`s not -- they`re not artillery shells or tank rounds or anything.
FRANK: They`re pieces, and they`re really broken up. So you might have a toilet kit, say, with some wires and detonator and a battery and a timer. So the pieces are very small. They`re crammed into cluttered bags. And the idea is they don`t really look like traditional bombs, but that`s what -- that`s what the thought is. That`s what they look like.
BECK: I know. It`s not going to be like Spy Versus Spy. Did they actually say to you that this test was unfair because it isn`t show how much improvement they`ve made? I don`t know if we were getting 100 percent of bombs onboard, but they said that this was also a very hard test.
FRANK: Right. I don`t think they said it`s unfair. I think that they said the numbers could be misleading, if you -- especially if you compare them to past tests. They`ve been doing these tests for years and years and years, before the TSA even existed.
And the tests are getting harder, in the sense that, if you go back to, say, to the late `90s, before the TSA existed, it was a Spy Versus Spy thing. It was basically a gun in an empty briefcase, and it`s fairly easy to find that. It`s a lot harder now to find, you know, the detonator cap inside, in the briefcase lining.
FRANK: So they are getting harder.
BECK: Clark, should I feel -- should I feel good about the flights taking off from Los Angeles? The test was really hard, but only 75 percent of the bombs got onboard?
KENT CLARK ERVIN, FORMER DHS INSPECTOR GENERAL: Well, you shouldn`t feel good about it, Glenn, and neither should your viewers. What`s really troubling about this, while the tests have gotten harder, since they were in the 1990s, basically the tests here are the same tests that we did in 2003 and 2005. And apparently, there`s been no improvement all these many years later and all this much money spent later.
It goes to show that, even though we recommended back then, four years ago at least, the deployment of technology and greater training that could reduce to the lowest possible level human error here, obviously, that technology is not widely deployed and there isn`t adequate training, at least in these two airports.
BECK: Clark, I am -- I have a lot of police friends. I do some, you know, work with some police around the country. And I had one of them recently -- a group of them tell me that they go on these bomb training missions, when I don`t know where they go, but they go someplace and, you know, they train for bombs and everything else.
They say when they get done, they`ve spent a week working with bombs. Things are swabbed and everything. They think, jeez, we`re so dead in this airport. Not once, after working a week with bombs and explosives, not once has the TSA stopped them and said, "You got some bomb residue on your clothing or on your suitcase or in your suitcase." And everything is covered with bomb residue.
One of them joked to me and said, "I don`t even know if there`s any wires -- anything actually in those boxes that they`re using to test for residue."
Have you ever heard anything like that before?
ERVIN: Well, it`s not surprising to me because, again, this points up there isn`t the widespread deployment of bomb detection technology, trace explosion technology we`re talking about here, that if it were widely deployed would pick up these trace explosives.
BECK: Tom, when you were doing this, did the number -- did the San Francisco number stick out to you? Is it something to do with private security? What were they doing that Los Angeles wasn`t doing?
FRANK: Absolutely the number stuck out to me, and it stuck out to the TSA also, to the agency inside the TSA that wrote the report. There`s no evidence that it has anything to do with private -- private versus public. The report doesn`t say so, even the president of the company, the contracting company that runs the security.
BECK: So what was the difference?
FRANK: The difference is that at San Francisco, they have a program where the screeners get tested -- they say every half an hour. So that if you`re working a shift at a checkpoint and you`re manning an x-ray station, you have to know that you are going to be tested. And that keeps people more suspicious, more attentive than if these tests don`t happen. That was said to be the main difference.
ERVIN: If I could add to that, Glenn.
ERVIN: You know, back a few years ago, though, there was a lawsuit alleging that, in fact, the reason that San Francisco consistently does so well is because the tests are compromised. Because the screeners are told in advance by TSA, covertly, that these tests are taking place. I`m not suggesting that that`s the case here, but there have been those allegations in the past. It would be an alternative explanation.
BECK: Sounds like we`re running these tests at our TSA like we run our school systems. I mean, why don`t we give everybody on the TSA birth control pills, too? Thanks, guys.
Coming up, my conversation with Rush Limbaugh from the radio show. I asked him, "If I had a gun to your head, Rush, who are you going to vote for?" He gave me the answer. You`ll have to watch to find out.
And we delve into the realm of sexual education. How young is too young for girls to get the pill in their school, and where are their parents? All this and more, next.
BECK: Well, I`m sure that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid thought he would be getting some great press when he wrote Rush Limbaugh`s boss a letter, condemning Rush for his "phony soldiers" remark. By now, anybody who actually cares to know the truth knows that Rush Limbaugh was taken completely out of context.
So now Rush is auctioning the letter on eBay and matching the winning bid, all of the proceeds going to the Marines.
So I guess we kind of have to thank Senator Reid for being a pawn in the liberal activist game so far, because it`s benefited the Marines to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I talked to Rush about it today on my radio program.
BECK: First of all, how much is the bid up on the letter that came from Congress?
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: It`s amazing. It`s up to $117,100 with about 26 hours to go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIMBAUGH: Ladies and gentlemen, I am holding here the original letter hairy Reid sent to the CEO of Clear Channel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: What a piece of history. What does it feel like to be a private citizen targeted by Congress like this?
LIMBAUGH: It`s probably the pinnacle of these kinds of attacks because it is historic, as you mentioned. I mean, I`m a private citizen, and when I say that myself, a lot of people say, "What do you mean, private citizen? You`re well known throughout the country."
No, no, no, I`m in the private sector. I`m not running for anything. I don`t hold elective office. And I don`t seek it. And to have 41 Democrat senators sign a letter to the CEO of your syndication partner, basically asking him to shut you up and intimidate you, is -- my parents wouldn`t believe it.
BECK: Have you seen the "come to Jesus" moment from the Republican Party that they understand and have fundamentally changed and started to embrace conservative values again?
LIMBAUGH: The Republicans were so long in the minority prior to 1994, particularly in the House, they got used to that. Got used to stopping the Democrats. They`ve really -- the Democrats in Congress have gotten nothing of any substance done.
Now, it`s one thing to stop them. It`s another thing to advance your own ideas, and that`s what you`re getting at. And it`s a wild guess. It`s anybody`s guess to see what happens.
I think once the nominees have been chosen for both parties in the presidential race, I think -- I think we don`t have any idea how out of control, how crazy this election is going to be.
And I`m going to tell you this: this notion that Hillary Clinton is inevitable, that all the Democrats in this country can`t wait to vote for her, is a media myth, and it isn`t -- it isn`t the case. She is not a lock. She puts her pants on one leg at a time like every other guy does, and it`s time of people to stop being afraid of her and afraid of the Democrats.
BECK: If I had a gun to Rush Limbaugh`s head right now, which I want to make very clear I don`t, although I do have a right to own a gun, if I had a gun to your head today and asked you, "You got to vote for somebody right now," who would it be?
LIMBAUGH: I haven`t even said this on my program. I can`t answer that right now. I don`t endorse...
BECK: I`ve got a gun -- I have a gun to your head, Mr. Limbaugh. You had to vote today, who would it be?
LIMBAUGH: Well, it would be either Rudy or Fred Thompson or maybe Mitt Romney.
BECK: That`s not an answer. That`s what -- that`s what everybody in America is saying right now.
BECK: Just a reminder, Rush will donate all the proceeds from the auction to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. And since we taped that piece this morning, bidding has climbed above $500,000.
Coming up, yet another sign the rest of the world is ganging up on us. Four nations are now refusing to take their citizens back after we try to deport them for committing crimes here. Next in "The Real Story."
BECK: So we`ve got Maine, where 11-year-olds are now getting birth control from their schools. And then we have Norway, where kindergarten kids may soon be allowed to express their sexuality in class, explore each other`s bodies. It`s sex-ed gone wild, coming up next.
But first, welcome to the "Real Story." There`s a new investigation now that says an estimated 90,000 Americans are infected every year by an explosive new drug-resistant super bug disease. The "Real Story" is that if you want the end of the world, we`re all going to die, everything is on fire fear-mongering, then move on people. Go someplace else, because I am turning in my badge.
I can`t take it anymore. Our country`s capital is moving to freaking Mexico City. We`ve got Stalin in a pantsuit running for office. Our current president is referencing World War III and nobody`s paying attention. Our schools are helping sixth-graders with their sex life. And you want me to be worried about washing my hands more often? You know what? At this point, I don`t even care anymore. Bring on the damn super bug, kill me now, it would be a blessing.
I will grant you that this super bug may very well be the real thing. I mean, it`s no secret -- I`ve been talking about it for 10 years -- we`ve got a major problem with abusing antibiotics in this country. But, doctors, if I may, let me offer a piece of advice. You want people to take this one seriously? Stop with the annual panics.
I mean, where`s the bird flu I was promised? You promised me. Where`s SARS, smallpox, mad cow, Ebola? Where`s my monkey pox? You promised me monkey pox. You guys are like snakes on a plane. Snakes on a plane in the medical community. It`s all hype. Pretty soon, unless you start to deliver, oh, yes, nobody is going to buy it anymore.
I`m a reasonable guy. I am. I`m willing to compromise with you on this one, because, quite honestly, I do believe you. I`m legitimately concerned about the next black plague or flu epidemic. I get it. The problem is, I`m just a lot more concerned about other things right now, like Iran and radical Muslims who want us all dead.
So here`s my offer to you, doctors. I think you`re going to like it. Let`s put our little super bug that you`ve got on the end of the machetes that Islamists are decapitating people with. That way you get the super bug into the news, and maybe I get people to actually pay attention to religious fanatics that are decapitating people. It`s a win-win. Call my office. We`ll talk.
Next, let`s talk about a disease that you should panic about: tuberculosis. Actually, no, I`m sorry, I take that back. You shouldn`t panic. Well, you should panic, but only if, let`s say hypothetically -- this would be insane -- a foreign national with a drug-resistant, highly infectious type of TB crisscrossed into our country over 75 times like he was playing frickin` hopscotch, took multiple flights, couldn`t be located for any of our federal agencies for months, even though they were looking for him. So, yes, I guess it is time to panic, because that is exactly what happened.
But it gets worse. Yes, it does. Not only did a Mexican with a form of drug-resistant TB travel unfettered back and forth in the United States for months, but the "Real Story" is -- and this is important -- the Department of Homeland Security reportedly tried to cover it up by telling their employees that they`d be fired if this story ever got out to the media.
That leads me to wonder this: What else is happening at our border? What else does our government not want to see, you know, every night from the "Real Story"? Well, we did a little investigating. Seems to be quite a few stories. Have you ever heard this story before?
Quote -- listen to this -- "Mexican soldiers and civilian smugglers had an armed standoff with nearly 30 U.S. law enforcement officers in the Rio Grande in Texas. Mexican army troops had several mounted machine guns on the ground more than 200 yards inside the U.S. border." Unbelievable, right? Story just can`t be true. Must be some breaking news. Wrong. The story was from January 2006.
How on Earth did that not lead the news of every station and paper in this country? How are we not demanding that Vicente Fox answer for this?
Gang, I`ve got to tell you, we are at war. This is not just a fight for our country; it is a fight for our lives, our sovereignty! Every single part of the immigration progress or process is an absolute bureaucratic disaster. You and I are going to be the ones paying the price.
So, tonight, it`s time to go to the front lines for a reality check. How screwed up is this system? How much of what really goes on, on the border is being hidden from you? Ames Holbrook is a former federal deportation officer and author of the new book -- it`s an amazing book -- "The Deporter." And Michael Cutler is former special agent with the INS and is now a senior fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Ames, let me start with you. I don`t even know where to start with you. Tell me about Rodolfo. Who is that?
AMES HOLBROOK, FORMER DEPORTATION OFFICER: Well, Rodolfo is the chief protagonist or I should say antagonist. This guy`s pretty much the heavy of my book, the villain. But I want to emphasize that this guy`s typical of what`s happening right now and that the number-one pressing immigration emergency facing America right now is our government`s policy of dumping alien felons into our communities when their home countries don`t want them back.
BECK: OK. So who is he? What did he do?
HOLBROOK: Well, this guy is a repeated bail-skipper. He`s got about eight felony convictions, ag assault, battery, sex assault. And we`ve got him. This guy has been ordered removed from the United States with a legally binding deportation order. So that means it`s law that we get him out of the country.
Well, this guy has managed to cloak himself in a deportation-proof persona, because although he came over here from Mexico, in court he claims he`s Cuban. And guess what? Cuba is one of those countries that will not take its criminals back.
BECK: So you can`t actually deport him. He stays here in the United States.
And, Mike, you say this is going on all the time.
MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER INS SR. SPECIAL AGENT: Well, it is going on all the time. Every component of the immigration system -- and it`s supposed to be a system -- is dysfunctional. It`s the way that we give out citizenship, the way that we give out residency.
You know, last year, the General Accountability Office was asked by Chuck Grassley, the senator from Iowa, and Sue Collins from Maine to look into the allegation that 111,000 immigration files were allegedly lost by USCIS, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. That`s the division of DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, that I`ve come to refer to as the Department of Homeland Surrender. They claim they lost those files and went ahead and naturalized 30,000 aliens without their applications, without their files.
BECK: And one of the guys that has gamed the system -- this is years ago, not in this bunch, I don`t believe -- one of the guys that you know was one of the World Trade Center `93 bombers.
CUTLER: Absolutely. Abul Imar (ph) is a guy who came in on a tourist visa, overstayed. We gave him amnesty under the `86 amnesty. He claimed to be an agricultural worker. The only thing this guy ever planted -- he was a New York City cab driver. And by the way, he got his license suspended numerous times for violating our laws. The only thing he ever planted was a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killed six people, and did incredible damage to the complex.
BECK: Ames, you were...
HOLBROOK: Let me jump in here real quick and just emphasize, Michael is talking about how every component is broken or dysfunctional. I would like to say that, as far as the agents are concerned, and I`m sure Michael will back me up, ICE is a first-rate agency. And the deportation corps is an elite group. But what we`re talking about is a dysfunctional political leadership, Congress and our president.
BECK: Ames, I have to tell you, I am so sick and tired of our border guards being treated less than our troops. Our federal agents, the guys who work on the streets with ICE, our border guards, they`re just as much troops as anybody in the Marines is right now, and I`m sick and tired of them being treated by our government like this.
CUTLER: I`ve got to tell you, Glenn, look, we have Border Patrol agents assigned to Iraq. Now, if the president could understand that we needed to secure the Iraqi border in order to protect Iraq, why is our border left wide open? I`ve testified before Congress about the fact that the administration won`t hire enough people. Congress gave them enough money in `05 to hire 800 new agents for ICE. Incredibly, the president cut that to 143. I was outraged by 800, but I can`t even tell you on TV what I thought of 143.
HOLBROOK: Hey, Glenn, let`s just suppose we have unlimited troops on the ground. As long as our government is forcing these troops, deportation officers, to dump felons, aggravated felons, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, you name it, right back into our communities, because their countries don`t want them back, well, it`s going to be a circular process. So that`s what we need to solve right now.
BECK: Ames, I don`t even know if we have time. How much time do I have? Thirty seconds? Forty-five seconds? Thirty seconds. Thirty seconds. You made a decision to actually create your own path, which a lot of people disagree with, to get some of these guys and get them deported. Can you talk about this in really 20 seconds?
HOLBROOK: OK. Well, real quick, yes. I jumped into coercion, forgeries and lies. I had to go off the grid because of the rules in place. And the reason I did it is because the alternative is we dump these guys into our own communities. Remember, free in our own communities to claim new victims, that is murder, rape and kill more people.
BECK: All right, Michael, thank you very much. Ames, thank you. That`s the "Real Story" tonight.
Now, listen, if you want to hear more about this from Ames Holbrook, I`ve asked him to write a special report for our newsletter, but you`ve got to sign up for it tonight if you want it. It`s an unbelievable experience of trying to get some of these illegals out of the country. You don`t want to miss it. That is a special edition of our free e-mail newsletter, but you`ve got to sign up right now to be able to get it, at glennbeck.com.
Now, how about some free preteen birth control? One school district in Maine is planning on offering the pill to girls as young as 11. The story when we come back.
BECK: Well, if you think the state of Maine is filled with nothing but lobster fisherman wearing L.L. Bean boots and watching leaves change color, sit down. You`ve probably heard the story about the 11-year-olds now, you know, being able to learn more than just English and mathematics. At King Middle School in Portland, they`re now getting exposed to the wonderful world of birth control. That`s right: They`re 11. When I was 11, I believe the only pill I knew about was one that was shaped like Fred Flintstone.
Meanwhile, over in Norway, a leading kindergarten educator is saying that her students -- kindergartners -- should be free to express their sexuality, explore each other`s bodies, and masturbate. That`s fabulous. Now let`s go back to Maine.
After at least 17 pregnancies in the last four years, the enlightened, non-hatemongering officials in Portland have decided now to allow the school health center to make birth control pills available to girls as young as 11. King will be the first middle school in Maine to offer a full range of contraceptives. "I don`t know, I kind of like this one. What does that one do?" And students have been able to grab condoms by the hands full since 2000.
I don`t know if Trojan makes anything with Barney on it, but we should check. Joining me now is Michael Graham, radio talk show host on WTKK in Boston. And Ken Altshuler, he is an attorney and radio talk show host for WGAN in Portland, our affiliate there.
Ken, you`re a liberal I like. I have respect for you. Your daughter even works for me. I`m trying to undo all the damage that you`ve done to her. Let me ask you this, Ken.
KEN ALTSHULER, RADIO HOST: I taught her well, Glenn.
BECK: Yes. Let me ask you this. If I happen to have -- and say that my kids are going to drink anyway, I`m just going to let them get drunk in my house, because that`s the thing, would you be for the school giving my kids aspirins and Tums so they can work off that hangover?
ALTSHULER: Absolutely not, because birth control is preventive and alcohol and those kind of things are encouraging children. All we`re trying to do in Portland is recognize that, if they`re sexually active, it is better to have them prevent pregnancy than to become pregnant.
BECK: OK, Michael, sex preventative? Does it prevent sex from 11- year-olds?
MICHAEL GRAHAM, FORMER GOP CONSULTANT: Hey, you know, parents are going to beat up and abuse their children. I say we just give them Band- Aids and helmets so they don`t do any long-term damage while it`s going on, because you can`t stop it.
This is the dumbest thing I`ve ever heard. There`s no crime you can prevent completely, but it is impossible, Glenn -- and believe me, I`ve tried -- to touch an 11-year-old kid sexually and not commit a crime. This is criminal behavior.
And I`ve read 500 stories on this today. Not one of them uses the phrase "sexual assault," which is what the state of Maine calls it when an 11-year-old is having sex.
BECK: Even with another 11-year-old?
GRAHAM: You know, the law is written in such a manner that it doesn`t even encompass 11-on-11-year-old crimes.
BECK: Hold on. Ken`s an attorney. Go ahead, Ken.
ALTSHULER: We`re not talking about 11 and 12 and 13. Remember, middle school includes 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds.
BECK: What about 11?
ALTSHULER: And the 14 -- well, 11 -- if an 11-year-old asks for a birth control pill, I think there will be a serious talking-to. However...
BECK: Oh, oh.
BECK: Hang on, a serious talking-to without the parent or with the parent?
ALTSHULER: Well, remember, the parent had to sign a consent form for that child to go into the health clinic.
BECK: To be able to get an aspirin or a Band-Aid.
ALTSHULER: Well, sure, if the parent consents to it, they can, just like if you consent to your child asking for birth control.
BECK: Ken, I heard somebody last night at this parent school board meeting, and they were talking, and one said, "These kids have been abandoned by every adult in the place." If I left my kid so I could go on vacation, which has happened -- not with me, but, I mean, other parents have done it -- left my 11-year-old at home for a vacation, but they`re old enough to make this decision, they`re old enough to take care of themselves, and the school came out, they`d lead a parade to my front door to take that kid away because I had abandoned it.
ALTSHULER: As they should.
BECK: Last night, one of the people on your side said these kids have been abandoned by these adults. Then why don`t we take these kids away from these horrible parents that have no control over their kids to be able to stop them from having sex at 11?
ALTSHULER: Glenn, there are some kids who do not feel comfortable talking about their sexuality. Don`t you want them to have someone to talk to? Don`t you want them to have somebody to confide in?
BECK: No, I want the state -- I would really like the state to encourage my children to talk to me.
ALTSHULER: And they`re doing that, Glenn. They`re doing that.
BECK: Michael, go ahead.
GRAHAM: The part that the loony lefties are not talking about is that this a direct assault on the relationship between parents and children, because I want to know, if you`re shooting my daughter with progesterone, I want to know about it. I have a 13-year-old daughter in middle school. She can`t take a brownie to school because brownies pose too much of a risk, but she can take a birth control pill? Here`s my message to the lefties: Let her have the brownie.
ALTSHULER: If you want to be involved with your child, Mike, that`s great. Don`t sign the consent form.
GRAHAM: Well, you`re not letting me.
ALTSHULER: The school will not talk to your daughter. But if you signed a consent form, you`re saying that it`s OK for your daughter to go talk to a doctor in the school. What`s wrong with that?
BECK: Because if my daughter needs some help at school, I want her to be able to go -- if she`s fallen and she needs help, I don`t want her to say, "I`m sorry, we can`t help you now. Your parent didn`t sign it"...
ALTSHULER: Don`t sign the authorization.
BECK: I want my daughter to be able to get an aspirin. I don`t want -- you know, the FDA is now looking back at Benadryl and saying, "Hey, you`ve got to be careful with your kids with Benadryl." It`s freaking Benadryl. It`s not a birth control patch. It`s not a pill.
GRAHAM: The other part about this is that these kids, the top five reasons to go to these clinics, are for things like asthma and physical examinations. That`s it. And yet we`re going to pump them up with drugs, and I`m not going to know about it.
BECK: Mike, Ken, thank you very much.
Now, let me go to this spoonful of sugar, brought to you by Travelers. Your risk can change quickly. Make sure your insurance stays in-synch.
Let me set this clip up for you. Five-year-old Taylor Reyes (ph), she`s from Texas. She was told that her mom has a big surprise for her waiting for her after school on Monday. This is a good surprise, not birth control. When she was out there waiting, her father, Naval Seabee Jim Reyes (ph), returned from duty from Iraq. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Daddy!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Tonight`s spoonful of sugar, brought to you by Travelers. Your risks can change quickly. Make sure your insurance stays in-synch.
BECK: Let me remind you, tomorrow on the show, full-hour interview with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Don`t miss it, tomorrow night.
Now, if I may take you back to last Friday, when Al Gore triumphed over humanitarian groups and Holocaust heroes -- and, yes, even Bono -- to win the Nobel Peace Prize. After winning, naturally he wanted to celebrate, so Al did what anybody would do, you know, after they`ve won the Nobel Peace Prize for raising awareness on global warming.
He got into his private jet. I believe it`s a G-5, might be a G-4, a big one. He flew out to Scottsdale, Arizona, where he then had a quiet, intimate dinner with about 90 of his closest friends at, you know, some secluded ranch and resort. The guests included such stewards of the environment as the heads of Coca-Cola, Pepsi, AT&T, Toyota, and, of course, Home Depot. I mean, when I think about combating global warming, the first thing I usually think of is warehouses filled with lumber, so.
On the menu, they had an environmental theme. They had miso-cured Alaskan butter fish, flown in fresh from seaplanes in Alaska, guinea hen -- I don`t know, maybe it came in from New Guinea, Old Guinea, I`m not really sure on that one -- seared tuna with curried egg plant. I`m guessing the tuna must have been dolphin-safe. I didn`t look at the can. Kobe strip. Oh, that Kobe strip loin, that must have been -- I think they flew it in from Japan, unless it came from Kobe Bryant, which would be kind of creepy, but, hey, I don`t know. Then they also had butter-poached lobster medallions, caught directly off the coast of Arizona.
Now, I know what you`re thinking. You`re thinking, gee, Al is leaving kind of a big, giant footprint there in carbon. No, no, don`t worry. I figured this all out. All he has to do is take his share of the $1.5 million Nobel Prize money and pay for carbon offsets. Or better yet, maybe he can learn from his mistakes and next time choose a menu featuring indigenous organic ingredients found right there in Scottsdale. Instead of seared tuna, maybe he could have seared scorpion or it could be served on a nice green bed of cactus needles. And instead of guinea hen, why not cactus wren? Or you want to go really exotic? Burrowing owl. Oh, it is tasty.
For dessert, nothing cleanses the palate quite like caramelized desert toads. Yum, yum. Magnifique.
That`s it for tonight. Don`t forget my free e-mail newsletter. Tomorrow, you`ll also get the conversation of John Stossel. He`s on the radio tomorrow. He had a lot to say about Al Gore and the debate on climate change. Now that Al has been awarded the Nobel Prize, should we all reconsider? You don`t want to miss this. Sign up now for the newsletter at glennbeck.com.
From New York, good night, America.