Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Partisan Scandals Overwhelm Politics; Lawyer Aiding Terrorist Gets Light Sentence

Aired October 17, 2006 - 19:00   ET

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

GLENN BECK, HOST: Well, who would have guessed it? It is election season. And bring it on. The personal attacks. Why these will have serious consequences for the future of our country.
Plus, our porn series continues as we examine the business of porn. The numbers will blow your mind. That`s next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by Decision 2006, now featuring more sex, scandal and smear tactics than ever before. Decision 2006, the sleaziest show in town.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Well, perfect. Another day. Another partisan scandal involving a politician.

This time it`s Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. He used campaign donations instead of his personal funds to give Christmas tips to his staff at his condominium. Bit sketchy here, but Reid did reimburse his campaign.

Now on the other side of the aisle, they did it, too. Congressman Curt Weldon may or may not have helped his daughter land a sweet lobbying contract. So the FBI has raided her home.

May I ask you an honest and frank question? Is this really who we are? Are you sitting there on your couch thinking, "Yes, that`s what`s important to me"? Not with me, really.

Let me share with you my theory on why the politicians are trashing each other so they can get elected. Tonight I want to focus on the Democrats. They are resorting to this because I think -- they don`t believe they can win on their ideas. And I`ll explain more in a second. But here`s the point tonight.

If Democrats are elected, we are in for two years of investigation, God forbid, impeachments, while the world is set on fire. Here`s how I got there.

The Democrats don`t have an actual plan that they can agree on. And those that do have a plan don`t believe they can sell it to the American people or at least to the other side of their own party. So what do they do? Change the subject. Kids do it all the time. As a parent you had to have seen this. Instead of saying, "Yes, I broke mom`s favorite vase", they`ll say, "Yes, but she started it." That is what the Democrats are doing right now.

And don`t get me wrong. The Republicans don`t have clean hands either. Instead of presenting an idea that they`re united behind, they`re hoping to coast to victory on the "ick" factor of Mark Foley e-mails and various other scandals. And it just might work.

People have become so disgusted with Congress, at least I am, with the way our representatives don`t actually represent our values, that most voters just want to throw the bums out, to vote for change, for change`s sake. Danger. You have to ask yourself what will that change actually look like? That is the message that Americans need to think about and is what is missing in our dialogue.

We are about to put a party into power that is currently in a life or death battle for its own soul. Are the Democrats the God-fearing hard- working party of FDR or JFK, the kind my grandparents voted for? Or are they the party of Alec Baldwin and Cindy Sheehan. As a conservative, I don`t need to decide that. But they do. And they haven`t yet. The battle is still raging.

When they actually get the chance to govern, they are going to split - - my theory, split and fracture into two camps. If they can`t figure out who they are and what they stand for, how are they going to figure out Iraq or Iran or North Korea? I don`t think they will. I think they`re going to unite behind one thing, and they`ve already done it. It`s how much they hate George W. Bush and how we`ll punish him and clean this mess up.

If they win, the politics of destruction will not stop after the election. It`s the only thing that united them and they will use it to distract you again.

So here`s what I know tonight. I know that if the Democrats gain power, you will see independent counsels. You might see impeachment. You will see investigations, surely. But it`s the only thing that the party can unite on, and that`s why they will use it.

If you think I`m wrong, let me -- let me tell you what happened June 16, 2005. John Conyers held a make-believe impeachment hearing in the Capitol basement. I ain`t kidding you.

What you won`t see when the Democrats take over, leadership and good ideas. I mean, don`t get me wrong. Democrats actually do have some good ideas and I`m sure I could find one someplace if I looked hard enough. Nobody in the party, however, can agree on them. And so those ideas won`t see the light of day.

I also know that as -- at a time as critical as this, the last thing we need to do is feed on ourselves. After 9/11, I said -- I got so many phone calls on the radio show. And people were freaked out. And I remember telling people don`t fear. The only way we can be destroyed is if we`re destroyed from within.

Well, if we allow the politics of destruction to continue, which it has been going on for years, then we will fall, and it will be our own fault.

We need to unite on, geez, at least who the enemy is. It`s not George Bush, Halliburton and Dick Cheney. It`s also not Alec Baldwin or Howard Dean. Our enemies are extremists Muslims who want to kill all of us.

Now here`s what I don`t know. I don`t know how soon after the election all these hearings are going to begin. And what happens when we`re distracted by that.

David Baumann, he is a congressional correspondent with the "National Journal".

David, do you believe the next few years are going to turn into some sort of Clinton-like impeachment process?

DAVID BAUMANN, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, "NATIONAL JOURNAL": No. We are not going to see impeachment hearings. What you are going to see are a lot of hearings taking a look at the Bush administration.

We`re not going to get to impeachment. Nancy Pelosi has already said that. John Conyers floated the idea of impeachment. Nancy -- Nancy Pelosi quickly slapped that down.

It`s one thing to say that when you`re in the minority. It`s another thing to try to pull that off when you`re in the majority.

BECK: Right. But you are -- you do believe -- you do agree that you`re going to see the exposure of scandals and investigation into calling people down.

BAUMANN: Certainly.

BECK: Yes.

BAUMANN: What you`re going to see is Henry Waxman as chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. He`s going to be investigating three things most likely. Hurricane Katrina and the response. The war in Iraq. And homeland security. And he`s going to be looking for what he thinks is waste, fraud, and abuse.

And you`re going to see a steady line of Bush administration officials called up to Capitol Hill, sworn in. And you`re going to see a steady show of allegations traded back and forth, about what Waxman sees as waste, fraud, and abuse.

BECK: So David, am I wrong here that -- it seems to me that there are two parties. And they`re in a battle for their soul. Is it the Howard Dean-Alec Baldwin-Michael Moore, or is it the more conservative, even Hillary Clinton that is more mainstream? Is that -- is that war going on in between?

BAUMANN: What you`re going to see is you`re going to see Nancy Pelosi trying to exert some power in the house. What you have to remember is we all think of Nancy Pelosi as a San Francisco Democrat. Nancy Pelosi...

BECK: No.

BAUMANN: Nancy Pelosi also grew up as the daughter of...

BECK: Yes.

BAUMANN: ... daughter and sister of the mayor of Baltimore, which means she`s used to some big-city politics. And so she`s used to exercising some political muscle.

Leading Democrats in the House have already said that they`re tired of being in the minority. And that they intend to stay in the majority.

BECK: What I`m asking you specifically, David, is there is a blue dog Democrat. There are these -- like Joe Liebermans that are much more mainstream, and then there are those Nancy Pelosis. And you can try to mainstream her all you want. But she`s not mainstream. She is from California.

BAUMANN: Absolutely.

BECK: So there is that conflict within the party. And it seems like it can`t unite behind any one idea because they are beholden to the blue dogs and to the radical left.

BAUMANN: What you`re going to see in the House is an effort for those two factions to unite in the Democratic Caucus. And what you`re going to see is them immediately try to unite around a couple of issues that they think they can unite around, increasing the minimum wage, correcting some mistakes that they believe were made in the president`s prescription drug plan for Medicare.

And increasing student financial aid. You`re going to see them try to rally around those issues initially. And try to gain some momentum having united around those issues. Whether they can pull it off or not is another story.

BECK: And not the issues that America is telling pollsters that they -- that are the primary issues that is facing America today. Real quick, because I`ve only got 30 seconds.

Real quick, do you believe that if they got into power and Murtha was in charge, they are going to pull out of Iraq quickly?

BAUMANN: No.

BECK: And that is because they can`t -- or they suddenly are faced with the same problems that the Democrats -- Republicans are and realize they can do it?

BAUMANN: They don`t have the votes.

BECK: OK. David, thank you very much.

Now, if you`re like me, you`re fed up with -- how completely out of touch both parties have become, especially when it comes to the border. If there was just a third party that you could for, it wouldn`t make you feel like you were wasting your vote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Hi. We are the Common Sense Party. And we are fighting for the really important issues that affect your life. Like the disparity between the quantity of hot dogs and buns. Hot dogs come 10 to a package. Buns come in packs of eight. You would have to buy four packages of hot dogs and five packs of buns before you had an equal number of hot dogs and buns. That`s a lot of wieners.

Solution: a peace summit between butchers and bakers before another frankfurter is senselessly wasted.

The Common Sense Party. Honesty, integrity, yummy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Coming up, the president signs a new anti-terror bill just a day after one woman is practically given a pass for aiding the alleged mastermind of 9/11.

Also, speaking of outrageous acts, Madonna`s new purchase -- I mean, adoption, has arrived at her home in London. We`ll talk about that celebrity stunt. It`s sick.

And also, the second part in our series "Porn: America`s Addiction". Do not miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: So I think we should do a pro- and con list. The pro are pretty easy. You`re in control. You pick a partner. There`s no talking back. Constantly available. You know, you do whatever you want. Assuming, you know, you can think of the appropriate search words. No pregnancy. No disease. At least on you. You`re not going to get turned down unless your visa payment is late. You know, those kinds of things.

The cons, you`re not actually getting any -- you realize that, loser, right?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Our porn series will continue in just a bit with a great piece on the business of porn that will just melt your brain.

But first, I want to continue with another series, something we`re called -- we`re calling "Missed by the Media". This is where we show you some of the propaganda and hate that is -- that is being shown on television in the Middle East.

Today`s clip is from a cleric in Syria. I want you to pay very, very close attention to the translated words near the bottom of the frame.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (speaking foreign language)

GRAPHIC: As you know, the enemy in this year appears to be Israel, but, as everyone knows, the fighting enemy is actually America. Israel is merely the claw of America in this war. People who cannot stand with their fighting brothers can still fight. They can carry out other actions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Carry out other actions. It`s exactly those type of threats that resulted in President Bush today signing in a new terror bill into law. Among other things, the bill sends a strong message that we`re not going to be soft when it comes to our own safety and security.

But, unfortunately, yesterday, a Manhattan judge sent the exact opposite message. He sentenced Lynne Stewart, just a weasel of an attorney, who was convicted of helping her terrorist clients communicate messages to his extremist followers in the Middle East from prison. Sentence, 28 months in jail.

That`s an insult to everyone who has put their life on the line to protect us. How on earth could this happen?

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is a senior consultant for Gerard Group International.

Daveed, this woman has absolutely no remorse. She actually says that she was doing a good job. She`s just -- a zealot of an attorney.

DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS, SENIOR CONSULTANT, GERARD GROUP INTERNATIONAL: That was exactly how she defended what she did. She absolutely showed no remorse. In the end, when she was painted by the media at times having shown remorse. That was just by admitting the fact that she was a zealous advocate for Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was responsible for the 1995 trademark terror plot in New York City.

BECK: Give me a little more in depth on him before we go back to her. Can you tell me any more -- just I don`t think most people really understand how dangerous this guy is.

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: Absolutely. You know, Omar Abdel-Rahman is somebody who, even today, prominent jihadist groups are attempting to kidnap Americans and exchange them for Omar Abdel-Rahman, because of how he`s seen as being the grandfather of terror.

BECK: He`s a good looking man, by the way.

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: He`s a spiritual leader of Al-Gama`a al-Islamiyya, which is a terror group. It`s Arabic, the Islamic group that operates in Egypt. They have been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks.

The most prominent one is in 1997, when in Luxor (ph) they went to the major tourist monument and slaughtered tourists as well as killing about four Egyptians, security force personnel. They killed 58 tourists on that day, which shows the extent of kind of the destructive actions that they can take part in.

BECK: Maybe I`m too a little too shallow, but I need my spiritual leader not to look like the devil himself. But she can really play dumb here. She knows who this guy is. She was in trouble before 9/11, wasn`t she?

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: Yes. The -- she passed those messages along in 2000 over a year before 9/11 occurred. There were special administrative measures in place that were put into effect by the court while she was representing Omar Abdel-Rahman in the appeals process.

They were designed to prevent Abdel-Rahman from passing messages along to the outside world. But in violation of the court`s orders, she was able to create a diversion basically for -- to allow him to talk to a translator and thus smuggle out a message which said that he wanted to end the cease- fire agreement with the Egyptian government.

Moreover, when his supporters in Al-Gama`a al-Islamiyya were skeptical of whether he indeed came out against the cease-fire agreement, Lynne Stewart herself held a press conference to verify what Sheik Omar Abdel- Rahman said.

Just as the judge said in the sentencing proceeding, this was indeed a very grave offense, one which could have had profound consequences, including the loss of life of many people.

BECK: I only have one minute. What -- who is this woman?

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: Well, she`s -- you know, part of the -- she`s a movement lawyer, essentially. A left of center attorney in the mold of William Cutler, Ramsey Clark. Someone who comes to advocate for her clients, not just as an advocate but who comes to identify with her causes politically.

And in the course of the representing Omar Abdel-Rahman, she came to see the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement in Egypt being a liberation movement in Egypt as being a liberation movement and came to identify with that movement.

She speaks very coldly now about 9/11, talking about how at war people die. And she identifies with these terrorist groups out of a feeling that they`re anti-imperialists and therefore, they must be good.

Overall, when she passed this message along, she already knew their capacity to slaughter a massive number of civilians. She knew what she was doing.

BECK: Yes. I tell you, and I think 28 months has really sent a strong message. As strong as anything the U.N. has ever sent to our enemies.

Daveed, thank you very much.

GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: My pleasure.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Every day you can hear my radio program at stations all across the country, including 1290 WJNO in West Palm Beach, Florida. And by the way, if you can`t find an affiliate in your area, please sign up to listen online at GlennBeck.com.

Now Dave Glover is here from St. Louis, KFTK, 97.1 FM Talk.

Dave, I will tell you, as a father of an adopted child, I am outraged by Madonna. And I don`t know if I`m alone in that.

DAVE GLOVER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, we may be alone. I`m with you. I mean, who better to take a beautiful humanitarian gesture and crap on it than you and I. But you know, to me...

BECK: I don`t think -- you know what, I don`t think it was a humanitarian gesture. I really don`t. It feels like -- you know what -- I`m going to be really politically incorrect. When they lined up the 12 children for her in Africa, did she inspect them? Did she check their teeth like they were slaves? It felt like a slave moment.

GLOVER: Yes. To me -- it`s like the Hollywood equivalent of Cabbage Patch Dolls, you know. It really is that -- you know what it`s like? It`s like when Paris Hilton had that handbag Chihuahua and suddenly everyone had one. Angelina got an African baby. I want an Oompaloompa now, kind of thing.

BECK: It`s exactly the way it feels. I know I`ve gotten a lot of mail from people who are in the same boat that I -- you know, that I am. We don`t take the adoption of our children lightly.

In fact I just -- right before I went on the air today, I had a woman come up to me. She`s been waiting for almost a year now. And she`s trying to adopt from an African nation. And she said, "I`m afraid this whole thing is going to screw things up, because they already look at Americans coming over and just throwing money around and stealing our children."

GLOVER: Yes. Just about an hour ago she made a statement that there was absolutely nothing different about her process than any other American...

BECK: She was in a country that didn`t allow foreigners to come in to adopt.

GLOVER: Well, that`s good news for us. We can get an African baby delivered within about three days. Just like Omaha steaks.

BECK: You know, the thing about this that makes it even worse is that her husband, Guy Ritchie -- they are married, yes? Right? OK. Her husband says that -- he`s not -- not so sure it`s the right thing to do.

GLOVER: It`s like -- my God, it`s like going to pick out a puppy. And you like, "Honey, really, let`s think about this. And all the midnight potty stuff."

And she`s like, "Oh, let`s just get and we`ll change our mind later." It bothers me.

BECK: I saw an article in the paper today about Mike Tyson. And he says he now wants to fight women. I say we throw him Madonna.

GLOVER: You know, what is Jesus waiting for, really? You know, the temple to be rebuilt? The blood to turn -- the moon to turn to blood.

BECK: Right.

GLOVER: Mike Tyson is going to fight women.

BECK: Unbelievable.

GLOVER: Come on.

BECK: He doesn`t have any experience in that field, does he?

GLOVER: No, no.

BECK: No.

GLOVER: Did you hear the latest? I`m not making this up. He`s going to be a stud for the new Heidi Fleiss male brothel.

BECK: How is this guy out of prison?

GLOVER: I love surprising you. You know, we really need -- when I`m king we`re going to have a creepy prison for people like John Mark Karr and Mike Tyson who have really not broken any laws recently. But you just say you know what...

BECK: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. That is brilliant. We let Mike Tyson fight Madonna. Then we throw him in jail with John Mark Karr. That`s the perfect solution. Thanks a lot, Dave.

GLOVER: See you, man.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Welcome to "The Real Story."

And tonight, chalk one up for the good guys. Guatemala, in what is considered to be a huge upset, is leading Venezuela -- it feels like we`re talking soccer, but we`re not; we`re talking the U.N. -- the race for the open seat at the U.N. Security Council. Almost every article that you read today, if you did read any of them, gives the same reason why Hugo Chavez`s Lucifer speech at the U.N. turned the tides against Venezuela. Not so much.

The real story is the speech had almost nothing to do with it. What turned the vote were the behind-the-scenes efforts of some very high- ranking officials at the White House. And think about what an effort that must have been, considering that Venezuela has been trying to buy votes for months by using their enormous oil profits to pledge over $1.1 billion in aid to neighboring countries.

They`ve also signed a deal -- deal after deal after deal -- with countries like Russia and China to try to win their votes. In a lot of cases, it actually worked. Both China and Russia are very good friends, did vote for Venezuela to be on the Security Council. Thanks, guys!

But Venezuela should have won even without the oil deals. A Zogby poll of the top Latin American countries recently showed that 86 percent of them disapprove of how the U.S. is handling worldwide conflicts, 86 percent.

So how did this happen? Well, we did what, you know, sometimes the U.S. does best: We used pressure and under-the-radar leverage to swing the votes. For example, the Chilean government was reportedly told they`ve got to find somebody else to train their pilots. Yes, I don`t know. You know, we send you about a bunch of F-16s, but you`re going to have to figure out how to fly them, if you vote for Venezuela.

Other diplomats have said off the record that the general message from the U.S. has been a vote for Venezuela puts you into a group -- this is a quote -- "a group of losers against U.S. interest," end quote. That, of course, isn`t a threat, but, gosh, is it just me? It kind of sounds a lot like that State of the Union speech where Bush said either you`re with us or you`re with the terrorists. Five years later, we know exactly what happens to the terrorists and some of the countries that were voting.

Next, Larry King last night had John Mark Karr on to talk about, well, how much his attorney doesn`t want him to say anything. And I have to admit, when I first heard that this guy was making the rounds, I thought a lot about whether or not I`d have him on my program. My first reaction was: Never. But then I thought about it.

And if he would have offered himself to us, which -- you know, if it was on an alter, we probably would have taken it. But I think that I would have taken it, and not for the reason you might think, not for the ratings. I think I would have taken him because I`d want to be like the real-life version of "The Minority Report." You remember that Tom Cruise movie?

And I would have said: Take a long, good look at this guy`s face, because if you ever see it in a playground or a schoolyard, call the police. This guy is going to commit a crime; it`s only a matter of time. You know, it`s kind of my idea of "America`s Most Wanted" of the future, which some might say is a very bad thing.

But the real story tonight is that John Mark Karr, that case, has forever changed the way America thinks about child predators. Right after he was released, I said on this program, I believe people are so sick and tired of the system going soft on these monsters that they`re ready to take matters into their own hands.

Since then, three major cases of vigilante justice against child predators has taken place, and now there`s a fourth, but not really vigilante, but people taking charge of their own feelings. Bayou Vista, it`s a small town in Texas. They recently adopted an ordinance this prohibits registered sex offenders from living within one mile of places where children congregate. Good. In this case, that just happens to mean the entire town.

There are now 45,000 registered sex offenders living in Texas alone. There is one sex offender for every two square miles in California. And get this: The average sentence for someone who commits a sex crime using force in North Dakota? Four and a half years. Enough.

When it comes to molesting our children, at least to me, one strike and you are out. You lay a hand on my kids or anybody else`s kid once, you better go make some deal on some land in the mountains or, better yet, Mexico. I hear it`s beautiful this time of year, because you ain`t welcome here.

Bayou Vista, Texas, it may be one of first to make that law. But mark my words, after it goes through the court system with the ACLU, if they will, it will not be the last.

Bill Jackson is the mayor of Bayou Vista. Bill, there is a little marching band going into my head right now. You have also gone a step farther and you are imposing fines on any landlord that rents to a child molester.

MAYOR BILL JACKSON, BAYOU VISTA, TEXAS: Well, if he does it knowingly.

BECK: Right. So how did this come about? At what point did you and your people say, "Enough"?

JACKSON: Well, we`ve seen what had been going on throughout the country and in Texas. And the citizens got together, and the city council talked about it. And we needed a sex offender ordinance, so we originally drafted it at 2,000 feet. But then, after much discussions, the city council voted to make it one statute mile, which basically excludes any future sex offenders from ever residing in Bayou Vista either as renters or trying to buy a home.

BECK: Do you think you`re going to have any court cases? You know the ACLU is going to pick this up and say you can`t do that.

JACKSON: Well, I`m not lawyer, but I don`t think we will. We have one adjudicated sex offender, a minor. We have a grandfather clause in there that, if you were living in Bayou Vista at the time that this was passed, on October 3rd, then you`re restricted to 2,000 feet. So, basically, this is for future sex offenders, prosecuted or adjudicated, and, you know, we`re not afraid of having a test case in a court of law.

BECK: Right, but those -- I mean, there are those people that say this violates the Texas constitution.

JACKSON: Well, I`m not an expert on the Texas constitution, but this is what our citizens wanted. So we may have to go back to our state legislatures and amend the Texas constitution.

BECK: All right. By the way, I`m playing devil`s advocate with you, man. I mean it: Marching band in my head for you.

But, again, let me play devil`s advocate here. How do you respond to people who say, "Well, here we`re just going to take these sex offenders and push them underground, and then they won`t be able to get the help that they need because you`re going to make them a pariah."

JACKSON: Oh, I don`t buy that at all, none of our people do. If we had to -- if a sex offender had to pass through the city and their counselor was in the city, then we would make special process so that could occur. It`s not that the sex offender can`t come in and see a psychiatrist or a psychologist and try to get help in the city and then leave. We would never prohibit that.

BECK: You know, you remind me, Mayor, that so many of our problems can be solved locally. You don`t need the federal government in many cases. You`ve just solved this problem. Do you think this is a lasting solution for you?

JACKSON: It is, as far as future sex offenders, as far as we`re concerned.

BECK: Yes, good for you. Mayor, thanks a lot. Best of luck. And we will follow you.

That is "The Real Story" tonight. You want to find out more about this or other stories, check it out at glennbeck.com.

Now, let`s go "Straight to Hill," Erica Hill, the anchor of "PRIME NEWS" on Headline News.

Hi, Erica.

ERICA HILL, CNN HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Hello, Glenn. And this next story is actually a real story and one that`s a little bit unbelievable. I mean, puts road rage in a whole new light.

BECK: OK.

HILL: OK. We`re headed to Little Rock, Arkansas, tonight, where a man is charged with committing a terrorist act for shooting a crossbow at another driver.

BECK: Oh, that happens all the -- a crossbow?

HILL: Well, in Connecticut, where you live, it happens all the time.

BECK: Oh, it happens all the time.

HILL: I mean, I grew up there. I know. But Arkansas? Come on!

BECK: Those rowdy Lamont supporters and their crossbows.

(LAUGHTER)

HILL: Here`s the deal. It all started when another driver reportedly cut in front of Wayne Dierks and, according to police, made an obscene gesture. Well, Dierks then pursued the other guy.

BECK: So wait a minute. He had the crossbow in the car?

HILL: Well, apparently it`s crossbow hunting season for, I believe, bears and a few other animals.

BECK: Oh, of course it was.

HILL: It started October 1st. So not that unusual to have the crossbow with you.

BECK: Really? Yes, I forgot about the crossbow hunting season.

HILL: Yes, how about that?

BECK: Yes.

HILL: Do you have time for some more details?

BECK: Yes, real quick.

HILL: OK, real quick. So when police did eventually catch up with him, they arrested him. He was charged with possession of an instrument of crime -- get this -- also, driving while intoxicated and suspended license.

BECK: Wow. OK. Thanks, Erica.

HILL: But the crossbow was cool.

(LAUGHTER)

BECK: All right. Thanks a lot.

HILL: See you tomorrow.

BECK: Bye-bye.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: You know, as we continue tonight with our pornography series, "Porn: America`s Addiction," I just -- let me just introduce myself a little bit to you if you don`t know me. I am not a "South Park" conservative. I am a religious, family values conservative.

Having said that, is it just me? It takes every ounce of willpower I have as a guy not to give into the constant stream of porn that you come into contact with every single day! It is a struggle for me. And I don`t know if it is for you. You`ve got it mastered. I don`t. Porn is a very powerful, seductive and, as you will see, a very lucrative business.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Take it off! Take it off!

BECK (voice-over): Porn: It`s a lusty, busty business. And, let me tell you, unfortunately, business is good.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Like my outfit?

BECK: The adult entertainment industry generates about $57 billion worldwide. Here in the U.S., it`s a $12 billion industry.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do your parents know what you`re doing?

BECK: Let me put it to you this way: Porn revenue is larger than all of the combined revenues of professional football, baseball, and basketball.

BILL ASHER, PRESIDENT, VIVID ENTERTAINMENT: Well, as they say, sex sells.

BECK: Bill Asher heads up Vivid, the largest adult entertainment company in the world. He says business is booming because -- well, there`s a demand for it. And because of the technology out there, it makes it incredibly easy for people to get their hands on it.

ASHER: Twenty, thirty years ago, it was all about magazines. About 20 years ago, the VCR came along, and we helped push the VCR and the VCR helped push our industry. And soon thereafter, there was DVDs and now, of course, there`s the Internet and cell phones and every other way that you can get adult movies.

BECK: As a matter of fact, many in the adult entertainment industry claim they`ve been integral to much of the technology we use today, from the VCR to streaming video, even the Internet.

ASHER: People have said that, you know, would there be Internet without adult content? And well, certainly, although it would still be around, it wouldn`t probably be as pervasive and certainly we wouldn`t have been able to be as successful without the Internet.

BECK: There are more than 4.2 million pornographic Web sites today; that accounts for about $2.5 billion in revenue. To put that into perspective, sales of music downloads generated less than half of that, around a billion last year.

LAYNE THRASHER, DANNI`S HARD DRIVE: Got about 10 years worth of content out there that`s always available to anyone, 24-7.

BECK: Layne Thrasher heads up a softcore porn company called Danny`s Hard Drive. It`s a company based on digital content, and they`re constantly looking for a way to get to you and have you buy their product.

THRASHER: We`re basically just converting all of our videos into mobile-friendly formats, so you can buy adult content theoretically on your cell phone and just purchase them almost as video on demand, as a la carte offerings.

BECK: Oh, yes, that`s right. Soon America may be able to get porn on the cell phone. One research firm projects in three years porn on cell phones will make companies around $200 million a year.

But here`s what they`re not telling you: All this accessibility means anyone can see the stuff. One estimate shows that the average age for a kid to see porn for the very first time online is 11, 11 years old. But companies like Vivid and Danny`s Hard Drive say they have protections in place to make sure that kids don`t see their product.

THRASHER: We`re very committed to the whole aspect in general of keeping content away from the wrong hands. And we`re a member of the organization that prevents against child pornography.

BECK: They may be committed to keeping kids away from the sites, but their real bottom line is to make big bucks and create the technology they need to stay ahead of the game.

THRASHER: At the end of the day, you know, free market rules all. If there`s a demand, people will make it. As long as you stay above and beyond what the law requires, I see nothing wrong with it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: You know, I am a free market guy, and the free market does rule. But in the case of porn, the free market should stop consuming it. And what you saw is just the half of it. Even traditional companies like hotel chains and cable operators are making huge dollars off of pay-per- view porn.

One recent figure suggests half of all hotel guests buy porn in their rooms, which accounts for nearly 70 percent of their profit. Unbelievable.

Now, Paul Fishbein, he is the president of "Adult Video News." What is that, like the porn "Variety" magazine?

PAUL FISHBEIN, "ADULT VIDEO NEWS": Yes, exactly. It`s the trade publication for the adult entertainment industry.

BECK: How proud you and your family must be. Tell me about the hotels, because the hotels -- how much money are they making off of this?

FISHBEIN: Well, they`re making, you know, half a million -- I`m sorry, half a billion dollars off of adult movies. And by the way, these movies are consumed by adults in the room, not by children. So it`s adults...

BECK: Uh-huh. We`ll look into tomorrow...

FISHBEIN: ... adults making personal choices.

BECK: We`ll look into the -- we`ll look into the stats of who`s actually viewing porn online a little bit tomorrow. We`re talking about the business of it tonight. Time-Warner, AT&T, Marriott, these are all blue-chip kind of companies with some real name recognition behind them. How much is Comcast making a year off of this?

FISHBEIN: You know, these major companies don`t release these specific numbers to adults. When they release their numbers, they just release whatever they have to for their shareholders.

But let`s say that DirecTV has six hardcore channels, that the cable systems, Time-Warner, AT&T, Comcast, they all have multiple hardcore explicit productions, that`s what their customers want, and they provide them protected, where adults have to access them, and they keep it away from children, so...

BECK: When did you people turn the corner? When did you become "legitimate"? What happened? When did that happen?

FISHBEIN: Well, I think you have a First Amendment, which in essence makes you...

BECK: I`m all for the First Amendment. What I`m talking about is, you`ve gone from a sticky-floored theater into people`s homes, and now people don`t have a problem with porn. When did that happen?

FISHBEIN: Well, it`s technology. It`s the invention of the VCR and, in the late 1970s, people getting VCRs for their home the first time, and then wanting to see an adult movie, and not having to go out in public and not having to have their neighbor see them. I mean, sex is a very private thing.

BECK: Yes, do you have children?

FISHBEIN: So the idea is that you can watch it in the privacy of your own home, and led by technology. And as your piece stated, it went from VCRs to DVD to Internet to mobile phone to cable television and every kind of technology...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Do you have children?

FISHBEIN: Yes, I do.

BECK: Male or female?

FISHBEIN: I have a young daughter.

BECK: You have a young daughter?

FISHBEIN: I have a...

BECK: How proud she will be! Are you going to share this business with her?

FISHBEIN: You know what? While she is a child, no, I will not. And when she`s an adult, over the age of 18, she will be well-educated and well-brought-up...

BECK: That`s right.

FISHBEIN: ... and she will be able to make her own decisions at that time.

BECK: That`s great, bringing the family together. Paul, thank you very much.

FISHBEIN: Yes, OK.

(BREAK)

BECK: All right. There is a ton of e-mail that`s coming in on our porn series. Some like it, some not so much.

First, Lee in San Diego. "Glenn, bravo on your porn addiction series. A lot of folks want to dismiss this simply as `boys will be boys,` but it is having a negative effect on men that goes way beyond their marriages."

Thanks, Lee. If nothing else over the past few decades, we`ve learned that marriages and families here in America are hard enough to keep together without this kind of thing making it worse.

But now from the pro-porn side, Kwan writes in, "You people kill me with this addiction garbage. I wish the government and people like you would try to stop making me like what you like."

First of all, I want you to know, I am not saying that we should ban porn. Far from it. Americans are free to choose to use it, as long as they do with -- you know, do so within the bounds of the law. The question that I have is: Should you make that choice? Should it be embraced? Should we just ignore how destructive it is?

With so many things, I don`t question the right that Americans have. I question whether or not we have the responsibility that goes along with that right.

Back to Kwan. "Many of the things you covered, Glenn, I agree with you on. But this is an issue that directly affects me, as I own an adult Internet business. This business has given me the freedom to travel and spend more time with my family."

(LAUGHTER)

You know what? I have to tell you, honestly, I think I need another day on this series. I didn`t cover the family side of porn at all; I honestly didn`t think I`d hear the "porn makes me a better dad" argument.

"Finally, legitimate people in the adult business do not exploit children. In addition, we don`t want our children on Web sites at all. They don`t have credit cards. I`m in this business to make money. It`s not only a moral issue for me."

Nicely put, Kwan. "Why would I want kids looking at porn? They`ve got crappy credit." That`s a good argument. There`s so much more that Kwan said that we`re going to -- hopefully, we`ll have him on the radio show tomorrow to duke it out with me.

But finally, Chuck in Pennsylvania writes in. He says, "Hey, Glenn, I`m sitting here with a beer waiting for the porn you promised us. I think if a guy has his own TV show and is going to do a weeklong special on porn in America, we might actually get to see some porn. I`m still waiting. Time`s up. Now I`m off to find my own porn."

Sorry, Chuck. We`ll be in there pitching for you tomorrow. But you know what a good pitcher I am. Although, if you`re looking for something stimulating, there are better places than cable news shows hosted by out- of-shape white guys, don`t you think? Just say it.

END