Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

What Will Dems Agenda Be in Congress?; Will Another Hurricane Devastate U.S.?; Updates to Duke University Rape Case

Aired January 04, 2007 - 19:00   ET

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

GLENN BECK, HOST: OK. Coming up, the Democrats have taken control of Congress. But what is their real agenda?
Plus, is a devastating tsunami headed for our shores? Come on. Cut me some slack. I couldn`t go more than two days without some death and destruction. That and more coming up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by the 110th Congress. We`ll be nothing like the 109th Congress. We swear. We`ll be totally different. The 110th Congress. We`re Pelosi-rific.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: All right, Democrats are officially in control of Congress now. Can`t you feel the excitement?

And here`s the best part -- it took about -- according to my watch, about 40 seconds for Cindy Sheehan to make a very special appearance yesterday. She ambushed Rahm Emanuel and the leaders of the new House Democratic majority during their press conference.

Watch this. Here`s what happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Troops home now! De-escalate, investigate. Troops home now! De-escalate, investigate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Troops home now! De-escalate, investigate. Troops home now! De-escalate, investigate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Troops home now! De-escalate, investigate. Troops home now! De-escalate, investigate.

REP. RAHM EMANUEL (D), ILLINOIS: All right. We`re going to keep going here. We`re going to have a...

CINDY SHEEHAN, ANTIWAR PROTESTOR: We elected them to bring the troops home, stop funding the war and for accountability that Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership can no longer tell us what`s on the table.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: You know, she makes my head explode. She really does. That`s a good start for a new Congress, isn`t it?

Here is the point tonight. This may surprise you. As insanely wrong as Cindy Sheehan is, I honestly wish we had more people like her in Congress. Yes, I said it, all right? As misguided as this woman is, at least she genuine -- genuinely believes in something. In sick and twisted sort of way -- I can`t get clean after I say this -- but I kind of respect her.

Here`s now I got there. The Democrats and the Republicans who got elected basically said whatever they needed to say in order to win. But most of them I don`t think actually believe in anything, other than gaining and keeping power.

Cindy Sheehan, on the other hand, doesn`t seem concerned with politics, or the donkey or the elephant. She`s just concerned about her message. Now granted, her message, I think, is totally crazy, socialist and potentially deadly, but at least she`s got one.

The Democrats that once embraced her -- this was just a few years ago -- now I mean, I don`t even think -- did you see Rahm Emanuel, the way he was looking like, "Oh, boy, I can`t believe this woman is here." They don`t want anything to do with her in public.

This is precisely why politics makes my head explode. When it`s politically expedient, people like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, they`re all hugs and kisses with Cindy Sheehan in photo ops. They`re standing there crying with her. Oh, we`ve got to champion her cause.

But now that they`re in power -- who`s that? No, I`ve never seen you before. They don`t want anything to do with her.

The only person who will be seen with her in public is Jon Conyers. Now, this is the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee. And honestly, I don`t know who that`s worse for, Jon or Cindy.

You know what? Let`s do a little six degrees of insanity experiment, OK? Here`s a picture of Jon Conyers and Cindy Sheehan. All right. Now here`s Cindy with crazy Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Remember him?

Now here`s Chavez with Iranian nut job President Tom. And, finally, here`s President Tom and I on vacation together in Miami, but you weren`t supposed to see that.

Anyway, the point is show me your friends, and I`ll show you your future.

We don`t get to see most of the "friends" of the members of Congress because of a couple of reasons. Either, A, those people don`t get the same kind of coverage as someone like Cindy Sheehan. Or, B, the politicians really don`t want you to see who their friends are.

At least Cindy believes in something. And you know exactly where she stands. In my opinion, on the edge of the cliffs of insanity. Can you say the same thing about the 110th Congress? You know where they stand? Can you say the same thing about the 109th Congress?

So here`s what I know tonight. All of the other shows tonight are going to spend all of their time just yakking about, you know, Congress`s first 100 hours. What are they going to be like? What will they do the first 100 days? "Well, I`ll tell you, Bill, they`ll blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

Here`s the Cliff Notes version: it`s going to be exactly the same thing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. We keep doing the same thing.

Do you remember that scene in "Moonstruck" when Cher snaps Nicolas Cage and says "Snap Out of It?" That`s kind of how I feel right now. We`ve elected politicians whose sole motivation is to get elected. We did that last time. We`re going to do it again in the future. It doesn`t matter if they`re donkeys or elephants. America, snap out of it. That`s what they care about.

Now here`s what I don`t know. Since the Democrats played the game, you know, to get elected, how long will it be before their train goes off the rails? Are they going to be unable to govern effectively or at all because of the grassroots left that feel like they got them there? Let them lead.

John Fund from "The Wall Street Journal". A hundred hours, we`re going to see them, you know, accomplish a bunch of stuff, but it`s all the easy stuff, isn`t it?

JOHN FUND, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": The stuff that 70 percent of the country supports, increasing the minimum wage, student loans, expanding those, that kind of thing.

BECK: Right. So for the first 100 hours, we`re really not going to see anything that says anything except, "Aren`t you glad you voted for us?" It`s really 100 days down the road that we really start to see what the agendas are.

FUND: Well, there`s a hint. Tomorrow there will be a vote on earmark reform. Those are the pork barrel projects that you`ve been talking about that get stuffed in the late-night bills.

But the Democrats are going to combine reform of pork barrel spending with something called pay go, which basically says you`re going to have to pay for any tax cuts that you make with higher taxes somewhere else or some spending cuts. And since Congress never cut spending, it`s a recipe for tax increases. So they`re going to cleverly combine the two, forcing the Republicans to vote on both.

BECK: Oh, my gosh. Now they`re also doing something, and I read about this. I don`t remember where it was, about six months ago. It was Ted Kennedy is involved in some -- some labor law changes that, on the surface to me, seem really frightening. Because if I`m not mistaken, it`s the same place that France, the wheels off the train -- right off the train in France, am I not mistaken?

FUND: We don`t want French labor law that may be coming here. Here`s what`s happening. Right now if you want to form a union, you`ve got to get 51 percent of the workers to vote in the secret ballot election.

But what Ted Kennedy wants to do, and this is going to be the stealth legislation in those first few months of Congress, he wants the power of labor union organizers to go member by member, look them in the eye and say, you want a union, right? Sign right here.

If you get 51 percent of the people to sign the card -- it`s called card check -- then you`re automatically part of the union, and you basically have to pay dues no matter what you decide.

BECK: This is such a frightening thing. Because -- is it the same thing that I was reading about? This is what France did, and once they made this change, all of the French labor laws started to change. And it was just downhill at breakneck pace.

FUND: Well, and the real problem, of course, is intimidation. When you have a secret ballot, people have a right of conscience. They can vote what they really want. If you`re looking at a union boss, you know, eyeball to eyeball, you may feel a little intimidated.

BECK: OK. Now I find it funny, because it`s -- you know, I think it would be the same with the Republicans if the Republicans came in. It`s just role reversal. You know, they`re just switching -- we`re playing musical chairs, are we not?

In a lot of ways, when it comes to bipartisanship, for one, what Nancy Pelosi is doing right now in the first 100 hours, boxing the Republicans out, is exactly what she was complaining about that the Republicans did to her, right?

FUND: Right. And I think the Republican disaster of the last Congress basically created this Democratic Congress. But Nancy Pelosi is very worried. She has a very narrow majority. So she`s going to say no committee hearings. Even the Republicans never did that. No committee hearings on these bills for the first few weeks. No amendments allowed. So this is really saying to the minority, you might as well go home and, you know, open up the Cheetos.

BECK: Which is so funny, because that`s exactly what she complained about when the Republicans were...

FUND: Glenn, you could walk through the deepest sincerity of both parties and not get your ankles wet.

BECK: I`m very well aware of that. The -- the real things that are coming our way that, if you`re a conservative, would scare you, are the ones that are going to start to happen down the road when we think everybody is asleep in front of their television watching, you know, the playoffs or whatever down the road, right? I mean, that`s when we`re going to start to see the gifts going to the grassroots and the extreme left.

FUND: Well, one of the gifts that sounds good is the prescription drug measure, which will say the government has to negotiate, has to have wage and price controls on the drugs that people are going to buy through the Medicare program. Sounds good, but a lot of the lobbies for diseases, you know, the AIDS lobby, the Alzheimer`s lobby, they worry that if you force wage and price controls on drugs, you`re going to dry up the money for research.

I mean, if we`re going to have research that cures Alzheimer`s and helps cure cancer, you need drug companies that will actually be able to make some money on it. So it`s a two-edged sword.

BECK: Right. John, thanks a lot.

Coming up, increasing development along our coast. Are we setting ourselves up for another Katrina-like disaster, or could it be worse?

And the Duke debacle. The university has invited the two accused lacrosse players back to class. Oh, gee, thanks. Should their persecutor be punished?

Also, you`re not going to believe what the Mexican government is doing to help illegals get across the border. And once they`re here, yes, they can claim your Social Security dollars. I will give you "The Real Story" that will blow your mind, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: You know what keeps going through my head today, the definition of insanity. What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That`s the definition of insanity.

What are we doing over and over again? We keep electing politicians and not honest people, people that will be honest about what they really, truly believe in and stand up for what they really truly believe in and don`t care about the party. And that`s, you know what, that is the secret here. That`s the secret.

Don`t care about the party. Stop with this nonsense of left and right and get to the real meat of right and wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Yesterday, the director of the National Hurricane Center retired and he left us with these parting words -- this will make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside: "The biggest concern we have in our country is the rapid buildup of the coastlines. We`re setting ourselves up for another disaster," end quote. This guy should know.

Most experts believe that the threat of a level-five hurricane is very real. This is a chilling possibility when you consider that Hurricane Katrina I believe was only a level three storm, and the winds only approached a level one or a level two.

Consider this -- when we`re talking about overcrowding in the United States -- oh, the United States is getting overcrowded. They`re not talking about the middle of the country. Have you flown from New York to California lately? Next time you do, look down about halfway through. There`s plenty of room in the middle. Check out Wyoming.

It`s the coasts that are the problem. Beside being responsible for all of the crappy movies and TV shows like this one that you see, the edges of our nation are filling up too fast. Take the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from North Carolina to Texas -- the population? Fifty-two million people. That`s 17 percent of the entire country lives right on that coastline. That is an increase of over 700 percent since 1950.

If we don`t get ourselves at least mentally prepared and truly understand the vulnerability of our coasts, the next time the big water comes, we would be lucky to merely suffer Katrina-level losses.

Joining me now with his unique insight is the aptly named Chris Landsea. I mean, you had to be a meteorologist and scientist, didn`t you, with Landsea? He is the science and operations officer of the National Hurricane Center.

Chris, how real is this that we can be devastated by a hurricane?

CHRIS LANDSEA, NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER? Well, we look back on the U.S. hurricane history, and throughout our history, we have seen devastating hurricanes with hundreds, even thousands killed, and perhaps with -- before Katrina, many people thought that would not happen again. But with 1,400 dead in Louisiana and Mississippi, we realize we are very vulnerable to strong hurricanes.

BECK: Right, OK. So did I have the stats right on Katrina? It was a level -- it was a hurricane level three, right?

LANDSEA: Well, it peaked as a Category Five, the worse case, over the Gulf of Mexico. But by the time it came ashore, it was Category Three, almost Category Four. But the big factor was it was a very large hurricane size-wise...

BECK: Right.

LANDSEA: ... and that helped cause a huge storm surge in Mississippi and Alabama.

BECK: What does it mean that -- if a hurricane level five would directly hit a city? What would that damage be like?

LANDSEA: Well, Category Five means winds in excess of 150 miles per hour, sustained winds, gusts 175 to 200 miles per hour. That kind of wind would cause extreme structural damage, where you`d see complete roofs being removed and even houses and buildings collapsing completely. That`s the worst case scenario and that`s only happened three times in the last 100 years in the United States.

BECK: OK. But everybody is saying that we`re in a cycle that this is going to happen in the next 20 years.

LANDSEA: Right. We know that hurricanes tend to be busy for about 25 to 40 years and quiet for about the same amount of time. And the busy period started around 1995. So we expect this heightened activity that we`ve seen a lot of recently...

BECK: Wait a minute. I thought it was -- I thought it was global warming that was causing these hurricanes that were hitting us all of a sudden. You`re telling me this is a pattern?

LANDSEA: Well, it`s very controversial right now about what is causing the activity.

BECK: Right.

LANDSEA: But we know it`s been very busy for the last 10 years. But from our records that we can tell, it`s very similar to what happened in the middle of the 20th Century, in the late `20s, late `60s, about as busy as it is now.

BECK: OK. So the real problem here is, that this is -- the hurricanes are not necessarily getting worse. It`s that the damage is getting worse because we`re building these -- I mean if you look at houses on any shoreline, it`s not exactly the trailer parks. It is -- I mean, it is the most expensive property and real estate and houses and hotels that you can find in America.

LANDSEA: That`s exactly right. The wealth, the population, the infrastructure along the coast is going up dramatically. So it means a hurricane even 10 years ago would cause half the damage it would cause today.

So hurricanes of the past that may not be much different than what they are now, but they`re seeing a much more built-up coastline and a lot more damage as a result of that.

BECK: OK. Yesterday and when I heard the final -- the final words of the hurricane chief, and he said, you know, this is coming, I thought exactly of the words that I read about, starting I think in the 1950s, the warnings in New Orleans, "It`s coming, it`s coming, reinforce the walls" and nobody did anything about it.

And now here we are rebuilding the wall to the exact same level as it was before. I mean, it`s going to happen again in New Orleans, isn`t it?

LANDSEA: Well, New Orleans is very vulnerable. So is Houston. So is Tampa. So it Miami, even New York. And so it`s not a matter if you`ll have a strong hurricane strike those areas; it`s a matter of when.

BECK: What is the city that you`re most concerned about? What`s the one that you say, this is it? This is ground zero?

LANDSEA: It could be Tampa. Extremely vulnerable, low lying, a big bay. A hurricane will funnel the water in and flood the entire city.

BECK: Right.

LANDSEA: New York is extremely vulnerable, too, if a hurricane strikes just west of them and funnels all that water just north along Long Island into the city itself. They could have 20 to 25 feet of storm surge.

BECK: Actually, that would clean the streets out. It might not be bad.

Chris, thanks a lot.

Coming up, Mexico may be given illegals GPS units to help them cross the border safely. Stick around for "The Real Story". You won`t believe it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: You know, one of the most frustrating stories that has come out in the last couple of weeks is this Duke lacrosse thing, where it was -- where they dropped the charges right on Christmas Eve. I thought it was innocent until proven guilty? Isn`t that the way it`s supposed to be? Apparently, not so much, if you`re the prosecutor in this Duke lacrosse rape case.

The latest developments should be a surprise to no one, especially legal analyst and defense attorney Steven Greenberg, who is with us now.

Steven, bring me up to speed on when are they going to drop the rest of the charges against these guys? They dropped -- they dropped the rape charges, but now they -- they held on to the kidnapping and the sexual assault charges, right?

STEVEN GREENBERG, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: They have. I think they`ll drop those charges as soon as the prosecutor feels like he can save face in doing so. The question is, when are they going to drop the prosecutor?

BECK: Exactly right. How do you save face on this? This is -- this is one of the most outrageous things I think I have ever witnessed.

GREENBERG: Well, what happens in these cases is there`s this public outcry by victims` rights groups and so forth, and the prosecutor got swept up in that, got swept up in the politics of the moment. And now he probably can`t save face, but self-preservation is where he`s at.

BECK: I mean, this really is a lynching. That`s what this was. This was a lynch mob and he just went right along -- along with it.

GREENBERG: He went right along with it because he`s a political figure. He`s not doing justice. He was thinking of himself. He got re- elected and then, boom, all of a sudden his case gets worse.

BECK: What is -- I know, it`s amazing. What is his future? I mean, are they going to -- is there anything that can happen to this guy, besides disbarment and getting thrown out of office? Is that it?

GREENBERG: Sure. He can get sued. He should get sued, from everything I`m hearing about it. You know, in addition to just the things that have been well publicized, there`s also now allegations that he suppressed evidence, didn`t disclose favorable DNA evidence, and that`s shocking. It`s very rare for a prosecutor to actually get in trouble. So I`m glad that in this case the bar has taken action.

BECK: Yes, this guy is incredible the way he, I mean, at best, the way he botched everything. But you can`t say that he botched not talking to the accuser, not talking to the accused. Where did -- what was he thinking? Was it only about politics?

GREENBERG: It seems like it. Not talking to the accused is OK, because they can remain silent. Not talking to the accuser, how could you not talk to the person who made these allegations and at least form your own opinion of whether or not they`re believable?

BECK: OK. I`m not a guy -- I don`t believe in lawsuits and, you know, hey, mistakes happen, et cetera, et cetera. But I look at these Duke lacrosse kids and I think to myself, cha-ching.

Can they go after, for instance, the school? The school -- oh, that was big of them -- invited them back to -- to come back to -- you know, to come back and play and go back to school. I think that`s -- I think that`s a slap in the face. You threw me out when I -- when I was accused of something. Now all of a sudden you ask me to come back? Can they sue the school?

GREENBERG: I don`t know that they can school the sue if the school followed the policies and the code of conduct that they lay out in the handbook. But why is the school throwing them out? Aren`t we presumed innocent until proven guilty?

BECK: I -- I honestly always thought so. What about the accuser? They say that -- somebody is reporting today she had her child today. Can she be sued?

GREENBERG: She can certainly be sued for malicious prosecution if the allegations are proven false. But my guess is she doesn`t have a lot of money, given her background and so forth.

BECK: Around a stripper pole. Steven, thanks a lot. Be back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right, welcome to "The Real Story."

Now, on yesterday`s radio program, I asked listeners to call in with their predictions for 2007. Most of them were, you know, ridiculous, things like, you know, that this TV show would beat the TV Guide Channel in ratings in 2007. Hello? It`s the TV Guide Channel.

But there was one prediction that actually stood out. A guy named Michael called me up, and told me that his prediction was that Phoenix, Arizona, would be involved with something huge this year on the terrorism front. He said there have been too many stories involving that city lately for all of it to be coincidence.

Well, if you know me at all, I am just conspiratorial enough to be interested in something like that. And lucky for me, probably unfortunately for you, I`ve also got a full TV staff of journalists to put to work on my whims and hunches. So I did.

Here is "The Real Story" tonight. Michael, you`re right: An awful lot of isolated incidents going on involving Phoenix. And if you look at each of them individually, you kind of go, "Wow, that`s kind of interesting." But you put them all together? And, well, you decide.

First, you remember that FBI memo -- it came out right before 9/11, caused this huge uproar politically because supposedly that was the document that had the idea that Osama bin Laden was sending terrorists to flight schools in the U.S. And nobody did anything about it. Well, guess what? You know what that memo was actually called? The "Phoenix memo," because it was written by the Phoenix FBI.

It reads, in part, "Phoenix has observed an inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest who are attending civil aviation colleges in the state of Arizona." Hmm, interesting, right?

Now, and when the 9/11 report finally was issued, it contained 59 references to terrorist activity in Arizona and mentioned, for the first time, the existence of a highly classified FBI-CIA report titled, "Arizona: Long Range Nexus for Islamic Extremists," end quote. That report still hasn`t been made public. We don`t know what that says. Nothing to see here people. Move along. Shh.

Now, fast forward. Remember in past -- what was it? -- I think it was November. The guy who was stopped by Detroit police and was found to be carrying $80,000 in cash, he had information about cyanide on him, nuclear power plants, and suitcase bombs, along with newspapers commemorating the 9/11 attacks.

Now, just in case you think all of that is a coincidence, he also had a handwritten note that said, quote, "This community is angry. Something is going to happen. We`re just going to see justice. This is a powder keg waiting to go off," end quote. Oh, oh, I forgot one other thing that I failed to mention here. When he was arrested, he was arrested in the airport on his way to Phoenix.

Now, move ahead a couple of other weeks. You remember the six imams who were kicked off the flight after acting suspiciously like the 9/11 terrorists? Yes, guess where they were headed: Phoenix.

But here`s the best part. Despite all of those "isolated incidents," despite the fact that Arizona sits right on our unsecured border with Mexico, and the fact that Arizona has been called, quote, "the most important nexus for international jihad outside of Pakistan and the Middle East," the city of Phoenix lost 60 percent of their homeland security funding last year. That`s more than any other urban area.

Michael, this is one prediction I hope you are wrong about, my friend. But we will be keeping our eyes on Phoenix, Arizona, this year, because I fear you may be onto something.

Next, the first 100 hours of Congress got under way today. They promised to do, you know, the right thing. They`re going to dig right in to working those big, big problems. They`re going to fix them, important issues like ethics and minimum wage and stem cell research. Congress, did I miss something here? Do you have your finger on the pulse of the American people? I`m not really sure.

"The Real Story" is that, despite all of the election year promises, illegal immigration, nowhere. Oh, it`s a huge problem, and our leadership continues to ignore it.

Now, I know that most of us have very short-term memories, and it is easy to lose passion on an issue when it`s not in the news every day, so let me bring some of that passion back for you with a couple of unbelievable stories that virtually no one else is covering, and they`re certainly not talking about it in the first 100 hours of Congress.

First, a state government in Mexico is reportedly intending to hand out portable GPS devices to illegal immigrants this year to help them arrive safely in the United States. I`m not kidding you.

Apparently, the main illegal entry route into Arizona -- hey, wait a minute, there`s Arizona again -- is actually so tough to navigate that the Mexican government feels they need a little satellite help to get there.

The state of Pueblo expects 200,000 people to take the devices this year alone. And once they navigate their way here by turn-by-turn directions, some of them will end up buying fake Social Security cards and IDs and then using it to get a job here.

Now, in the course of that job, those illegal workers will pay Social Security taxes, just like the rest of us, even though they have fake accounts. But here`s where things get really insane: After breaking into the country, using fake documents to get work, an illegal may soon be able to actually claim those Social Security benefits.

A new agreement, if signed by the president, would allow an illegal alien who subsequently becomes legal to claim benefits for the work they did prior to becoming a citizen. Put it another way: We`ll ignore how you got here, how you got your job, the fact that you, you know, went and bought illegal documents, as long as you do the right thing later. Are you outraged yet?

Well, try this on for size. What if I told you that, while most Americans, you and me, we need 10 years of work to qualify for benefits for Social Security, Mexicans will qualify within as little as 18 months of work. Now, are you getting that rage back?

I hope so, because our leaders once again have proven that the only way this insanity will end is through the will of the people. Steve Camarota, he is the director of research in the Center for Immigration Studies.

What is this bill?

STEVE CAMAROTA, CENTER OF IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Well, what it`s called is the Totalization Agreement. It was negotiated with the State Department and Mexico. And what it basically does is it gives people credit towards collecting Social Security for work they do in Mexico and in the United States.

So, if you worked in Mexico, say, for eight years and then came to the United States and worked for two years, you could collect U.S. Social Security benefits. And you`d want to, because our system is so much more generous than theirs.

BECK: I mean, I can`t -- I mean, I just can`t even begin to understand this. I`ve got to work for 10 years. You can qualify for as little as 18 months. I mean, this is handing candy out on the border, is it not?

CAMAROTA: Yes, now, basically we do have these agreements with other advanced industrialized democracies that cover a small number of people in which both programs are, you know, roughly comparable, quite generous.

Mexico`s social security system doesn`t cover most of their workers; only about 40 percent are actually covered. And it doesn`t give you very much when you retire. So you really -- what you want to do is get a few years in the U.S. of working so that you can file under the U.S. system, because it gives you so much more and it gives it to you in perpetuity.

BECK: This is a subsidy for Mexico; that`s all this is. I mean, why wouldn`t you come over the border in the middle of the night and work 18 months and be able to move back to Mexico and have our benefits here? It`s not like Belgium. I believe we have like 300 people that we`re doing this with, because you did mention that we have other treaties. There`s like 300 people. How many people are we talking about with Mexico?

CAMAROTA: Well, obviously, it covers an enormous number of people. There are probably about 6 million, say, roughly speaking, Mexican nationals working in the United States. About half of them are here illegally, roughly speaking. So we`re talking millions of people. And we`re also talking very low-wage workers.

So it`s kind of a threat to the whole Social Security system, because you`re adding a whole lot of poor people who don`t pay a lot in Social Security taxes to the system.

BECK: This is insanity. You know, I just saw a number -- and tell me if this number is right, if you even have it -- I just saw a number on, in 2004, what we paid illegal aliens in tax refunds, 2004. Do you know this number?

CAMAROTA: Yes, I believe -- the figure I`ve heard is about $10 billion. That`s based on estimates that the Treasury Department has done itself, $10 billion they paid back to illegal aliens.

BECK: That is insane. We`re paying them $10 billion, and we can`t arrest them, we can`t even find them, we don`t even know -- $10 billion? And now we`re giving them Social Security, one that we don`t need another country to sabotage for us. We`re doing it ourselves. The whole thing is going to collapse.

CAMAROTA: Yes, and what`s worse than that is, that the IRS issues them tax I.D. numbers so that they can then file their income tax with their false Social Security numbers so that we can give them their $10 billion back.

BECK: OK, all right. So the last thing here -- let me just role play here for a second. I`m an illegal alien. I have to now go to the government and prove to the government that I have a fake I.D., that I bought a fake Social Security card on the street in the black market, and then the government rewards me for that, right?

CAMAROTA: Yes, in effect, sure. Once you get legal status, then you apply for the credits that you earned while you were an illegal alien. And the way you do that is like you said: You show your false documents. You bring out your bogus tax returns, and so forth.

BECK: I`ve got to tell you, Steve, the whole world is upside down. There are times I don`t even begin to understand it. Thanks so much.

CAMAROTA: Sure.

BECK: That is "The Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about this insanity or you have other insanity that you want to share with us, please, visit glennbeck.com and share it at the "Real Story" button right on the front page at glennbeck.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right, in the movie "2001," Stanley Kubrick envisioned this world of computers that had minds of their own, and, unfortunately, computers didn`t always see eye-to-eye with the humans. Remember this? Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t know what you`re talking about, Hal.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I`m afraid that`s something I cannot allow to happen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where the hell did you get that idea, Hal?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK, while now this is science fiction from the past, some feel that it`s more like science fact of the future. Pattern recognition is the area of research where computers are taught to recognize abstract patterns. This is a capability that dominates our human thinking.

A pioneer in this area of study is Ray Kurzweil. This guy is freaky. Bill Gates has called him the "best in the world" at predicting the future of artificial intelligence. You better listen to him when he says computers will have consciousness in just 25 years.

Ray, explain that. I mean, go back to -- if you can, set it to the movie with Will Smith, what was it, "I, Robot." Is that what the future looks like with consciousness, with computers that have a mind of their own?

RAY KURZWEIL, INVENTOR: Well, a lot of this science futures in movies are negative. I think future computers will be very much like us, but computers are getting smarter and smarter. They`re doubling in power every year. We`re learning how the human brain works. And within 25 years, I`d say by 2029, we`ll have computers that are at human levels, including our emotional intelligence.

BECK: I remember I read, I think it was in your book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" that came out, how long ago did that come out?

KURZWEIL: That was in 1990.

BECK: OK. And you said at that time that, by 2050, you will go to turn your computer off, and it will say, "I`m lonely." Is this the kind of stuff that you`re talking about?

KURZWEIL: Yes. Actually, me prediction then was by 2029, which is still my prediction, computers will be equal intelligence to human beings, including emotional intelligence, which is actually the cutting edge of human intelligence, being happy, funny, angry, loving. Those are actually the most intelligent things we do and the most complicated.

But we`re actually learning how the human brain works. We`re creating models and simulations of brain regions. And that`s growing exponentially. Within 23 years, we`ll all really understand how the human brain works, and we`ll have very powerful computers.

BECK: All right. You are a guy who you don`t believe -- I mean, there`s a chance that you say you will never die.

KURZWEIL: That`s another issue I`m working on, reprogramming by biochemistry, according to aging tests, I`ve only aged about two years in the last 18 years. And so I plan to be around and in good shape and hopefully actually younger than I am now by 2029.

BECK: OK, again, that`s -- I mean, we can spend an hour just on that. This is also not only through supplements that you take, but also you believe nanotechnology will be introduced soon, where it will be able to go into your body and repair your body as we`re walking around.

KURZWEIL: That`s why it`s important to take care of yourself now the old-fashioned way. We will have blood-cell-sized robots going inside our bodies, keeping us healthy from inside.

If that sounds very futuristic, I point out there are already many exciting experiments where we`re doing that in animals, when scientists cured Type I diabetes with a blood cell science device. Thousands of them are in the bloodstream releasing insulin.

But within 20 years, these nanobots, these blood-cell-sized robots, will be intelligent, they`ll have computers, they`ll be on the Internet, they`ll be going inside our bodies destroying cancer cells, removing debris, correcting DNA errors, and basically keeping us young, reversing aging and disease processes.

BECK: How long do you think that the human body, in the future, how long will we live?

KURZWEIL: We can indefinitely repair anything that goes wrong. I mean, how long does a house last? It lasts indefinitely. If anything goes wrong, you fix it.

Well, we know how to fix a house, because we understand how houses work. We are making progress at an exponential rate at understanding how our bodies work. And by the late 2020s, we`ll be able to actually fix anything that goes wrong. We`ll fully understand biology, and we`ll have the means to just repair from inside, with these blood-cell-sized devices at the cellular level, anything that goes wrong, and really indefinitely extend human life.

BECK: Name of your latest book, sir?

KURZWEIL: "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology."

BECK: Unbelievable. Ray, thank you very much.

KURZWEIL: My pleasure.

BECK: Let`s check in now with NANCY GRACE to she what she`s got coming up on the show tonight -- Nancy?

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Glenn, you stick with the Diet Coke. I will have a frozen O.J. Finally, a judge takes justice into his own hands, freezes assets estimated at over $1 million blood money of O.J. Simpson`s how-to- commit-murder manual. And he should know, after the brutal murders of Simpson`s wife, Nicole Brown, and friend, Ron Goldman.

And, Glenn, tonight, a hysterectomy ordered for a 6-year-old little girl? Her parents taking extreme measures to stop her from ever growing up, a child frozen in time for her parents` convenience? They say it`s for her own good. But, Glenn, is it even legal?

BECK: Don`t forget: Check out Nancy tonight at 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Up on my Web site at glennbeck.com, there is a sign up for our free e-mail newsletter. Check it out. Now, every few days, I usually send a stupid rant, something I`m usually afraid to bore the entire audience about.

But the other day I sent out a question: What should my New Year`s resolutions be? Well, it seems like you`ve quite a lot that you would like me to change.

Jim wrote back and said, "Don`t say `not so much` so much." Thanks, Jim. I`ve actually been trying to pare that down with, you know, with the significantly more time consuming, "I`m not saying that, but I`m not, not saying that either." I`ll let you know how the focus groups turn out.

Sabra says, "Wear more pink." Oh, come on, I think I wear enough pink, though although I did have an idea to avoid buying new clothes for my new daughter, Cheyenne. I think I should just start washing my older son`s, Raphe, red and white clothing together. Plenty of pink clothes, and I don`t have to buy any more outfits that she`ll outgrow in, like, 48 hours.

Heidi writes, "I wish Glenn would resolve to stop interrupting his guests so much on the program. Sometimes this comes through very disrespectful."

Look, you know, people have been talking to me about this for a while. It`s like trying to lose weight. It`s a wasted resolution. It`s not going to happen.

Dave writes, "I believe the GLENN BECK show`s New Year`s resolution should be to avoid the use of those cute made-up names, for example, TomKat or Brangelina or K-Fed."

When you say something like K-Fed do you instantly feel dumber, or is it just me? I`m just saying.

April writes, "I think your main New Year`s resolution should be to stop telling the truth. Sometimes it really hurts to hear."

That`s just a suck up. I think I know what you`re really saying, and I`m sorry, the answer is, no, I`m happily married.

Susan writes, "I realize that this isn`t much of a challenge, but I think you should work the word "Armageddon" into each show, whether or not its context is serious."

Yes, you`re right, that wouldn`t be real hard. But I do think we should all let the word "Armageddon" remind us of a simpler time, when our biggest threat was a giant asteroid, and it seemed like Ben Affleck would be around forever.

Nancy`s idea for a resolution for me is, "I think Glenn`s 2007 resolution should be to never interview Danny Bonaduce or repeat that show ever again." You know, I`ve got to tell you, I feel bad for Danny Bonaduce. He was a victim of our lack of material that could possibly qualify as a "best of." Tomorrow, Janice Dickinson. And if it`s good, we`ll repeat it 100 times. We will.

END