Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Election `08 Already Getting Dirty; Who Should Get Custody in Britney Spears, Anna Nicole Smith Cases?; What Should U.N. Do with Iran?

Aired February 22, 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: Coming up, even though the presidential election is 21 months away, the campaign is already getting dirty. I`ll tell you who and why.
Plus, the latest on Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears. She`s checked back into rehab again. I`m not kidding.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight brought to you by Decision `08. Because it`s never too early to start getting sick of politicians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Would you please check your calendar on the fridge? I checked mine. It says February 2007. I believe the first primaries won`t take place until next winter, and the election actually happens the fall after that.

But in spite of all of this, mud is already being thrown between Hillary Clinton and her main Democratic rival, Barack Obama. At the center of this tiff is Hollywood mogul, David Geffen, the former Clinton pal turned Obama supporter. He was critical of Bill and Hillary in a new interview published in the "New York Times", and this has sparked a very annoying and hypocritical war of words.

Here`s the point tonight. Would you ever want to be president? I mean, who in their right mind would ever want to run for president? Seriously, if you`re at all capable, wouldn`t you rather just run a big company or something and put your feet up at night?

Here`s how I got there. For those of you who don`t know who David Geffen is, do you remember Dreamworks, SKG? He was the "G". He used to be a big supporter of the Clintons, to the tune of $18 million in donations and sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom. But he`s decided that Obama is his man now. And in Maureen Dowd`s column, he articulated why, and the Clintons are all upset about it and now demanding that Obama return any money that Geffen donated to them.

But in looking at the remarks, I`m wondering if Geffen was wrong or if he was just brutally honest. Let me take a look at these remarks one by one. This is what he said.

First, that Hillary was a polarizing figure. Uh, yes.

That Bill is a reckless guy. You are correct, sir.

And then he said, "Everybody in politics lies but the Clintons do it with such ease that it`s troubling." "I did not sleep with that woman." I think I`d have to say yes on that one, as well.

Now, the next one is -- final one, is that Obama is not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. True and true. So what did he say that was so bad except for the truth?

That being said, I have to tell you, Geffen is a little hacked off at the Clintons, because -- and I believe it`s a personal vendetta. In 2001, Geffen asked President Clinton to pardon a Native American friend of his. President Clinton turned down his request. Clinton did, however, pardon his billionaire buddy, Mark Rich, instead.

By the way, Geffen`s friend murdered two FBI agents. Gee, I wonder why Bill Clinton wouldn`t pardon him? So instead he conversely pardoned his billionaire friend, Mark Rich. Geffen has now turned his attention and his wallet to Barack Obama.

So now Hillary wants Obama to apologize. He`s done nothing to apologize. I mean, you got a problem, Hillary, take it up with Geffen not with Barack.

But here is where it really gets interesting. This is not about the truth. It`s about politics.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are great at moving people off of message. This is their go-to play. They know how to operate in the eye of the storm. Is there anything left to say about the Clintons that you think actually offends them? I mean, they`ve been called scumbags to killers by their political opponents. What could you possibly say about the Clintons that they haven`t already heard at least a dozen times?

They`re not offended by Geffen`s remarks. They`re trying to move Obama off message and put him on the defensive, and it appears they may have succeeded. We are now witnessing the dark side of the force, the slime inside the beltway. The luster may soon start to come off of Barack Obama if he gets down and rolls in the mud with pigs.

Here`s what I know tonight. We are a year and nine months away from the election, and it`s already getting nasty and ugly. Our long national nightmare is going to get even longer in the future, because now states are jockeying to have their primaries moved earlier, moving the whole process up.

Here`s what I don`t know. How in the world can someone keep their character and their sanity and still run for president? Two years of this nonsense?

John F. Harris, he is the author of "The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House".

John, do you really think that Bill and Hillary were offended by these comments?

JOHN F. HARRIS, AUTHOR, "THE SURVIVOR": Sure. I don`t doubt it. They were -- Geffen has been a friend of theirs in the past, and I`m sure they were bothered by it. Clearly, they don`t like the uproar that it`s caused.

BECK: Come on. This is -- I mean, this is what they do. They go negative on somebody going negative.

HARRIS: Well, I think you`re right about how they decided to respond to that. Clearly, what they`re trying to do is get Obama, rough up his clean image by making it look like he`s a politician, as usual. But I don`t doubt that they were genuinely surprised and ticked off by this.

BECK: You know, I have to tell you. What I question is not Bill and Hillary question on this. I question David Geffen. How do you raise $18 million for somebody and then say these things about them?

HARRIS: Sure. Politics are rough business, isn`t it? The question is that I have, you know what he said about that Obama he likes because he`s not with the Clinton royal family and he`s not with the Bush royal family.

How many people out there also are of that mind? That is, they don`t want to relive the 1990s era disputes about Mark Rich, about Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers. They want to turn the page. If there`s a lot of people out there who think like this, Glenn, that could be a problem for Hillary`s campaign.

BECK: Yes. I have to tell you, I think that goes deeper than just Mark Rich and Monica Lewinsky. I mean, earlier this week there was that Monica Lewinsky poll that came out. I was really uncomfortable talking about it, because I`m like, "Oh, geez. I don`t want to talk about this again."

But I think it goes deeper than that. I think that it`s going to be really hard for anybody to win if you`re inside the beltway now, just because nobody really wants to talk about Iraq either. You are -- everybody in Washington has been slimed. I think it`s going to take an outsider. Or an outsider at least has a much better chance at winning this year.

HARRIS: Well, and just -- my question would be does Al Gore count as an outsider? You`ve been watching him sort of -- he`s hanging back. But a lot of people think that he might yet get in this race, especially if he sees Obama and Clinton rough it up. And people say, "Hey, I want somebody else." So I wouldn`t rule that out as a late entrance among the Democrats.

BECK: I`m going to tell you, I said in my office a couple weeks ago, I`m going to do a monologue on the radio on this here in a couple of days. I said -- and everybody was looking at me like I was crazy. I think Al Gore is building an army of young. I really do.

I mean, I think this whole global climate change thing is really about him building a new base to move forward. I mean, look at -- he`s doing all of these concerts all around in key states. I mean, this guy is really quite sharp.

HARRIS: Well, I do -- don`t believe that it`s just about politics with Al Gore. He`s believed this for a long time, been talking about it for a good 20 years or so.

But I think you`re right when you identify this as potentially being an issue with real political heat behind it.

BECK: Do you think that Rudy Giuliani is -- well, first of all, do you think that Hillary will get the nomination?

HARRIS: I think if Al Gore doesn`t get in we have to consider her the odds-on favorite, yes.

BECK: OK. So the best candidate for Rudy Giuliani to run against would be Hillary Clinton, because they`re the only ones that can`t play the private life card. Because Rudy Giuliani has problems in his private life, but I think a lot of people will have a problem. I mean, those two, they`re never going to sling mud at each other about their private life. Right?

HARRIS: Well, Glenn, but there`s a lot of voters. And we saw this in the Clinton years. You`re offended by the Clintons` private life, but a lot of people have decided that that`s not important to how they`re going to vote. You have to remember, this is not an electorate made up of, you know, 200 million Glenn Becks. There are a lot of people who are -- different views about that.

BECK: I understand that. I will tell you what I`m surprised at is how many people like me -- I was offended not by the private life -- well, yes, I am, but that wasn`t a reason to impeach him. But I`m offended by private life. I think character matters.

What I`m really surprised at is how many conservatives will now call me up. Because I will say I`ve got a problem with Rudy Giuliani. I want to make sure we check into his character first. And how many people say, "Oh, character doesn`t matter here on this. His private life." Excuse me? Where were you in the Monica Lewinsky thing? A lot of people are still looking at not right-wrong but left-right.

HARRIS: Well, people measure character and gauge it in different ways. A lot of Giuliani supporters would say look, he showed his character in those days after 9/11. You know, look at just the journalists -- our journalists here at Politico.com, who honestly would love to see a race between two titans like Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. That would be a fantastic race.

I`m a little skeptical that Giuliani can get the nomination, although he`s ahead in the polls right now. This was the race we all expected to see in 2000 when Hillary ran for Senate, didn`t get it. Maybe in 2008 we will.

BECK: All right. John, thanks a lot.

HARRIS: Thank you.

BECK: Coming up, Britney`s third trip to rehab in a week. How is it that K. Fed is looking like the responsible parent?

And speaking of train wrecks, the latest from the Anna Nicole courtroom chaos.

Plus, Iran has failed to halt it`s uranium enrichment by the U.N. deadline and their weapon development continues. Does the U.N. have a backbone? I don`t think so.

And Bank of America blaming the Patriot Act for illegal aliens to be able to use their service. We`ll explain as we continue our weeklong border series in tonight`s "Real Story".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Click on "The Drudge Report" right now and look at the front page. Those feet are freaking me out. The baby that`s born at 22 weeks and is getting ready to leave the hospital, it`s -- what is it? Nine ounces?

I look at the feet and I just think gummy feet. I`m sorry, but they look like gummy feet. I would be tempted to -- no, I would. It would be like, man, they look delicious. I think they`d taste like root beer. I think those are root beer gummy feet, I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I apologize for that. But that`s what they look like.

Now Britney is back in rehab again.

Meanwhile, the Anna Nicole hearing has dragged on for the fifth day. You know, we all got problems. We do things we`re not proud of. Screwing up, basic part of being human. But when most of us stumble there aren`t photographers and camera crews watching us and then plastering all those images in magazines and on TV.

The Anna Nicole`s and the Britney`s of the world have to suffer the consequences of their actions under the spotlight. Of course, then again, they`re worth hundreds of millions of dollars. So sucks to be you, huh?

Well, what about the kids? Anna Nicole Smith left behind baby daughter Dannielynn. Britney Spears has two sons, Shawn Preston and Jaden. Just because their parents are making a mess of their lives for all the world to see, do the kids deserve to get caught in the cross-fire as collateral damage?

Wendy Murphy is a former prosecutor and now professor at New England Law School of Law.

Wendy, let me start with Britney. I`ve got to tell you. You could have come to me, you know, in September and said, "Glenn, by February, you`re going to be thinking K. Fed deserves these kids," and I would have called you crazy. But he does. Now will he?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, you know, just because she`s having a tough time doesn`t make him a good father. You don`t just win by default.

BECK: In this case he looks like -- he looks like Jesus.

MURPHY: Well, OK. Relatively speaking at the moment, you might be right.

BECK: Yes, right.

MURPHY: But, you know, we don`t nearly know as much as about her parenting skills as we know about her underpants or lack or thereof and her apparent problems with substance abuse.

BECK: And her dropping of the baby we just saw, and the driving with the baby, using the baby as an air bag. I mean...

MURPHY: Glenn, Glenn, if Michael Jackson can keep his kids, Britney - - if that`s the standard, Britney Spears will have to inject heroin into her own arm on television before she loses custody.

No, it`s really important to remember that we are not being fair to her when we overindulge bad parenting by other celebrities. We give them a total pass.

Anna Nicole Smith, everyone seems to know, she spends her entire life doped up. She gets pregnant, has a baby, doped up. Nobody ever suggested she should lose little Dannielynn.

BECK: Well, I mean, I think everybody with a brain was saying how come she has that little child with her?

Let me -- let me switch to Anna Nicole here. Because Larry Birkhead was on the stand today. And I want to get your response to this. Play a little clip of Larry Birkhead on the stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LARRY BIRKHEAD, EX-BOYFRIEND OF ANNA NICOLE SMITH: I missed the delivery of my child. I`ve had to pay $4.99 for magazines to see what my child looks like. I`ve had to call and send FedEx Christmas gifts for my child. And I`ve missed everything that you can`t get back. So maybe some day, maybe, I`m not going to say yes today. But the more he fights me and the more he takes, the less likely he`ll get anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK. So he`s on the stand. And he says something -- because I thought this guy was the father the whole time. But then he says that, you know, "I was duped. I was told to back off to, to not claim this as my child publicly," et cetera, et cetera. Why would any father do that?

MURPHY: Why would Howard K. Stern just outright lie about being the child`s father? I mean, I think the answer to all these "whys" is tied to a few "S`s" with a line down the middle, if you know what I mean. Everyone seems to lie for money. Wow. In this case isn`t that really the underlying story?

I think Birkhead came across rather well, if a bit of a dope. I thought he seemed the most sincere. And you know what? The thing that galls me the most is the judge`s insistence that talking about paternity seems to be unfair.

BECK: Beyond that, let me play the -- let me play the clip here from the judge today on this very topic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE LARRY SEIDLIN, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA: Well, I made a deal. A deal is a deal. A made a deal. I stick by a deal. And I said you will not have to submit anyone at this point in time to DNA testing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Why would he do that?

MURPHY: You know, you think he was running a courtroom or, you know, the marketplace down in the town square. Making a deal with a guy who has an awful lot to say who gets into that courtroom and doesn`t have to answer any of the tough questions.

Remember we talked about this earlier in the week. I said this judge made a deal that Howard K. Stern said, "I`m not coming there unless you prevent the lawyers from asking me those nasty questions about paternity and the drugs and why I happened to be at both deaths," untimely drug- related deaths.

BECK: But why would the judge make that deal? I mean, they have to settle this in court. Wasn`t this the court?

MURPHY: You know what? Because I think this judge was only thinking about this judge. He wanted his three days of his try-out for the next judge`s reality show, and he was going to do it, and it wasn`t going to be nearly as good a show if Howard K. Stern didn`t show up. He made a deal because it plays better on television. Shame on him. That`s my opinion.

You cannot, as a judge, explain to me with a straight face why Howard K. Stern should not have to answer questions about paternity. And, frankly, even if he says, "I don`t want to answer," which is fine, then you say, "I hereby draw a negative inference. You lose. You`re not the daddy. Because the real daddy would actually tell the truth and open his mouth for a Q-tip."

BECK: OK. So now what is the next step on the paternity? How long is it going to take before we get Dannielynn to the actual verified father?

MURPHY: You know, I don`t know the answer, because I`m not an expert in Bahamian law. But I know that Howard K. Stern is sitting pretty in the Bahamas, where their laws are so ridiculous. You are the presumed father if you were at the birth, sign the papers and live with the mother for a period of time before she gave birth. It`s really hard to challenge that.

BECK: So wait a minute. So he can leave the country and go back to the Bahamas and then just live there with the child?

MURPHY: In a mansion for which he paid not a dime that was roughly stolen from the owners.

BECK: Oh, my God.

MURPHY: Yes. Because the Bahamian laws are not remotely civilized compared to ours, which aren`t that great to begin with. And the -- one hopes that people in the Bahamas and hopefully some folks here are doing a murder investigation behind the scenes. That may help clear up a lot of it.

BECK: OK. Wendy, thanks a lot.

Let`s check in now with Nancy Grace and see what she`s got going on in the show tonight -- Nancy.

NANCY GRACE, HOST, "NANCY GRACE": Breaking news tonight, Glenn. A ruling comes down in a Florida courtroom regarding the body of Anna Nicole Smith, the 39-year-old cover girl found dead in her hotel room. And since then there`s been nothing but legal wrangling amongst the attorneys, 18 in all. But the judge`s final decision is no decision at all. We go live to Florida.

And also tonight, the desperate search for a Michigan mother of two. She`s been missing for days now. We want answers, Glenn.

BECK: Remember, you can catch Nancy right here on "Headline Prime" tonight at 8 and 10 p.m. Eastern.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Is your in-box yearning for some special attention? Then sign up for the free Glenn Beck e-mail newsletter. Just go to GlennBeck.com and look for the entry form on the right side of the screen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. The deadline for Iran to halt their nuclear program has come and gone again. The report released today said it can`t guarantee it`s strictly for peaceful purposes. You think so?

President Ahmadinejad isn`t listening to U.N.`s tough talk. What a shock that is.

While the White House called the report`s findings, quote, "disappointing," the reality is that Iran is a child that needs a spanking. Only, the U.N. is the parent who keeps threatening one but never gives it. Sanctions against Iran will only work if they`re supported by the entire world`s force. And it seems that President Bush might agree, because a second aircraft carrier with its full battle group has parked itself in Iran`s backyard.

If you think that`s an overreaction, listen to what Ahmadinejad said yesterday. Quote, "Iran will not retreat one iota in its path to nuclear victory."

Now, Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of "The Iran Threat".

Alireza, the deadline has passed. And now we`re looking at sanctions? Now the U.N. is trying to decide what we should punish them with?

ALIREZA JAFARZADEH, AUTHOR, "IRAN THREAT": What I think the U.N. should have been prepared for this long ago. They should not even have wasted a day with coming up much tougher measures.

The sanctions should include oil, arms, technological and diplomatic sanctions. Because if it`s meaningful, it`s going to hurt the Iranian regime, not only economically but also sending a strong signal politically to the Iranian regime that the international community is going to be tough on them. But also to the Iranian people that the international community is going to be supportive of their efforts to unseat the ayatollahs.

BECK: You know, I have to tell you. I am -- war is the worst possible option with Iran. Sanctions are not going to work, because we`ve got the U.N. there. We`ve got to appeal to the people.

And I read a disturbing report this week that we were actually considering, and I hope we haven`t done this -- maybe you can verify -- turning over people that are against their regime in exchange for terrorists. Is that true?

JAFARZADEH: Well, unfortunately, Glenn, this is what the State Department has been doing for the past at least since 1997 when Khateimi (ph) took office, remember, the so-called moderate president.

BECK: Right.

JAFARZADEH: The State Department was trying to reach out to the Iranian regime, thinking that this way, by sacrificing the main Iranian opposition, they can, you know, modify the behavior of the Iranian regime.

They included the main opposition, known as the Majii Nahal (ph) on terrorist list in 1997. And then it further emboldened the Iranian regime. This is the same opposition that exposed all the major nuclear sites of Iran.

And in 2003, there were major efforts by the Iranian regime to get the United States to get the forces of the war (ph) based in Iraq north of Baghdad, to turn them over to Iranian regime in exchange for Iran`s, you know, passive actions in Iraq. You know, that clearly is going to backfire if it`s ever considered.

Right now the U.S. military is building a very, very good relationship with this opposition in Iraq. There are many people in the Congress from both sides of the aisle who were saying we`ve got to end the designation, the terrorist designation that the State Department put on this group in 1997, because the Iranian regime is making threats that are real. We need to reach out to the Iranian people and to the main opposition to strengthen it not hindering them.

BECK: We have got to reach out to the people. War is not the answer. Alireza, thank you very much.

Back in a minute with "The Real Story".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

We`re continuing our "Selling Out of the Border" series today with an update on Bank of America`s pilot program offering credit cards to people who just happen to be lacking Social Security numbers. I promised you all week that we wouldn`t stop talking about this story until Bank of America responded to the fact that this program caters to illegal immigrants. And now they have.

In today`s "Wall Street Journal," Bank of America CEO Kenneth D. Lewis says there`s been a harsh reaction to their program and that they are, quote, "feeling that passion that surrounds America`s unresolved immigration debate."

Oh, Kenneth, you have absolutely no idea. Now, I`d love to dissect every line of this unbelievably arrogant response for you, but I only have an hour. So let me sum it up here.

He starts by saying that the program isn`t meant for illegals at all. Illegals, what, from Mexico? Who knew? But a few paragraphs later, he drops the bombshell. Quote, "Reports have stated, in some cases, illegal immigrants are able to sign up for the bank`s products and services, and these reports are true." Well, isn`t that refreshingly honest?

He goes on to say that the U.S. Patriot Act allows them to accept official foreign government IDs and they can`t help it if some illegal immigrants may use those, as well.

But the real story is that Kenneth D. Lewis is absolutely lying to you. He`s trying to claim that his little bank, and it is a little bank with a heart, well, and $21 billion in profit last year, can`t distinguish legal from illegal applicants because our government allows them to accept those IDs from Mexico.

Well, I`m no billion-dollar bank CEO, but I am a thinker. And I saw this little form. It`s called an I-9, Kenny, and every U.S. worker has to fill it out because it proves that you`re legally here in the country. So Kenneth D. Lewis, why not simply require one more document in addition to foreign ID cards, like a reentry permit, an alien registration receipt, or an employment authorization document?

I`ll tell you why: Because that would stop illegal immigrants from opening accounts. That would tick off the Latino customers and, most importantly, that might hurt the profits and prevent Kenneth D. Lewis from taking home yet another $22 million in compensation this year.

Bank of America says they don`t market this program to illegal immigrants, but maybe Kenneth D. Lewis can explain to me why the pilot program is taking place in Los Angeles. Isn`t that kind of like selling coca plants in Colombia and claiming, "Drug lords aren`t our intended customers." What do you take us for, idiots?

Bank of America ended by the response by announcing their pilot program -- drum roll, please -- will continue. Why? Well, Kenneth D. Lewis himself said it best. Quote, "We hope that these people will become loyal Bank of America customers in the future, as their own financial needs grow."

Well, once again it`s absolutely clear: Money trumps everything. Well, guess what? I think that we`re worth more than the almighty dollar, so I`ve got a little announcement to make of my own. I`m not going to let this go, Kenneth. Bank of America, you may have the right to keep making money off illegal immigrants, but I have the responsibility to keep exposing you for it.

You know, it`s really convenient when businesses say they`re just following the law as they profit off of illegal immigration, but the real story is that these laws are made by politicians who were under pressure from those very companies.

I want you to think about this: Businesses pretend to care about immigration, but they demand access to cheap labor. They advocate tough workplace enforcement, but then they complain to their senators when the government`s raid will turn up illegal workers. That`s why you just have to laugh to yourself when you hear people say, "Gee, it`s legal. I mean, what do you want me to do?"

Please. You can`t look to the government to solve our illegal immigration problem. They`re part of the problem; they`re leading the problem. Everybody knows the story of the two border agents that are rotting in jail after being railroaded by our government.

But there`s another story about another border agent that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that we`ve all been sold out. And you`ve probably never even heard about it.

Seven years ago, a little Texas border town, four U.S. border agents are on a routine patrol, 4:00 in the morning, the sun still hours away from coming up. And things are quiet until a motion sensor alarm goes off. Now, they`re standing there along the border. They`re looking, the agents rush to the scene. They find a group of illegal immigrants running away.

Agent David Sipe, he pursues one of them. A fight ensues, and Agent Sipe hits the alien over the head with a flashlight that he`s carrying, because it`s dark, to subdue him. An investigation follows. The government decides that the real criminal here is -- surprise, surprise -- Agent Sipe. The next year, he`s convicted of using excessive force and fired from his job.

Now, only six years later has the truth finally come out. Our government, so intent on convicting one of their own, covered up a sweetheart deal that they made with the illegal alien.

Listen to this: They gave this illegal alien travel expenses, witness fees, free telephone use, a border-crossing permit and -- are you ready -- a Social Security card and a driver`s license in exchange for his testimony against Agent Sipe. They also withheld evidence that this alien had been caught another time by Border Patrol agents with another group of illegals, something the court later said proved that this guy was a coyote who transports other aliens.

After a new trial, Agent Sipe was acquitted. But in the years since the initial conviction, this guy has had to declare bankruptcy. He lost his home, was divorced by his wife. Meanwhile, the illegal alien received $80,000 in our money, a government settlement, and that guy bought his own Mexican ranch.

If you`re looking for our government to stand up for us, if you`re looking to our government to seal the border, to tell these companies like Bank of America to do the right thing, then you`re looking in the wrong place, Jack! The only person who aren`t putting the interests of Mexican drug smugglers and coyotes ahead of our border agents is us!

Former U.S. Border Patrol Agent David Sipe is here. His attorney, Jack Wolfe, is joining me now.

Mr. Wolfe, you`ve described this case as a pile of crap, bought and paid for, Social Security cards and driver`s license? Is that a regular occurrence?

JACK WOLFE, DAVID SIPE`S ATTORNEY: Well, I hope it`s not. In this particular case, they could have left him in jail or they could have let him go back to Mexico. The Mexican consulate was willing to bring him up here.

But if the one who`s providing them everything, then it makes them loyal to you, and that`s what the government wanted to do. They wanted to make these guys bought and paid for, and they would never have to worry about their testimony.

BECK: Not only did they get the Social Security card and the driver`s license and everything else, but I understand that, before the trial, this guy was given a card by the OIG. What exactly is the OIG?

WOLFE: Office of Inspector General. What the case agent did in this case is he gave him his business card and told him that, if you get stopped or if anything happens, you know, give it to them, and they`ll call me. Well, the guy got caught transporting aliens, and he gave them the card, and they let him go.

BECK: Unbelievable. Did anybody see "The Untouchables," when the guy, the bad guy took out the card from the mayor? This is what`s happening on our border.

And, David, how are you dealing with it? I understand that you actually want your job back. Are you insane?

DAVID SIPE, FORMER BORDER AGENT: No, sir. I enjoyed the job. I would do it again.

BECK: You`ve just been sold out by your own government.

SIPE: Exactly, and I want them to repay me. I want back what they took. There are some things I can`t get back. But what I can get back, I want it back.

BECK: Are you suing for past wages or anything, or do you just want your job back?

SIPE: Fortunately, the law that they used to terminate me is the same law that they`ll have to use -- that says I have to be reinstated. Under that law, it says back pay, and annual leave, and sick leave, and all that stuff. It`s not the material things that hurt the most, though. It`s the sentimental.

BECK: David, your fellow Border Patrol agents abandoned you on this, did they not?

SIPE: A little bit. I wouldn`t hold it against them, though, not the agents themselves. The leadership, they kind of hang you out. When something like this happens, they say, "Well, here he is."

BECK: Why? Why? Why is the government doing this?

SIPE: The Border Patrol does not like bad publicity. It would rather not have any publicity. But when this sort of thing happens, they want it to stay quiet. They want it to stay -- they want to be in the background.

WOLFE: Glenn, if I might, go back in history when this happened. At that time, a lot of the border alliance groups were really complaining about the Border Patrol, saying they`re violating people`s rights. I think the motivation behind Border Patrol management was, hey, we want to show that we police our own. And the fact -- if we have to sacrifice an agent, well, so what?

BECK: Jack, is anybody in Washington helping you guys? Is there anybody? Give me a name, for the love of Pete. Is there anybody helping you guys?

WOLFE: Well, the Border Patrol union is helping Mr. Sipe. And they filed papers so he`ll be reinstated. We`re waiting to see what happens then. If it doesn`t look good, then we`ll try to bring in some political support.

BECK: There is much more to this story. And, believe it or not, it is a very complicated tale. It involves the goat man. We`re trying to get both of you guys on the radio show either tomorrow or early next week to talk about this. It is an unbelievable story. We`ll bring it on the radio show, because it needs some time to lay it all out, but thank you very much.

WOLFE: Thank you, Glenn.

BECK: David, Jack, thank you. That`s "The Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about this or if you found a real story of your own that you`d like to tell us about, please do. Visit glennbeck.com and click on the "Real Story" button. Back in a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: America, Superman used to be our hero. Did anybody notice what wasn`t in Superman this last time he flew?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Where did you go?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To Krypton.

BECK: Superman, he stands for truth and justice. Pardon me. There`s something you`re missing there. No, not in this film, because Superman now needs to be marketed the whole world over. And God forbid we ever offend anybody by saying he stands for truth, justice and the America way. What the hell is the American way anymore? What is it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: You know, sadly we are now living in a world where nations like Iran are playing politics like poker. Maybe they`re bluffing about having nukes, maybe not. If they aren`t, the world changes in a flash. The thing is, they probably are bluffing, but we don`t know for sure.

See, that`s the game that people are playing these days, playing the odds and hoping that we always have the winning hand, because it`s the game we can`t afford to lose. We know, for instance, that Iran is a threat. Are they developing nuclear weapons or not? Some are saying now we`ve got to do more to defend ourselves against known enemies like Iran. Some are saying, no, no, no, let`s sit down and just talk to them.

We need to stay in a constant state of military readiness as a defense against those nations that could one day become enemies. What about Russia? What about China?

Jim Talent, he`s a former senator from Missouri, now a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Senator, you recently said that the U.S. is in at least a dangerous of a situation that we were in during the Cold War. What does that mean exactly?

FMR. SEN. JIM TALENT (R), HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, we face threats everywhere, Glenn. And, you know, the Cold War was basically a bipolar- type situation. It was a terrible threat, but we knew what it was, and it was relatively simple to prepare for.

We have a rising power of China ahead of schedule. We have the decline of democracy in Russia. We have a growing anti-Americanism and instability in South America. Everywhere in the Mideast is a threat. Nuclear proliferation, which you mentioned, we have a disunity in the Western alliance that we never had in the Cold War years.

And, demographically, the rise of Islam in Western Europe, these are all significant threats. And, as you know, the decisions that we make now regarding the structure of America`s defenses is going to determine the options that our leaders have five, 10 and 15 years from now.

BECK: Do you think we`re going to be in the same situation with our kids? Are kids going to grow up in this? Is this kind of a nonstop war that`s just going to spill on for years, and years, and years, like the Cold War did?

TALENT: The war on terror, I think, in one respect or another is liable to go on for quite a long time. But, look, if it`s not that, it will be something else, because, you know, the price of freedom is vigilance.

And when you are the symbol of freedom in the world, as the United States is, you`re always a target, you`re always vulnerable. The way to deter that is to be strong and to have what I called in the article I wrote recently and the speech I gave, the reality and the perception of American power is what underpins all those diplomatic efforts that you were talking about.

BECK: You know, everybody is -- I`m reading that everybody is seeing that, you know, a bipolar world would be great. Not if it`s Russia, and China, and Iran on the other side, balancing our power. And I think that`s what Russia is absolutely interested in.

Please tell me you think I`m crazy, that if things got really heated, an active war with Iran, that you don`t think that Russia would come to the aid of Iran. Do you think they would take that side?

TALENT: I don`t know whether they would militarily. They perceive themselves as having interest in balancing out, you know, what they see as America`s influence in that part of the world. Clearly, they`re there a destabilizing force. They`re undermining the efforts diplomatically.

But, Glenn, if it wasn`t them, it would be somebody else. And the way to prevent the war, as we saw in the Reagan years, was to be strong. I mean, when Jimmy Carter was president, he allowed us to weaken. He thought that was the way to peace. Well, we ended up with the hostage situation in Iran, with the Soviets attacking Afghanistan.

Reagan came in. The first thing he did, two double-digit increases in the defense budget, and it was that action that led, I think, eventually to the collapse of the Soviets, the victory in Desert Storm, and the relative degree of peace we had in the `90s.

BECK: But you look at that and you say, you know, let`s beef things up, let`s start preparing. We can`t even talk about a missile defense shield around our country. Otherwise, Russia immediately says, "Look, you`re starting hostilities, you`re starting yet another arms race."

TALENT: Yes, well, you know, we can`t let what other countries, you know, attempt to manipulate us, keep us from doing what we need to do to be strong. We need to be strong generally with regard to defense.

And we`re in more danger, clearly, of a rogue missile attack now than we ever were in the Cold War. And missile defense makes perfect sense. I don`t understand why the liberals are still resisting it, Glenn, because it ought to fit in with their philosophy, as well. It is a way of avoiding a war.

I mean, that`s the way to keep these people from considering whether they`re going to launch, is if they know or they strongly suspect that the missile won`t land anyway.

BECK: OK, Senator, thank you very much. We`ll talk to you again.

TALENT: Oh, anytime, Glenn. Thanks.

BECK: Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: You know, let me ask you this: Could you have possibly predicted that you might even be rooting for Kevin Federline to get custody of his kid, or Britney`s kid, or any kid, quite frankly? How is it he`s looking like the stable one in any relationship? It`s amazing that it has come to this.

All right, lots of e-mail coming in about both Britney and Anna Nicole. Cindy writes in, "Glenn, enough already. On five different news channels all you see is Anna Nicole Smith. Put the poor woman in the ground already, and let`s move on with our lives. Is there nothing else newsworthy? What about Iraq, Iran, China, economy, North Korea, immigration? I know there`s something out there. What is wrong with our society that the most important thing on the news is a nut job who shaves her head and checks into rehab and a drug-induced death of a sleazy blonde?"

You know, thanks for your honesty there. Tell me how you really feel. There are obviously more important issues than Anna Nicole Smith and where she gets buried and what dirt bag that knew her gets the cash. But this case I think makes a much larger point, not about some crazy stripper, reality show star, but about us.

It`s this sort of ridiculous nonsense, this behavior that our society just praises and loves, get your money at any cost, whether it`s acting like an idiot or exploiting someone who does. And while Anna Nicole is dead, the same thing is happening with Britney Spears in slow motion right in front of our eyes. And hopefully someone close to her is, instead of trying to make a buck on her, is trying to save her. It might get buried underneath the tabloid nature of everything, but that`s what really we need to focus on.

Daniel writes, "Glenn, love your show. There`s only one thing wrong: McGriddles. Can you please stop plugging McGriddles? If you have to plug McDonald`s, plug the Filet o` Fish or the Shamrock Shake."

First of all, I will never stop talking about McGriddles. My constant referencing of them is not a paid commercial. It`s just an acknowledgment of their sweet and salty deliciousness. Can`t we come together and create a world where you can love your Shamrock Shakes and I can love my McGriddles in harmony as one?

And how could you send such a hateful e-mail, only one day removed from National Pancake Day? If we can`t come together to be civil to one another during the week of the national pancake, when can we?

You can e-mail your pancake-related stories and recipes to GlennBeck@CNN.com. We`ll see you here tomorrow.

END