Return to Transcripts main page
Scientists Weigh in on Al Gore`s Environmental Arguments; Should John Couey Get Death Penalty?; Fathers, Daughters Take Purity Pledge
Aired March 13, 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, Al Gore is under attack, and you`re not going to believe by whom.
Plus, the death penalty debate over child killer John Couey. And a scandal at Oprah Winfrey`s school in South Africa.
That and more, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by "Al Gore`s Spooky Horror Chiller Theater", now unnecessarily scaring you in Boring-Vision. Awooo!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Well, newspaper article came out today which said scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore`s central points are exaggerated and they`re erroneous. They were alarmed, some say, at his alarmism.
And where did this article appear? What evil conservative "Wall Street Journal" rag did this come from? None. It came from "The New York Times".
Here`s the point tonight. Al Gore is finally being slammed in the face for his distortion of science and the facts, and it`s being done by "The New York Times". Some days it just doesn`t get any better.
Here`s how I got there. If you were one of the people who managed to stay awake during "An Inconvenient Truth", then you know what`s in it, that Al Gore talks about a future in which temperatures rise until the earth turns into a giant global fire, basically melting everybody and then drowning them in a giant tidal wave unless we act boldly. This guy makes me look like Captain Happy Pants and Mr. Sunshine all rolled up into one.
According to that noted right wing rag, "The New York Times", Al Gore, not so much. Don Easterbrook -- he`s a professor of geology -- says in the article that Gore`s statements are, quote, "full of inaccuracies" and need to be tempered with real data.
Sure, some people might say this guy is a big shill for big oil companies. Wrong, Don Easterbrook hasn`t been paid a nickel by the oil companies, and in his own words, he`s not a Republican. He`s part of a growing group of people who see global warming as a threat but are challenging the scare tactics of extremists.
The article also calls attention to Gore`s claims that our oceans would eventually rise by up to 20 feet destroying parts of New York and Florida along the way.
Turns out it seems Al may have accidentally mistaken feet for inches. The truth is the water level may rise by a maximum of 23 inches over the next 100 years. And that happy fact comes from the U.N., not exactly a credible source in my book. Still, a far cry from the "Poseidon" wave that Al depicts in his movie.
Now, to me, it`s about time that these people got reeled back in. In fact, it`s way past time. It`s amazing to me that it took a year to do it.
If one of these things is -- was just in a movie, just a movie, it wouldn`t be so bad. But "An Inconvenient Truth" is being shown in schools all across the country.
On my radio show, I have received so many calls from concerned parents who say, "My kids have had to watch this thing." In fact, I had a call from a guy, had to -- his 13-year-old daughter had to watch it four times in an art class, and the kids are getting lower grades if they dare to disagree with the facts in this movie.
Well, America, don`t worry, "The New York Times", the paper of record, is on it now. A year late and an Oscar later, but they`re on it.
Can you imagine how fast any conservative would have been taken apart by "The Times" had they used the scare tactics like this? I`m fully aware that, you know, pot calling the kettle black here. On this program, I do use scare tactics, sure. But I`m not exactly the TV show host of record.
I feel positively giddy today that "The New York Times" has finally started to show another point of view in this debate. Al Gore has been so self-righteous and so self-assured in telling us that there is absolutely no dissent on this truth. Anybody who disagrees with him is basically a fascist. People -- people like this, you know what? Don`t need to be taken down. They`ll eventually do it to themselves.
Here is what I know tonight. If you`re in college, look out, Jack. Al Gore is using you for his own personal political game. He is intentionally targeting the youth in America because he knows if he gets you young, he indoctrinates you now. They`ve got you for a long period of time. You`re being used by a very self-centered man.
Look, hear me clearly, global climate change is a reality, but the agenda being put forth by Al Gore and the U.N. amounts to global socialism, and that`s the real inconvenient truth.
Al Gore finally being targeted by "The New York Times" makes me want to go out and start a Styrofoam bonfire just to celebrate.
Here`s what I don`t know tonight. Why did it take "The Times" so long? It`s a year.
Joining me now is one of the scientists exploding in the "Times" piece, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, Don Easterbrook, and also Patrick Michael, senior fellow of environmental studies at the Cato Institute.
Don, let me start with you. You haven`t taken a dime, right, from oil?
DON EASTERBROOK, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY, WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: That`s right. I have never had any contact whatsoever with any oil company or any industrial firm. My research has been either government funded or university funded.
BECK: OK. And you say that we are on the verge of a global cooling cycle now?
EASTERBROOK: Right. My research has been in looking at cycles of climate change over the last 15,000 years, and especially in detail about the last 500 years.
And what we find is a recurring pattern which is entirely predictable and my projection is, rather than the soaring global warming that`s been predicted by the IPCC, that we are actually likely to incur a 30-year cooling period starting anytime between now and about 2010.
And by the end of the century, instead of having a ten-degree climate warming, it`s more likely to be less than one degree.
BECK: Just in the last few centuries, we have had global warming cycles that were far worse than that. I read in "The Times" piece today that there have been several times in the last, I think it was 15,000 years, where there have been cycles that were 20 times worse than this right now. True?
EASTERBROOK: That`s correct. Most of those that were of that magnitude occurred about 10,000 to about 15,000 years ago, and the ones that have occurred in the past 8,000 years or so are not as profound as that.
The big ones were then, but nonetheless, there have been at least ten times when global warming and the rates of global warming have been greater than we`re seeing right now.
BECK: So Patrick, let me go to you. And the U.N., I mean, I`ve never found the U.N. a source of credibility on very much, quite honestly, except when I was 6 and I was carrying the little UNICEF box around on Halloween.
This is not the full story of science from the U.N., and yet they`ve been deemed the source of truth on this.
PATRICK MICHAEL, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE: Indeed. And in fact, if we look at that U.N. report, it says specifically that there is no basis in the scientific literature existing at this time for these claims of massive sea level rise. That`s the U.N. saying that.
BECK: So how come this has -- how come this has been so wildly spun in hype? I mean...
MICHAEL: It`s an amazing story, Glenn. I challenge you to search through the scientific literature. You know, my heart yearns for reason on this debate, and it is so nice to see, you know, that "The New York Times" finally comes out and says, "Hey, here`s a headline, folks. Mr. Gore is exaggerating something."
BECK: Don, the -- the scary thing for me has been -- because I`m a guy who, you know what, look, if we`re hurting the planet, I want to do my part. I really will. I will sell my SUV and drive a Prius if that really would help. I want to know what`s going on.
But you can`t even question -- I mean, "The New York Times" coming out and doing this piece is a milestone here, because they have created a culture of fear where you are not even allowed to question this. It`s being taught in schools now as absolute fact. How frightening is that for you as a scientist?
EASTERBROOK: It`s disturbing as a scientist, because there`s definitely a move today in the direction that anybody who doesn`t sign on to CO2 as the cause of global warming is somehow either stupid or has some political reason or just some financial reason for saying that.
And it is true that scientists are being discouraged from putting out anything which is contrary to the CO2 version of global warming.
DOBBS: You say that CO2 doesn`t cause it?
EASTERBROOK: That`s correct. If you look at the last century, the warming is about one degree. But for the first 45 years, there was no rise in CO2, so you can`t blame half of it on CO2.
The big rise in CO2 was in 1945 to the present and during that time, during the first 30 years, the global climate actually got colder, when it should have been getting warmer. And it`s only in the last 30 years where global climates have warmed in concert with rise of CO2. Otherwise, CO2 is totally out of phase.
BECK: Patrick, what needs to happen for the hype to balance this out? I mean, how do you balance this from where we are right now?
MICHAEL: You have to stop the incentive for the hype. And unfortunately, my profession doesn`t seem to have any inclination to do this.
BECK: What`s the incentive for that?
MICHAEL: The incentive is $6.2 billion in funding a year. That`s a heck of a lot.
Think about the way things work here in Washington, D.C. Issues compete for each other for our money, which means they have to be presented in extremely shrill terms. If you don`t say, you know, if you don`t give us this money for global warming, your children are never going to grow up, you`re not going to get the money.
And guess what? Then the political process says, "Your children grew up. See, I saved you. Vote for me."
BECK: Don, Patrick, thanks a lot.
Coming up, life or death decisions are happening right now in the trial of convicted child killer John Couey. I`ll tell you whether he`ll get a date with the devil or not.
And President Bush heads for the border to Mexico for talks on free trade. Will he sacrifice our national security to save a few pesos? That`s in tonight`s "Real Story".
Plus, Oprah`s leadership academy is single-handedly improving the lives of 150,000 American -- South African girls. So why are some of the parents repaying her kindness with complaints? I`ll have the details from Johannesburg, coming up.
But first, believe it or not, in fairness, there is another global warming theory, and I`d like to explore it with you now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Fact, in the past 40 years, the average height of a human has increased by nearly two inches. There is no avoiding the truth. Mankind is moving dangerously closer and closer towards the sun`s deadly rays.
The answer is clear. No, the globe isn`t warming. We`re just all getting taller. The less you know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Imagine for just a second this horrifying scenario. Your 9- year-old daughter is asleep in her bed. She`s dreaming of the long life in front of her. Suddenly, somebody breaks into the house, unbeknownst to you, kidnaps her, imprisons her, brutally and repeatedly rapes and tortures her and then buries her alive in garbage bags. My goodness, as a father, I don`t know how I would go on.
It is hard to imagine a more horrific way to die. It`s also hard to imagine a guy more undeniably guilty than John Evander Couey. This is the guy that was convicted of that crime against Jessica Lunsford last week.
Now her defense attorneys are trying to spare his life, arguing that Couey should instead be given life without parole because they say he`s retarded. I don`t know about you, it didn`t really seem like he was retarded when he planned the kidnapping and the methodical rape and murder and burial of this 9-year-old girl.
Full disclosure: I`m anti-death penalty, but this case is making it awfully hard for me to stay consistent.
Wendy Murphy, she is the former prosecutor and now professor at the New England School of Law.
Wendy, scale of one to ten, ten being he`s absolutely retarded, one being no way, where do you put him?
WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: I think the defense is retarded, if you`ll forgive me. The guy is clearly a little whacky. I`m not going to argue against that. But retarded? Come on!
First of all, isn`t it nice that he just magically became retarded after he got caught? There is no good credible evidence that he has been retarded.
Remember, he`s a prior convicted sex offender. No one declared him retarded during those cases. He not only did the things you described, which by the way, takes an awful lot of brain power. He covered it up. He took off.
And when he was confronted by police, he lied, because that`s what people do when they don`t want to get caught. He gives the truly mentally retarded a bad name.
MURPHY: That`s what I don`t like about this.
BECK: So he has had an I.Q. test. The state says you can`t execute somebody with an I.Q. under 70. He`s got an I.Q. of, what, 65 they`re saying?
MURPHY: I suppose that`s one. There was also testimony that he got an 85 on another.
Let`s not get bogged down in the idea that, because some tests said 65 that makes him mentally retarded. There is a cottage industry out there of experts who, for a fee, will testify that virtually anybody is mentally retarded.
And I don`t mean to be cynical. This is not cynicism. This is reality. When the Supreme Court said we can`t execute mentally retarded people, guess how many new experts popped up ready to, you know, create those tests and give you a 65, wink, wink. That doesn`t make it real, the fact that an expert said, "I gave him a 65." It doesn`t make him mentally retarded; it means they found a good expert.
BECK: I am -- I`m anti-death penalty for only one reason, and that is I don`t want to face my maker and say I was part of a society that killed people unless it`s for protection. If I`m trying to protect my family, if I`m trying to protect my country, whatever, I will kill.
But you can take people like this and put them away for all time, and they have no chance of getting out. We don`t do that in our society. But you`re not anti- -- you`re anti-death penalty, as well, and yet you say there`s a strong case for it.
MURPHY: I`m not anti-death penalty for religious reasons. I just think it`s philosophically kind of a silly thing to have the government killing people in the name of justice and then expect us to treat other with civility. That`s my personal philosophical belief.
Reasonable people disagree, and I respect that. And frankly, it`s a voter`s call, and the people in Florida voted for it. So they`re entitled to see it meted out when appropriate.
And that means in this case, this man should face the ultimate penalty, period.
BECK: I`m thinking -- go ahead.
MURPHY: I was going to say, I don`t think people like being duped into voting against the death penalty. That`s what this case feels like to me.
BECK: Yes. We were going to say -- we were going to say the same thing. You said that it`s -- you know, the voters have spoken. The jurors are about to speak.
And I`ve got to tell you, because I`ve been a foreman on a jury and boy, was that a mistake. But I was a foreman on a jury and, you know, there is a sense that you`re being played. And when you think you`re being played, oh, look out, man, because it`s coming. Am I wrong? Am I just speaking from the one jury I was on?
MURPHY: No. I mean, unfortunately, not enough people have had the experience of sitting as jurors so that they can understand what it feels like to have that dog and pony show forced down their throats. It is very embarrassing that we have a criminal justice system that allows not the elucidation of truth but the distortion of truth in the name of justice.
Now it doesn`t matter how you and I feel about the death penalty, but for those who care about abolishing the death penalty, they should be up in arms about this case and the trickery that I think is going on here, because their cause will be disserved.
In other words, if people start to think they`re getting a raw deal, they`re getting fake information, that`s it`s all a dog and pony show, they`ll never come to the decision that you and I have come to, which is that the death penalty is wrong.
They`re not going to do it. They`re going to be cynical. They`re going to be distrustful of not only this kind of testimony but virtually anything the defense puts on in any case, and that`s not good for justice.
DOBBS: OK, Wendy, thanks a lot. Up next, the innocence is regained. Fathers and daughters take a pledge of purity together. I`ll tell you how some communities are trying to keep their children out of trouble.
And Oprah Winfrey is under fire. Critics say her school in South Africa is just too tough. Boo-hoo. Cry me a river. I`ll tell you why that`s ridiculous later on in the program.
DOBBS: Since 1998, thousands of girls have exchanged vows with their fathers at purity balls, ceremonies designed to formally recognize a dad`s pledge to protect his daughter`s virtue and his daughter`s promise to remain a virgin. The latest trend, national abstinence movement.
Now, this began as a grassroots movement back in the 1980s. It`s now being partially fueled by government support. The current Bush administration`s annual funding for abstinence initiative has more than doubled to around $200 million.
We have Randy Wilson with us. He`s a pastor and co-founder of Generations of Light, the Christian ministry that started the purity ball trend. And his daughter, Khyrstian.
KHYRSTIAN WILSON, DAUGHTER: Hi.
BECK: First of all, tell me in your words what exactly happens at a purity ball?
K. WILSON: At the purity ball, yes. It`s an extravagant event. The daughters show up on their father`s arm. The event begins with the Regal Daughters Ballet Company, which opens the event, performing two songs that celebrate fathers, celebrate daughters and celebrate purity. So that`s the beginning of it.
And then it goes into the fathers signing covenants over their daughters. So all the fathers in the room read the covenants over their daughters, so all the fathers in the room stand. And they read the father`s covenant over their daughters, and the daughters sign as witnesses to their words that they will be women of integrity and lead lives of purity, over their daughters. So we sign as witnesses.
And then the next part of it is the girls take a white rose from the center of the table and on their father`s arm walk down to a cross that is a huge part of our ceremony and lay the white rose at the cross. And that is there -- that`s a symbolism of us committing to a pure life before God.
BECK: And Randy, what is the -- what is the father`s pledge?
RANDY WILSON, CO-FOUNDER, GENERATIONS OF LIFE: Well, the father`s pledge is that I will live a life of integrity and responsibility and purity and model what that is for my daughters.
We believe that the purity of the daughters rests on the fathers, that as they live their lives, that covering, their relationship with them will provide for them strength in an identity as to who they are to be able to stand strong in culture.
And we`ll be launching them. Our idea is to launch our daughters into adulthood and to be able to do relationship well.
BECK: OK. I`ve got to be real honest with you. The whole idea of a purity ball is just a little freaky for me, and I`m a religious zealot. So it`s a little freaky.
However, I`m guessing, Randy, you`ve read -- what was the name of the book? -- "Strong Fathers"...
R. WILSON: "Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters".
BECK: "Strong Daughters". You`ve read it?
R. WILSON: Yes, very good book.
BECK: It`s -- it`s this whole attitude that the secret really for daughters to, you know, stay on the straight and narrow is to show them a good example at the home.
R. WILSON: Exactly. That`s why we created the purity balls, to give a place for a father to stand and begin or continue to build in their relationship with their daughters. Because we`ve seen today that many fathers, that hasn`t been modeled for them, how to do fatherhood well, how to speak with their children, how to build relationships.
BECK: How come -- I`m sorry, we only have about 30 seconds, and I just want to get this question in. Why aren`t you doing -- what are you doing with the boys? How come the boys don`t take a pledge?
R. WILSON: Well, the sons are different. We`re not going to do a mother-son ball. We`ll go out to the wilderness. We`ll do extreme sports with the songs. They`re different.
Our daughters need to be -- need to have that relational closeness with their father, which will -- which protects them. That`s what this event is about. The sons will do something different.
BECK: Randy, Khyrstian. Thanks a lot. Talk to you again.
K. WILSON: Thank you.
BECK: Will President Bush trade amnesty for oil? That is tonight`s "Real Story", and it`s next. Don`t miss it.
BECK: Welcome to "The Real Story."
Now, last night, I told you, to quote the great Tim Robbins, "There`s a chill wind blowing through this country." Pretty good, huh? Dennis Kucinich actually believes that the reason cancellation of Nevada`s presidential debate, quote, "smacks of manipulation," and I couldn`t agree with Gollum any more. You feel that cold wind just blow through?
You`ll never guess who`s doing the manipulating. That`s "The Real Story." It is the Democratic National Committee.
Back in August, they decided that Iowa and New Hampshire were wielding a little too much power in the primary process, so they pushed through a new calendar that moved both Nevada and South Carolina primaries up to late January. One problem: They forgot about primary envy.
Other states, like California and Michigan, they don`t want to be left out, so now they`re trying to move their primaries up, as well. Good news. In all, as many as 23 states, making up at least 50 percent of the delegates, may end up choosing their candidate by -- are you ready for this -- February 5th.
The last time around, Super Tuesday didn`t happen until March, and that only was 10 states. Some say this is the single biggest change ever to the presidential election cycle. But what does it mean? Simple. Well- known, well-funded candidates are going to have enormous advantages.
The potential that some dark horse outsider rides in at the last minute and catches fire, virtually zero now. So that brings us to why. Why would the DNC be in favor of this? I mean, who has the name recognition and the bankroll to benefit from a change like this? Who could it possibly -- can you say "Hillary"?
The Clintons have a lot of chips left to play with the Democrats, and I believe Hillary just cashed in her first chip. But now, in the irony of ironies, so many states are trying to move their primaries up that Iowa and New Hampshire may actually turn out to have more power and more influence than before. Thanks to the DNC, the whole thing is a disaster.
Wait, I`m sorry, did you hear that? Yes, I believe it`s our founding fathers trying to get out of their coffins and smack some sense into these political parties.
Greg Mueller is a political strategist, president of CRC Public Relations. Greg, how is this a good idea for anyone besides wealthy politicians?
GREG MUELLER, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: I have to agree with you, Glenn. I don`t think it`s a good idea for anybody but wealthy or famous politicians who have their wealth to put on the table. I mean, it`s a real problem. I think it`s in many ways anti-democratic.
We`re moving the politicians and the candidates away from the living rooms, the small business and the farms of Iowa and New Hampshire, in some ways, because these candidates now have the money to be virtual. They`re going to run everything -- it might be good for the television business, and we should urge everybody to advertise on Glenn Beck`s show...
BECK: Thank you.
MUELLER: ... but the bottom line is, the traditional retail politics that takes hold, where candidates have to get in touch and have an idea of what`s going on in people`s lives and kind of connect with them, is over.
BECK: Could Bill...
MUELLER: I mean, if they move this up.
BECK: Could Bill Clinton have made it back in 1992 with this system? Because, I mean, he was counted out, and then he started to take off in the primaries.
MUELLER: Right, he was having trouble with the Gennifer Flowers scandal, and then he came in second to Paul Tsongas, who was the neighboring governor of Massachusetts, who was expected to win, and Clinton was saved by New Hampshire. Well, there`s so many great stories like that.
And, you know, it`s not only the candidates. What I think is even more important, Glenn, is the way the process has been set up, basically almost since 1920, when New Hampshire started to be the first presidential primary, by and large, by far, candidates and many different people, like Tom Tancredo, another guest on your show today, were able to bring ideas into the campaign.
People that might not necessarily win at the end of the day were able to force other wealthier, better-known politicians to take up issues, issues that matter to people, because you were visiting and doing retail politics with a longer stretch in between the primaries.
But now it`s going to be one big national race, helping the top-tier candidates with all the money. It`s going to be very manufactured, very contrived and very little discussion about the things that matter to farmers in Iowa, small businesses and the manufacturers in New Hampshire.
BECK: Is it too much of a conspiracy theory to say that the people in the party, like the Clintons, that have real power, real name recognition, and real money, push this?
MUELLER: Oh, I don`t think there`s a question about it, and I think it`s in both parties. I don`t think it`s just the Clintons.
The big-money candidates, the famous candidates, the name I.D. candidates all benefit from this what I call almost a political anointing, where the parties try to get involved and push all the other guys and men and women who have other ideas and who tend to be the idea factories for a lot of these other politicians, they push them all out the door, basically give them no opportunity or no real chance to compete against the money.
I mean, Mitt Romney says, if they`re going to do it that way, I`m ready to put $100 million toward this. Well, he`s got that money.
BECK: I`ve got to tell you, this is really bad for democracy. Greg, thanks a lot.
President Bush met with the Mexican President Felipe Calderon today about the issue of, you know, we used to call illegal immigration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I respect your views on migration. Because we`re working together, I believe we will make good progress on this important issue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: I`m sorry, "migration"? I think he left that pause in there so everybody in America could go, "Wait a minute, what?"
First of all, President Bush -- isn`t migration -- I hate to be P.C., but isn`t that offensive to birds? I mean, why don`t we just call it Mexican move-in day from now on? Is that politically correct enough for everybody?
"The Real Story" is not what they announced today at a press conference; it`s what they probably talked about behind closed doors, amnesty for oil. I`ve been telling you about this theory for weeks now, and it`s really pretty simple.
Mexico is our second-largest supplier of oil, and they`re running out of it. But the convenient part, at least for us, is they need foreign investment to keep their oil industry profitable. The problem is, Mexico`s oil industry is run by the government. It`s a source of enormous national pride. Letting any foreign country invest there, especially the big, bad U.S. of A, would not only require amending their constitution, but it would be like Mexico running our Grand Canyon National Park, which we should check on, because they may already be running it.
Of course, every shady, closed-door deal needs an incentive for the other side, as well. Well, what`s this deal all about? The fact is, millions of President Calderon`s citizens are already in our country illegally, and, I`m sorry to break it to you guys, he doesn`t want you back. It`s bad for the Mexican economy. Well, it`s bad for ours, too.
Guess what? Both problems can be solved with one, simple back room deal that you`ll never hear about: amnesty for oil.
Before leaving for Latin America, President Bush said, quote, "Our biggest suppliers of energy are Canada and Mexico," and that`s good. I`d much rather be getting energy from stable sources that are friendly than from sources that are unstable and not friendly. As long as the Mexican government feels confident seeking outside funding sources, for me, that is something that President Calderon should consider.
Ever since George Bush was elected, I`ve been saying, been telling you almost all the time, every major speech he gives, you`ve got to read between the lines when this guy talks. This is no different. I believe what he`s actually saying here is, Mexico, let our oil companies in there and, when you do, we`ll let your citizens stay here.
Congressman from Colorado Tom Tancredo joins me now. Tom, President Calderon needs this, because he just barely won in his election.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: That`s right.
BECK: And he needs to cure poverty down there.
TANCREDO: Well, listen, two-thirds of the people that voted did not vote for him. I mean, he won an election, but it certainly wasn`t with a majority. He is walking a very thin line down there.
The president wants to, of course, bolster him in this regard. He does not want it to appear as though -- and Calderon does not want it to appear as though he is placating the president and asking him to do something like an amnesty. So, you`re right, it`s not going to be anything they discuss.
It`s fascinating, in a way. The only person talking amnesty is the president of the United States. Calderon is saying, "Hey, listen, we`ve got to do something in Mexico in order to improve our economy." He`s right, of course.
Now, whether they`re going to take the steps necessary to actually do that, we`ll have to see, because the one step they have to take -- I mean, certainly moving even farther toward free markets, very important. But, Glenn, it is the problem of corruption that goes from the cop on the beat to the highest level of government. That is what stops their economy from actually catching fire.
BECK: I know.
TANCREDO: Now, how can I, how can we in the United States do anything about that? That`s his major challenge, Calderon`s challenge.
BECK: Quite honestly, Congressman, I think we`re getting sucked into that corruption, as well.
TANCREDO: Oh, it doesn`t stop at the borders. Corruption does not stop at the border, absolutely.
BECK: Absolutely. So I really truly believe that this is the modern day slave trade, and this is a great example of it. We get workers for our sugar plantations, if you will, and they get money. What we`re doing is we`re giving them money for their oil industry; they`re giving us the workers here, and everybody`s happy, except for those of us who say, wait a minute, look at the conditions these people are working in, look how you`re trapping them in poverty. This is the modern-day slave trade.
TANCREDO: Remember, it`s not just the money that they`re getting for the oil industry, Glenn. It is, in fact, the money being sent home by the millions of people who are working here illegally and furnishing money to their friends, and relatives, and families back home, $23 billion to Mexico alone last year.
That is -- well, it depends on the price of oil. If it`s $70 bucks a barrel, then oil is the highest source of revenue for the country. But when it`s below that, the receipts from the people here, the money flowing from their illegal workers in this country, comprises the highest source, largest source of income for the country.
Do you think for a moment that Calderon doesn`t know that that`s an important source of revenue for him and wants to keep that door open as far as he possibly can?
BECK: Congressman, I`d love to have you on the radio program tomorrow, because I want to talk to you about sanctuary cities. I want to talk to you about this a little bit more, and I want to talk to you about what we just said in "The Real Story," the first story, how are you going to get your message out now that the primaries are being messed with?
TANCREDO: Excellent point. Good points were made by your guest there, that first one.
BECK: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Congressman, appreciate it. That`s "The Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about it or if you found a "Real Story" of your own that you`d like to tell us about, please visit glennbeck.com and click on "The Real Story" button. Back in a flash.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Oprah Winfrey, the headline is Oprah`s school revolt. Few visits, no candy. Ah! No candy? I`d like more chocolate, please. Sorry, no chocolate for you.
Put Oprah promised chocolate. No chocolate for you. At least my mum and my papa are coming to visit you. No visits for you. What a horrible existence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: A lot of celebrities, they whine and they cry about the problems of the world and, yes, Alec Baldwin, I`m speaking directly to you in your television set. More chocolate, please. But almost none of them do anything about it.
Oprah Winfrey is different. She was concerned about the lives and the futures of disadvantaged girls in South Africa, and Oprah puts her money where her mouth is, to the tune of $40 million on this project alone. She built the leadership academy, not from donations, but from her own money.
Thirty-five hundred girls applied for the initial 150 places at the school, and each student hand-picked by Oprah herself. She`s not only giving her money, but she`s now giving something more valuable for Oprah Winfrey, her time. So now how are the parents repaying Oprah`s kindness? Unbelievably they`re complaining.
The school is too strict; they can`t smuggle in junk food treats to their children. I`m not kidding. I`ve got to tell you, as much as I love Doritos and Ho-Hos, I think these 150 girls and their families have won the lottery. This is a chance for them to better the lives of their family for generations to come.
Gavin Prins, he`s a reporter for "Rapport," it`s a national newspaper in South Africa. Gavin, what is the school actually like? You`ve been there.
GAVIN PRINS, SOUTH AFRICAN NEWSPAPER REPORTER: The school is one of - - I`ve never seen anything like it. It`s in a small desert town. And when you walk in, it`s just amazing. It`s modern. It just blows your mind.
Just to give you an example, OK, when she had opening of the school, the journalists that were there -- I mean, some reporters were flown in from everywhere -- we weren`t allowed to see the classrooms. But from what I`ve heard, the classrooms have got glass panels. And every classroom has got its own garden for the kids to sort of look after and things.
It`s absolutely amazing. At the opening, when she had...
BECK: I`m sorry to interrupt. What does the classroom look like that these kids would have gone to, had they not been selected to go to Oprah`s school?
PRINS: Not anything like what they are at now. The classrooms in our disadvantaged communities, some of the windows are broken. The classrooms, the schools are subject to vandalism and theft every week. It`s a major problem, especially in the disadvantaged communities where these kids come from.
BECK: So what is wrong with the parents? I mean, you would think that the parent would say, "Oh, my gosh, my child has an opportunity to change their life and to change the family for generations to come with this education." What is the problem? Why the yelling about the junk food and the cell phones?
PRINS: Glenn, these are sort of, as I said before, disadvantaged families. And so they`re really close-knit. They do everything together. It`s not unlike in some families in America, where you have like PlayStation and nannies to look after you and, if you throw a tantrum, then you go upstairs and you lock yourself in your room for a whole day.
It`s not like that here. It`s totally different. In the African culture, we are very, very close. If a child sees the mom suffering with shortages of money and food in the house, that child goes out to the neighbors and asks for this and that and the other. So it`s totally different from what you`re used to.
But here, they just want to communicate with their daughters. That`s the main, main, main concern.
BECK: So did they know about this in advance?
PRINS: And they`ve taken away -- yes, they did. They signed a contract, which I`ve seen. They signed a code of conduct. It`s about four to five pages, outlining the rules and regulations of the school, all right?
But as I said before, we`re dealing with parents who, you need to sit them down and tell them and explain to them point by point what the rules actually mean, because now they`ve signed a contract, because there is this, oh, hype of excitement, the school is opening, my kid`s been accepted. Now that the rules and regulations are put into practice, it`s a whole different story. And the parents go on...
BECK: Now, I know that Oprah provided counseling for the kids. Should she maybe provide counseling or should there be counseling for the parents?
PRINS: I don`t know whether there should be counseling for the parents, but I do hope there`s some sort of parent officer, who acts as a communicator between the parents and the school, because that`s a major, major, major problem.
I mean, I`ve spoken to one parent and she says, oh, we are going to have a parent meeting on Sunday. That`s what the school told her. According to another parent, and that parent says she doesn`t know anything about it, so we`re sitting with a major communication problem within the school.
BECK: OK. Gavin, thank you very much. And we`ll be back in a minute.
BECK: Do you remember back a long, long time ago, back before the turn of the century, back when the world was a simpler place, way, way back before you knew who Jim McGreevey was? Oh, those were the days, weren`t they?
Well, I have a little feeling that our little vacation from Jim McGreevey talk, about to come to an end, as his divorce proceeding getting a little ugly. In case you don`t know who Jim McGreevey is, let`s review the situation, shall we?
Boy meets girl. Boy marries girl. Boy become governor. Boy meets other boy at highway rest stop. Boy hires other boy for homeland security job not qualified for and, by the way, the boy is from Israel so he can`t get a federal security clearance anyway. Boy allegedly sleeps with boy while still married to girl.
Boy resigns as governor, supposedly to avoid a sexual harassment suit from the other boy. Then, of course, boy writes tell-all book, cashes a big fat advance check, and boy gets on Oprah. That`s great.
Now, as the boy and the girl are trying to finalize their divorce, Jim McGreevey`s original divorce filing stated he and his wife had a matrimonial settlement agreement that took care of any possible custody disputes for little girl. After wife saw this on the news, she released a statement through her attorney. It said, quote, "I note from news accounts that my husband`s filing that he claims we have reached a comprehensive agreement, that`s not true. We continue to have profound differences about what our daughter should be exposed to and, until they`re resolved, there will be no agreement."
Then today, the revised divorce lawsuit, now he`s looking for custody of his 5-year-old daughter. He says, hey, I`ve said I should have her. I don`t care if this guy is straight or gay. I really don`t. He could be sleeping with cats, for all I care. This guy was cheating on his wife.
He put his wife and his family at risk with, you know, little parking lot hookups and his state at risk for hiring his supposed boyfriend in a high-level homeland security position. Not exactly a strong case for custody here, but there`s more.
In the filing, McGreevey actually had the gall to ask for suitable support and maintenance. That`s right, he`s asking for child support. Are you kidding me, Jim? What are you worth? How much did you make from that book? And, let me tell you, we`re in for many, many more nightmares from this case.
Not only is the whole divorce proceeding ready to unfold, but his wife is writing her own book that`s due out in May. I don`t think it`s going to be a real happy book, but maybe that`s just me. We`ll see you tomorrow. Good night.