Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Teacher Explains Fight to Carry Concealed Gun; College Student Suspended for Defending Second Amendment; DHS Fights to Take Action Against Illegal Employees; Border Control Sponsors a NASCAR Team

Aired October 11, 2007 - 19:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, the latest on the Cleveland school shooting. Could it have been prevented if a teacher had been armed? We`ll talk to a teacher who`s fighting for her right to carry a gun in class.

Plus, more Hillary hypocrisy on 9/11. Tonight I announce that I will definitely vote for Hillary before I vote against her.

And the Border Patrol gets a new set of wheels, at NASCAR. How the Border Patrol is teaming up with NASCAR to recruit our next generation of agents.

All this and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Hello, America.

By now you`ve probably seen the tragic images coming out of East Cleveland, Ohio. Police say that Asa Coon -- he`s a 14-year-old boy upset about being suspended for fighting -- vowed retaliation, and yesterday afternoon made good on that promise.

He walked into SuccessTech High School with at least two guns and wounded two adults and two students before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life.

This is an undeniable tragedy. But it is also the kind of tragedy that all too often inspires the knee-jerk reaction that fewer guns is the answer. So here`s "The Point" tonight.

We have got to stop blaming guns and start blaming the people who fire the guns at innocents. Guns used to be a symbol of safety, security, and protection, and it`s time they are again. Here`s how I got there.

Like it or not, gang, guns exist. All right? And while people intent on hurting you and your kids or some innocent teachers and students at a Cleveland high school could just as easily use a box cutter -- Does that sound familiar? -- Or a baseball bat. Sometimes they are going to use a gun.

But you can`t stop gun violence by putting up a sign that says "Gun- Free Zone" right in front of every school. That makes as much sense as putting a sign on the door of 7-Eleven that says "Cashier does have keys to the safe."

There are many times when the only way to stop someone with a gun is with a gun. That is a cold, hard fact, and anti-gun slogans aren`t going to stop a bullet.

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but criminals don`t need signs; they don`t -- they don`t obey laws. That`s kind of why we call them criminals. We need to wake up to the harsh reality that our kids in school are a captive audience, and when somebody`s got killing to do, it`s like shooting fish in a barrel.

So tonight here`s what you need to know. It is time to level the playing field. I remember two things. Remember those westerns we used to watch when we were kids? The good guys -- two things about those -- they wore white hats and they carried guns. Most of them carried two guns.

If one of the teachers at SuccessTech had a gun, would this have prevented the tragedy? I don`t know. Maybe. Impossible to say. But do armed police on the street prevent crime? Hell, yes, they do. We need to stack the deck in our favor.

There are armed guards at banks. Why are there no armed guards at school? Banks only carry our money. Aren`t our children worth a whole lot more than our money?

Whether it`s a terrorist and their "perfect day" plan or a crazed student looking to even the score, our schools are vulnerable. When it comes to our children`s safety, it`s time to put politics second and our Second Amendment first.

I told you a couple of days ago about Shirley Katz. She`s the Oregon teacher who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon in public buildings. But she says her school district says teachers and students are safer without guns on campus. Really? I wonder if today`s paper might have changed their minds.

Shirley Katz and her lawyer, James Leuenberger, join me now.

Shirley, God bless you. You are -- you are somebody that is licensed to carry a gun. You train with a gun. This school in Cleveland only had a -- did not have any metal detectors and only had one security guard. You as a teacher, would you feel safe walking into that school?

SHIRLEY KATZ, TEACHER: I would consider that to have been a recipe for disaster right from the very beginning.

BECK: I mean, you know, everybody...

KATZ: As soon as I heard they moved the metal detector from one school to the other, that alone just alarmed me.

Beck: It`s ridiculous. You know, everybody pays attention to the kids. But teachers` lives are at stake, as well. You want to carry a gun in school. But your school has a different plan. What is the plan if there`s an armed guard coming in -- or an armed man coming into your school?

KATZ: Our response is supposed to secure our classrooms, make sure our doors are locked. We are to move the kids away from all windows, doors, and basically have them cower in fear until the police officers arrive at our door and let us know it`s OK.

BECK: If you were carrying a gun, what would you do?

KATZ: Ultimately, if I was carrying a weapon with me, then I would make sure that my students were secure, and then I would follow whatever protocol was dictated, depending on the room that I was in.

BECK: OK. Jim, you know, it strikes me that we should have learned something from Flight 93, that when the passengers stood up and said, "You know what? We`re not going to take it," you know, that`s when we were at least somewhat successful.

What happened when Shirley said she wanted to carry a gun? What was the school`s response?

JAMES LEUENBERGER, ATTORNEY FOR SHIRLEY KATZ: What happened was -- a student asked her if she had a concealed handgun permit, and she told the truth. She told the student, "Yes, I do."

Well, that got to the administration. The administration then -- the administrators and a police officer got her boxed up in a little room and started interrogating her and making threats. This is not something that Shirley sought for herself.

BECK: What do you mean making threats? What did they say to you, Shirley?

KATZ: They told me that if I brought -- if they thought that I had my gun on campus that I would be arrested, my gun would be taken, and I would face disciplinary action from the school district.

BECK: Right. And you have a gun because you`ve got a crazy ex.

KATZ: Yes. That`s also true.

BECK: OK. So you`re not carrying a gun because you`re -- you know, you`re somebody who just likes to be tough and you think you`re the sheriff or anything else. You`re doing it for self-protection.

KATZ: Right. Exactly.

BECK: OK. All right. So what is going to -- what is going to happen here in the court? It`s gone to court. What do you -- what do you see, Jim, happening?

LEUENBERGER: Well, what we`ve asked for is an injunction and a judicial ruling that the school district`s policy is illegal under Oregon state law. There`s an Oregon statute that prohibits local governments from restricting gun ownership, possession, transportation, or use. And the Medford School District doesn`t think that applies to them.

BECK: You know, it`s amazing as -- thank you very much, guys.

America, what`s amazing to me is there is more security at a bank, but our treasure is with our kids. And the reason why, banks -- banks are part of a capitalist system. The government runs our school.

After the Virginia Tech shootings back in April there was another student. This is a Minnesota college student. His name is Troy Scheffler. He wrote to his school`s administrators complaining about his school`s no weapons policy.

The school`s response? They actually suspended Troy, and then they ordered him to get a mental health evaluation. But who`s really surprised in today`s America that our universities think you`re crazy if you believe in the Second Amendment?

Joining me now is Troy Scheffler.

Troy, how did this unfold? You wrote an e-mail? Take it from there.

TROY SCHEFFLER, ADVOCATES GUN RIGHTS FOR STUDENT: Right. Yes. Right after Virginia Tech we started getting a lot of e-mails sent to us from school administrators into our school -- personal school e-mail, telling people that if they need counseling and whatnot from the massacre that happened in Virginia -- again, I`m in Minnesota, and we all are.

But I responded to that e-mail and the counseling. I said maybe instead of the counseling sessions you guys should reconsider the whole ban placed on concealed and carry. Because Minnesota just passed a personal protection act which people can go, law-abiding citizens can get their permit to carry.

But again, the university itself bans that on campus, which is their right but...

BECK: OK. So then the university president actually wrote to you on a Friday and said, hey, let`s talk about this, right?

SCHEFFLER: Right. Yes. She sent us -- she sent it to my school e- mail, and I check that about once a week. I checked it that following Monday. Actually, I checked it right after I got a couriered letter from the school, stating that I was suspended because they deemed my e-mail somehow threatening.

BECK: Did you threaten them in the e-mails? We`ve read the e-mails. Our staff -- nobody on our staff feels that they`re threatening. But have they -- have you talked to them about that and said, "What exactly is threatening?"

SCHEFFLER: I tried to. They won`t respond. They say -- in the suspension letter, actually, they state I have to go through the mental health evaluation before they`ll even consider talking to me about why they`re suspending me.

I called there numerous times, sent a few e-mails asking what the heck`s going on, and no one will respond. Right now the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education`s handling everything. They`re giving them the song and dance. They`re just sticking their head in the sand.

BECK: I have to tell you, it`s amazing to me that, you know, a university would say, "You need a mental health exam before we even talk to you about it." It`s almost like a catch 22.

If you`ve taken a mental health exam because some state agency says you should take one, then you clearly are in question, and maybe you shouldn`t carry a gun. I mean, it`s truly amazing.

Are you -- are you even thinking about going back to school if they would reinstate you there?

SCHEFFLER: That`s really tough. I mean, so much has gone on because of that. I mean, shortly after -- actually, immediately after I was suspended they ended up hiring a police officer to stand guard at my old classroom. Why that was, I think it was more to fulfill their fantasy that I was some sort of crazed gun maniac.

But I mean, it doesn`t take rocket science for the students to figure that out. It`s embarrassing for me. The mental health evaluation`s just intrusive and insulting. I don`t know. At this point it`s tough to say.

BECK: All right, thank you very much, Troy. I appreciate it.

So where am I wrong? Like it or not, guns exist. We have the right to own them. At least we do at this time. We`ve got to stop blaming guns and start blaming the people who are firing them into innocents.

Do you agree or disagree? Go to CNN.com/Glenn right now and cast your vote.

And we were this close to sanctions against companies that hire illegals until a federal court stepped in. Michael Chertoff will be here in just a couple of minutes to explain it all.

And it shouldn`t be any surprise Border Patrol needs to recruit more agents when we, you know, keep locking the agents up that we have. You won`t believe their new recruitment campaign, however.

Plus we`ll look at the problems and hypocrisy of politicizing the events of September 11. And we`ll do that coming up in "The Real Story".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Now, I don`t know if you stayed up all night like I have just to se that new Hillary Clinton campaign ad. It features images of her at Ground Zero. Not a problem, as far as I`m concerned. It`s called "Stand By Us".

Oh, I think I`ll pass, Hillary.

We have "The Real Story" behind her manipulation of 9/11 to push her socialist health care system. That`s coming up at the bottom of the hour.

Plus, we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, and I`ll talk about it on this program day after day after day because I`ve got to tell you. The first thing we should do to get this under control is to enforce the laws we already have and nail these companies that are hiring illegals to the wall.

Well, that`s exactly what the Department of Homeland Security is trying to do. They`ve been sending companies "do not match" lists. This requires businesses to fire employees, after a 90-day period to sort things out, whose names don`t match their Social Security numbers.

A mismatch usually means that an illegal alien is trying to skate by with a forged or stolen number. You know, in any other case but illegal immigration that would be called identity theft.

Let`s get rid of the illegal employees and fine the back snot out of these companies who hired them. Sounds great, right?

You might be surprise who disagrees. U.S. District court Judge Charles Breyer. One of our own federal judges issued a preliminary injunction against homeland security that puts the new rules on hold. He`s afraid that this could, quote, "result in irreparable harm to innocent workers and employees."

There`s a 90-day period to sort it out.

Here`s yet another example of our sovereignty crumbling from within. When a federal judge sides with likely illegals against our own government, things may even be worse than I think. And I think they`re pretty bad. But what else could you expect from a federal judge in San Francisco?

Michael Chertoff is the U.S. secretary of homeland security.

Mr. Secretary, your head must be ready to pop at this point. You have taken it from my side, you know. I`ve been railing on you all the time: build the fence, build the fence. You start building the fence. Yelling at you all the time, fine -- fine the employers -- find the illegals and ship them out. You do it.

Now you`re hammered from the other side. How do you win, sir?

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, Glenn, you know, I am pretty frustrated. Obviously, we are disturbed by the fact that there`s a delay in moving forward with this program. It makes perfect common sense to say to employers when you have a mismatch you`ve got to clear it up.

If it`s an innocent mistake, great. That`s good for the employee to know that the mistake has been corrected. And if it`s an illegal alien you`ve got to fire them.

BECK: How do you -- how do you lose this case?

CHERTOFF: Well, you know, this is a classic example of interest groups like the ACLU, the AFL-CIO, and business getting together. And they`re going to the judge, and they raise all kinds of arguments about how innocent people might have to correct problems or there`s some procedural rule that we didn`t follow.

In this case the judge actually rejected most of the arguments, but there was enough there to require a delay. We`re going to try to address his remaining concerns.

But you know, this is a problem we`ve been facing for decades. Glenn, we get nickel and dimed. Everybody goes into court. They raise every issue. And you know, you lose a week here and a week there, and pretty soon you`re behind the 8-ball.

BECK: OK. So you said to me last time you were on the program -- I said, "Why don`t you just send them anyway? Don`t you have the power?"

And you said, "Yes, I might consider doing that."

CHERTOFF: Well, here`s what happened. The judge has now given us an order. So for us to violate the order would be basically to be in contempt of court.

I actually think we can correct this problem pretty quickly, and we`re working on doing that now. I also -- I`m going to continue to enforce the law in a host of other ways: bringing cases against employers, including criminal cases; conducting raids; getting investigations to focus on employers who violate the law.

But we`re going to wind up spending some time dealing with this lawsuit, which I`d rather spend chasing down people who are here illegally.

BECK: Mr. Secretary, I, and I think the American people are, too, we`re tired of being played by our politicians in Washington. We have -- you know, we speak out and say we don`t want comprehensive until you fix the border, until you actually fix the fence. And I think there should be a fence on the north and the south myself.

And then the top politicians go and they tuck in DREAM Acts and everything else in the dark -- in the cover of darkness. And then we`ve got these businesses doing the -- doing the same thing. Please, Mr. Secretary, tell me what America can do to help stop the insanity on the border.

CHERTOFF: Here`s what you can do, Glenn. You can shine a spotlight on all these groups that are working to frustrate our efforts to enforce the law. Whether it`s attempting to prevent us from sending out "no match" letters or...

BECK: So who are they? Give them to me. I who are they?

CHERTOFF: Business groups, the AFL-CIO, the ACLU. If you go to a database and you run a name check, you`re going to see dozens and dozens of cases in which the department or I personally myself am a named defendant, trying to get courts to stop us from carrying out the law. And that`s the irony of it.

BECK: OK. Mr. Secretary, I made a promise to you that -- when we were talking months ago and we were on a different side of the fence, so to speak, on the comprehensive package. I said to you, we can`t -- conservative spoken out, the American people have spoken out, you can`t drop the ball.

Would you come on the program, sir, with a list of those names or would your office give me a list of those names? And I will expose them. I will make sure we pound that drum to make sure Americans know exactly what to do.

Because it`s immoral of us to leave people sticking out. If we`ve said you can`t do this, you`ve got to do this, and then we don`t support you when you`re doing that, it`s immoral of us.

CHERTOFF: I think that`s exactly right. Since you mentioned the fence, Glenn, let me tell you about another piece of litigation. We`ve been sued in court here in Washington by the defenders of wildlife who are complaining about a mile and a half of the fence that we want to build in part of Arizona. They`re complaining that it`s going to interfere with the ability of animals to migrate across the border.

BECK: But you have a waiver on that.

CHERTOFF: Well, even before we get to the issue of the waiver, let`s just talk about common sense. The common sense issue here is right now the problem isn`t animals moving across the border. It`s drug smugglers. It`s human smugglers.

It`s the fact that we have trash, waste, rotted automobiles. We have so much activity, illegal activity at the border that the Interior Department warns travelers and tourists not to go into our national parks.

BECK: OK. Mr...

CHERTOFF: So that`s the kind of thing we have to...

BECK: Mr. Secretary, I`ve got to run, but I hope to have you on again. And we will honor that promise and we will expose those companies. Thank you very much.

CHERTOFF: Good for you.

BECK: Coming up, the U.S. Border Patrol has some new wheels and hope of getting some new agents. Maybe they should start using NASCARs at the borders to catch the illegals. Might be the trash problem.

Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Every right-thinking American knows that protecting our borders is essential for the safety of all Americans. Our national security is at stake.

Border Patrol agents fight to keep illegals out every single day. It`s a crucial job but a dangerous one, and enemies sometimes are in our own country.

Sometimes the U.S. Border Patrol has to get creative to get candidates willing to sign up.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BECK (voice-over): For Americans on the southwest border this is a familiar scene: a Border Patrol car racing along. A clear warning to illegals. But wait a minute. That`s not the border. That`s a NASCAR race.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the U.S. Border Patrol decided that they wanted to go NASCAR racing. They talked to a number of teams. We all made proposals to them, and they chose ours.

BECK: That`s right. The Border Patrol`s gone NASCAR. As part of a push to hire new agents, the U.S. Border Patrol has turned to sponsoring a race car.

MICHAEL OLSEN, ASSISTANT U.S. BORDER PATROL CHIEF: We`re here recruiting. The United States Border Patrol is currently experiencing its largest recruiting campaign in its 83-year history. We look to hire 6,000 new agents by the end of 2008.

We`re increasing the size of the Border Patrol by 50 percent. The Border Patrol will have 18,000 agents by the end of 2008.

BECK: The armed forces have been sponsoring NASCAR for awhile, but this is the first for the Border Patrol. And they`re targeting a slightly different crowd.

OLSEN: No military background is needed. No college degree is need. No prior law enforcement is required. Although all three of those things would help you become an agent.

BECK: The starting salary is 70 grand. The only requirements are that recruits have to be under 40 and have a valid driver`s license. Sorry, Britney.

But why target NASCAR?

OLSEN: Well, a lot of people just want to know why we`re here. They don`t see the Border Patrol in person. We`re not that tangible for them. And they`re surprised to see us.

BECK: The U.S. Border Patrol has 13,000 agents along the southern border alone. Agents caught over 700,000 people trying to cross borders from October 2006 to July 2007. All agents begin their careers along the border with Mexico.

OLSEN: Our basic academy is in Artesia, New Mexico. New agents will learn firearms. They`ll learn to speak Spanish. They`ll learn immigration law. They`ll learn how to track people through the desert, through the mountains. They`ll learn all the skills needed to become an agent.

BECK: Just like NASCAR drivers, there is an inherent danger in being a border agent. None of the agents really know what their day will bring.

HENRY NAEG, U.S. BORDER PATROL: Typical day we`ll get in there. They`ll give us all kinds of information at beginning of the shift. I`ll go out to checkpoints, start working my service dog, which is looking for narcotics, as well as people hidden in either vehicles -- might have to head out to some trains. But tracking people. It varies day to day.

BECK: However, the mission is crystal clear.

NAEG: As a Border Patrol agent, my primary duty is to stop any kind of illegal aliens, terrorists, narcotics from coming into this country.

BECK: As for NASCAR recruits, the Border Patrol says it`s been a good partnership.

OLSEN: Well, at NASCAR events, at a typical event like this weekend, we`ll probably have 100 people that will sign up, that will give us their information. There will probably be another 200 that are interested but just aren`t sure at this time, and maybe another 300 to 400 that, perhaps they`re not eligible for the job, but now Border Patrol is a household name for them. Maybe they`ll tell someone they know about it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: The Border Patrol`s NASCAR sponsorship runs for 25 races. Costs about a million dollars.

Personally, I have to tell you, I think our Border Patrol serves this nation just like the Army, Navy, and Marines. It`s about time all Americans and our government start supporting all of our troops.

Back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. "Real Story" coming up in just a second.

But first, a quick programming note. One of the most popular preachers in the nation, Pastor John Hagee, joins me for a full hour of honest questions on everything from why he believes a pre-emptive strike against Iran is inevitable to his unwavering support of Israel and all the way to how it all plays into biblical End Times prophecies. It`s pretty much the perfect show for a Friday night. Don`t miss all the action tomorrow.

But first, welcome to "The Real Story." Remember back in 2004 when Hillary Clinton attacked President Bush for using any kind of pictures of 9/11 in his campaign advertising? Oh, it was just so shameful for him to politicize such a terrible tragedy. Well, "The Real Story" is I agree with her, now that she finally disagrees with herself.

I want you to take a look at this new Clinton campaign ad. Here is some imagery -- oh, my goodness, are those firefighters and her in a mask? The same imagery she was so outraged at the president for using. I guess now that she`s running for president herself, she`s had a change of heart.

And, honestly, I have to tell you, I believe that Bush and Clinton are both right for incorporating September 11th into their campaigns. Sadly, politicians only seem to remember the tragedy of 9/11 on the anniversary or maybe just before an Election Day. Maybe Clinton and every single person in Washington should put a picture of Ground Zero on their desk like I have on mine so they remember the 3,000 lives lost to murderous extremists.

There is nothing wrong with politicizing an event that should be shaping our policies. September 11th marked the beginning of a new era in America, and we must remember to never forget.

So now that Hillary`s unexpectedly changed her position, tonight I thought it was only appropriate that I formally announce that, next November, I`m going to vote for her, right before I vote against her.

Jonathan Martin is a senior writer for "The Politico." Jonathan, do I have that Washington-speak down? I can change my mind and flip-flop anytime?

JONATHAN MARTIN, "THE POLITICO": Glenn, you could be a U.S. senator tomorrow. I`ll support you.

BECK: There you go. OK, my first question, Jonathan, I guess, is there no shame or is there just no memory in America and Washington?

MARTIN: Well, I think that, on her part, it`s a pretty bold move. I mean, I think the fact is, is that if you had asked anybody in politics who they thought would be the first person to run a commercial and invoke 9/11, it would be Rudy Giuliani. And the fact that she`s doing it, Glenn, I think says a lot about, you know, why the Clintons are so good and why they`ve been very successful in politics over the years, because they are willing to go after issues that have typically been the province of the GOP.

BECK: Wait a minute. First of all, the -- 9/11 does not belong to the GOP. It doesn`t belong to the Democrats. It belongs to America.

MARTIN: Of course not. But...

BECK: And I think she played a role, you know, on 9/11. I remember that one scene at Madison Square Garden, where they didn`t really like her too much, but she played a role. Bush played a role.

What`s amazing is the lack of shame for coming out and blasting people -- I`m surprised, honestly, because she`s using this commercial for health care. And she`s basically, "I`m here to help you, I can help children, I helped the firefighters." Why doesn`t she just dress up as a Statue of Liberty and say, "Bring me your tired, huddled masses, vote for me"?

MARTIN: Well, I guess my broader point is that she`s willing to talk about issues like national security in a way that some Democrats have not in the past and talking about, as you mentioned, what is a very important day here in American history. And what she`s saying is, essentially, she`s not going to cede that issue, national security, or even that important day, to the GOP.

BECK: OK, so is this a sign that -- because I can see it one of two ways, at least that my simple mind could come up with -- one, that it`s a sign that she thinks that she may be running against Hillary -- I mean, Rudy Giuliani, so get a jump start on owning 9/11. Or, b, maybe it`s a combination of the two, make sure you reframe the Clinton legacy that is 9/11.

MARTIN: No, I think it`s both. I mean, I think, first of all, it is kind of a shot across the bow to her fellow New Yorker. But, you know, it`s also her way of saying, "Look, I`m going to talk about issues. And, look, I`m in a campaign in a way that maybe the previous Democrats didn`t, but I am not going to be afraid to go after these kind of issues."

BECK: Jonathan, just an honest question, as American-to-American here, and I`m not asking you for a political bent at all. I`m asking you just as a regular guy. Are you ever shocked that, on both sides of the aisle, these guys just have no shame? And are you ever shocked that nobody seems to really care? They`ll fight so hard for one value, but soon as it is to their advantage, they`ll flip, and Americans will just follow them and be like, "Whatever."

MARTIN: Well, I think that`s why a lot of Americans are cynical about politics and politicians, you know, for exactly that reason, that they often see them as being just beholden to whatever helps them at that moment politically.

BECK: Yeah, cynical. No, not America. Jonathan, thanks a lot.

MARTIN: Thanks, Glenn.

BECK: Now for a follow-up on a story on Lynne Stewart and the fact that Hofstra Law School -- remember that name, parents, if you`re thinking about writing a check for a law school for your kids -- Hofstra, they invited her to lecture on ethics. Now, maybe it`s just me, but I thought that was certainly an odd choice, considering Stewart has been disbarred and convicted for giving material support to radical Islamic terrorists.

The "Real Story" is, Lynne Stewart continues to do wrong and spew hate through repeated anti-American statements and her pro-socialist -- I believe borderline communist -- agenda.

During her trial, Stewart acknowledged her support at directed violence at, quote, "institutions which perpetuate capitalism and institutions of government, they do have to be attacked," end quote. After she was disbarred and convicted, Stewart proudly proclaimed, quote, "I don`t have any problem with Mao, or Stalin, or the Vietnamese leaders, or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous." She was more afraid of us.

It`s a strange stance, unless you, you know, unless you`re running for crazy of Mayor Town. But I believe that position`s already taken by Ron Paul. People like Lynne Stewart remind us that socialist ideology is alive and well for some reason here in America.

We didn`t defeat it during the Cold War; it went underground. They popped up the communists over in Russia as social Democrats, and now it`s popping up in colleges and universities and our own parties here in America.

Students at North Dakota High, believe it or not, have started a Young Socialists Club. Heads up, parents: There are things as dangerous as drugs in our school, and twisted felons like Lynne Stewart are the pushers.

Walter Olsen is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Walter, what do you think of Lynne Stewart here? I mean, it`s quite amazing that she can say the things that she does, and she`s invited to speak, and then they fill a whole panel with people who think like her, and they call it diversity.

WALTER OLSEN, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Well, that is one of the things people are most amazed at about Hofstra, which is not only are they giving a platform to someone who is the Chernobyl of legal ethics, you know, committed just about the worst breach that you can remember of legal ethics on behalf of one of the most terrible clients in history, but have they sent her into some sort of lion`s den where she will be ripped apart by critics who can say exactly what she did wrong? No, they`ve given her a favorable panel, and the keynote speaker and the banquet speaker of the conference are two of her major supporters.

BECK: Right. What are some of the other topics that they`re covering?

OLSEN: Well, Hofstra defends this conference, saying, well, it`s not just about Lynne Stewart. No, it isn`t. There`s also going to be a panel on Guantanamo, where the U.S. government will be criticized, and on capital punishment, where the U.S. government will be criticized. So it`s kind of a general store for the more radical wing of the New York bar, I think.

BECK: I can`t take it anymore. My head`s going to explode on this. And it`s not just Hofstra. Is she not on a campus tour right now, going from college to college?

OLSEN: Well, you would think, after someone were indicted -- or at least after they were convicted -- for these outrageous violations of legal ethics that the enthusiasm would wane at law schools, but she has been continuing to travel around to audiences that seem to admire her, at least they put her up. They don`t put her up for debates. They put her up usually to speak unopposed at these campuses.

BECK: And Stanford is giving her an award, if I`m not mistaken.

OLSEN: Well, at Stanford, there was a controversy. And she didn`t entirely get her way. She went there. Believe it or not, they were going to bestow on her the title of public interest mentor, and that went too far. That went too far for the dean of Stanford Law School, Kathleen Sullivan. She said, "OK, you can come. We`ll pay you. But you can`t be public interest mentor. That goes too far."

BECK: And some of these universities, I understand Hofstra actually wanted to do this, as well, that if you`re a student and you went to the speech, you could get credit, which in New York City is against the law, but why expect a law university to understand the law in New York?

OLSEN: It`s called "continuing legal education." And this is lawyers who are out there practicing. They`ve got to go through a certain number of hours of studying professional responsibilities. It`s called legal ethics questions. It might be a good rule.

But imagine them trying to use this to satisfy that requirement. And, in fact, it`s illegal in New York, because New York law says that a disbarred felon, a disbarred lawyer, period, cannot teach a continuing legal education course for which credit is given. So Hofstra had to back off on that. They said, whoops, no credit.

BECK: Thank you very much, Walter.

In closing, this week, former President Jimmy Carter called Vice President Dick Cheney a "disaster" for our country. "Real Story"? Jimmy, takes one to know one! You know, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so rather than have me yap on about how disastrous the Carter presidency really was, here`s about a 10,000-word walk down memory lane.

And that is "The Real Story" tonight.

Coming up, my least favorite part of this whole TV thing. And if you don`t know what I mean, then you`re not watching the show enough, and it`s pretty hard to miss. It`s on like 1,400 times a day for the love of Pete.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: What is happening to our country, where our future is headed, is a Seurat painting. If you get up close to it, it`s all just little, teeny dots. But if you walk across the room, you happen to see the whole picture. It`s a beautiful painting of a bunch of people in the park in France. Well, that`s what`s happening. Please, America, back away from the painting, and you will see what our future looks like. And believe me, gang, it`s not a painting of a picnic.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: You know, I see a clip like that, and I think, "My gosh, America must just think this job is so easy." But I`ve got to tell you something: The reality is there`s a lot of hard work that goes into making this show. For instance, I spend five hours at in a gym every day with my personal trainer, Fernando, just to make sure I look this good, you know what I mean? OK, that`s disturbing.

Then, of course, a quick stop at the beauty salon, where I get a manny paddy (ph). And then I have the time one in a while to get a $200 haircut. Hey, I don`t know if you noticed this, but I know John Edwards, you know what I`m saying?

To be completely honest with you, filming of a television program, it is as easy as it looks. It really is. But looking this damn good? Uh-uh.

But one of the hardest things that I have to do on this program is to talk to Brian Sack. He`s our Public Viewer. He comes on once in a while.

Do you know how much e-mail I get, Brian, about how much you suck?

BRIAN SACK, PUBLIC VIEWER: I don`t because you don`t talk to me.

BECK: I don`t read it, either. I wondered if you knew, because I think it`s a lot.

SACK: Well, I just get junk e-mail. I stopped checking mine. It`s all from Nigeria.

BECK: All right, so what`s up with the Public Viewer? You`re here to watch the show and comment on it once a week.

SACK: Comment on things. Well, you`ve said in the past that you`re a family-friendly show, and so I thought I`ve got a 3-year-old, maybe I`ll try to bring him in, get him to watch the show with me. So, you know, I wanted to evaluate things, but I think I`m getting a mixed message from what I`ve seen. And here`s what I`m talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Get closer to the screen, you little angel you. Yes.

If you have children in the room, this is not for them. I beg you, I warn you, this is not something they should see. Change the channel now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SACK: So I don`t know. I mean, do I bring the kid in? Do I not bring the kid in?

BECK: You bring the kid, unless I say -- well, for instance -- like this. Like this. This show has a very intelligent audience. But I should have said at the beginning, Brian Sack is coming on. If you have any I.Q. above 70, leave the room.

SACK: And you`re so angry. You`re so very angry with me.

BECK: Well...

SACK: And that`s what I kind of came across when I...

BECK: My anger?

SACK: ... went back and looked at a few things. Yeah, here`s what I mean.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Shut the pie hole, sir. Shut the pie hole. You and I have nothing to talk about. I regret inviting you on the show.

They just really fantasized about killing you.

Are you saying that Wiccans are not a legitimate religion?

In your kind of misconstrued, misplaced hometown pride is going to get people killed.

DUANE ROYAL, FIREFIGHTER: I`d like to thank our mutual aid departments, Todd Noye (ph), Central Square...

BECK: No, you can`t.

ROYAL: Can I do that?

BECK: No.

ROYAL: OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SACK: Just trying to do a shout out to the homiest, and you shut him down.

BECK: No, not going to do it. No. That`s not what you use this for.

SACK: No shout outs on your show?

BECK: No.

SACK: OK, well, I did notice another thing that I`m afraid that the show`s getting to you, and that you might be suffering in the head.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: From New York, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Oh, good night, America. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! I`m kidding. Ha, ha, ha, ha.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SACK: I want to talk about something else. I remember in the past I brought up the Beck-Sack campaign in anticipation of needing more candidates for the upcoming primary, what is it, 30 months away.

BECK: It`s weird, because like MoveOn.org has that same campaign, except they put you on top. It`s "Sack-Beck `08."

SACK: Well, we ran into some fundraising problems, so we hitched our wagon onto another pony.

BECK: We did?

SACK: Yes.

BECK: What is it?

SACK: It is...

BECK: Oh, it`s Ron Paul.

SACK: ... the Beck-Sack-Ron Paul campaign. Now, I know you`re not a big fan of Ron Paul.

BECK: Yes.

SACK: I actually like the guy, even though they won`t return any of my calls or e-mails.

BECK: That`s weird. They won`t do that to us, either.

SACK: Why is that? I`m a friend, and they won`t even acknowledge my existence.

BECK: We actually invited him on. He stood us up once. And now we call him, they just hang up on us, and then his supporters call us and keep saying, "Why won`t you have him on?"

SACK: I know. I don`t understand. I said, hi, I`m kind of on your side, let`s put him on the show, I want to talk. No. Nobody returns my e- mails. But would you like to take the world`s smallest political quiz?

BECK: Yes, real quick.

SACK: To see if you`re a libertarian?

BECK: Yes.

SACK: Government shouldn`t censor things.

BECK: No, they shouldn`t.

SACK: OK. Should be no national I.D. cards.

BECK: Right.

SACK: Should be no laws regarding sex between consenting adults.

BECK: Right.

SACK: Military service should be voluntary.

BECK: Yes.

SACK: Repeal all laws about possession and use of drugs.

BECK: No.

SACK: You`re a libertarian, almost.

BECK: Almost, except for that drug thing.

SACK: Except for the drug thing.

BECK: But I would have agreed with that years ago. Brian, thanks a lot.

SACK: Thank you. Semper fi.

BECK: All right. Now we`ve got to turn to a spoonful of sugar, and I mean that, brought to you this evening by Travelers Insurance. Here it is. Here it comes. There it is. I thought that was a giant naked butt a second ago. It`s -- I`m sorry. This is a family show.

Here we go with -- they`re dropping pumpkins on buses, which is always a good thing, unless that was a bus coming from the nursing home, and they just parked in the wrong place. Luckily, it wasn`t for us. And there it is, our spoonful of sugar, brought to you by Travelers. Your risks can change quickly. Things could be going fine, and then next thing you know Jesus shows up. Make sure your insurance stays in-synch.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: I`m hoping, I`m hoping early tomorrow morning we`ll know if Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, please! Oddsmakers overseas are picking Gore as the overwhelming favorite. Right now, he`s 4 to 1, although that may change as we get closer to tomorrow`s announcement, because at 4 to 1, also, believe it or not, is a woman named Irena Sendler. She saved 2,500 children from the Nazis during the Holocaust, but she`s up against Al Gore and that movie. So, I mean, come on, Nobel people. Get real.

Rounding out the list -- I`m not kidding here -- is Bono at 16 to 1, Oprah Winfrey, 80 to 1, and, finally, President Bush at 250 to 1. Something tells me, if Al Gore loses this one to Bush, they`ll probably blame it on Katherine Harris, and we`ll spend a lot of time with people doing this with the ballots. But maybe that`s just me.

And before you place your bets, let me just give you a little background on the history of the Nobel Prize. First of all, named after Alfred Nobel, who invented dynamite. So, naturally, a peace prize named after this guy makes perfect sense. Past finalists for the Nobel Peace Prize have included Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, and in 1939, a young up-and-comer from Austria named Adolf Hitler. Which begs the question, who`s giving these awards out?

Actually, according to the rules, any professor of social scientists - - who didn`t see that one coming -- any professor of history, philosophy, law and theology, any judge or national legislature in any country, among others, can nominate anyone for the Nobel Peace Prize. And I believe I could be one of those "among others."

So if it`s not too late, here`s my nomination for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He`s a man who single-handedly saved the entire world not once, not twice, but in my estimation at least 11 times. His name: Jack Bauer. Detonated an atomic bomb? Sure, he did that, but he averted deadly attacks of Sentox nerve gas. He`s done more to prevent the spread of terrorism than perhaps any fictional character ever on primetime TV. And now he`s about to spend 48 days in prison for a drunk driving violation.

He won`t be the first Nobel Peace Prize-winner to have spent time in prison, though. Oh, no. There have been many, many others. Some of the good ones, Nelson Mandela and Kim Dae-jung, which, well, I missed the whole Dae-jung thing. But let`s hope Jack Bauer can use his time behind bars to wisely reflect on what he did wrong, learn from his mistakes, and most importantly, never again disrupt the production schedule of my favorite television show.

From New York, good night.

END