Return to Transcripts main page
Glenn Beck
Hillary Hypocrite About Phone Tapping?; Sheriff`s Deputy Released from Prison
Aired October 16, 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, Hillary Clinton under fire. A new book charges she monitored the cell phone conversations of her husband`s political opponents. Isn`t she against wiretapping? Is this just the GOP trying to take advantage in? And what does this mean to the Clinton campaign?
Plus a deputy sheriff in prison, trying to stop a van full of illegals from running him over, is finally set free. One down, two to go. Gilmore Hernandez joins me in a minute to talk about what it`s like to be a political prisoner in our country.
And pedophile pandemonium. Another child molester on the loose in Thailand. We`ll take a look inside the world of sex tourism in Thailand.
All this and more tonight.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BECK: Hello, America. If I told you I was going to tell you a story about secretly-recorded phone call conversations in the White House, enemy lists, paranoia in the White House, when who would you think of? I know, me too. Nixon, right? Actually, no. We`re talking about Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
In light of her hard line against the government using surveillance to help stop terrorist plots, a revealing book about Hillary now shows that, in her bag of campaign tricks, they include wiretapping equipment, stolen cell phone calls, and a special set of rules that apparently only she gets to follow.
So here`s "The Point" tonight. Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite. And while her sex-scandled husband probably likes to watch, it seems that Senator Clinton prefers to listen. And here`s how I got there.
The thing I love most about this Clinton book was that it wasn`t penned by some Republican hit squad. It was written by two Pulitzer Prize- winning reporters who work for the "New York Times". Apparently, you know, it`s really easy to get a Nobel Peace Prize, but a Pulitzer, they tell me it`s tough.
Normally, I tend to take anything by anybody from the "Times" with a grain of salt or maybe -- maybe an entire ocean full of salt, but when the left starts eating their own, you know it`s just got to kill them, especially when they work at the "Times". It`s got to have a grain of truth in it.
In the book, called "Her Way", the authors show Hillary`s true face. And it`s not really all that pretty. They outline how she received numerous memos about status of various press inquiries. OK. She wildly and repeatedly scrutinized the backgrounds of senior campaign aides. Probably she should do.
But here`s the catch. She allegedly listened to a secretly-recorded audio tape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack. For those of you playing at home, that last one we call a felony.
So with that in mind, take a look at this clip from a speech Hillary gave this past June, on privacy, to the American Constitution Society, and feel free to add in your own Lucy laugh track.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE): Privacy means security in our homes and in our private communications and activities. It is synonymous with liberty, in the sense that every person enjoys a zone of freedom that government may not violate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Really? Just two months later, Hillary added a vote against the emergency law that temporarily expanded the government`s power to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists on American soil.
This from a woman who seems to have purchased a high-tech digital scanner to monitor and record cell phone calls. Yes. She may be a hypocrite. But at least she`s consistent -- ish.
So tonight here`s what you need to know. It`s ironic that Hillary seems just fine with listening in on private phone calls of her political enemies, but is against our government having the right to listen in on the conversations of terrorists plotting to kill us.
You should also know that Hillary`s campaign staff has not disputed one single thing in this book, and they`ve had access to it for quite some time, since it was released last spring.
Why are we just hearing about it now? The bottom line is this. Hillary Clinton on the issue of privacy rights is like me on the issue of dieting and doughnuts. I tend to say one thing but do another.
Jeff Gerth is one of the authors of "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton" and joins me now by telephone.
Jeff, Hillary`s campaign has not disputed any of this in the book. In fact, they -- let me see if I can get this right. They say that they have dismissed this book as an utter and complete failure. So they won`t comment on it.
JEFF GERTH, CO-AUTHOR, "HER WAY": Well, they certainly haven`t commented on the -- the matter you brought up, Glenn, the eavesdropping incident that took place in 1992 when her husband was running for president.
BECK: Tell me a little bit about the eavesdropping. Is this -- somebody just brought her a tape and said, "Listen to this"? Did they indeed have the equipment? Were they monitoring cell phones?
GERTH: Well, somebody had the equipment. We don`t say in the book who, but we do say, based on someone who was in the room, that Mrs. Clinton listened to the fruits of the surveillance and heard the tape.
And I should say that it was in a larger context of her role as being at the top of the chart in terms of organizing and managing the liabilities, not only of her husband, but of herself, including her work at the Rose Law Firm or her husband`s draft record or her husband`s, you know, alleged womanizing.
All of these things were of concern to the campaign, and Mrs. Clinton was actively involved in managing those liabilities.
BECK: OK. Do you have -- because I don`t know -- you know, I don`t know you. I`m sorry. But you`re not a -- I mean, you`re are a "New York Times" Pulitzer Prize-winning author and writer.
GERTH: Well, I retired from the "Times" to do this book, but I wrote there for 30 years. And I`m politically independent. And I`m an independent, objective journalist.
BECK: Why -- why did this book -- I mean, this is pretty significant stuff. Why do you believe your book, when it first came out, kind of just went away?
GERTH: Well, I don`t know enough about the book publishing industry to give you an authoritative answer, but I can say that the Clinton camp spent a lot of time trying to knock down and -- and sort of either ignore or suppress the book, as the case may be.
But I`ll leave it for others to decide why some books fail and others don`t.
BECK: OK. Thank you very much, Jeff.
Now considering that this Clinton book was released last spring, and we`re hearing about it now. Let me ask somebody who`s outside of the circle, John Ridley. He`s a political commentator for National Public Radio.
John, I`ve got to believe -- I`ve got to start here. I have to believe what all America might be most fascinated about with this story, is that I`ve just praised the writers at the "New York Times", and now I`m talking to an NPR commentator in the same day, and I`m treating you all with respect.
JOHN RIDLEY, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO COMMENTATOR: Yes.
BECK: It`s upside-down day. Who do you think this book went nowhere?
RIDLEY: Well, I -- probably because it`s not very good or insightful. That`s what I would imagine.
BECK: Have you read the book?
RIDLEY: I have not read the book.
BECK: Because I would think that two "New York Times" Pulitzer Prize- winning writers saying that she was involved in -- in basically illegal wiretapping, that`s pretty powerful stuff.
RIDLEY: Well, consider the source, Glenn. I mean, one of these writers, Mr. Gerth, was also part of the team of Risen and Gerth that railroaded Dr. Wen Ho Lee when they were at the "New York Times". So I don`t know that he`s the most respected "New York Times" author.
As far as the "New York Times," as I`m concerned, they print more fables than the Brothers Grim. So I`m not necessarily impressed by their journalism. Come on. Judy Miller...
BECK: Right.
RIDLEY: Jayson Blair. Again, consider the source.
BECK: OK. But you`re also from NPR, so America, consider your source. But then I`m from CNN, so what a...
RIDLEY: Exactly.
BECK: It`s a downhill slope from here.
Who do you think is behind the releasing of this report now? I mean, Rush said today -- Rush Limbaugh said we`ve never elected somebody with this high of negatives as Clinton has. Is this the GOP waking up and saying, "There`s really nobody on the other side maybe to take her down?"
Or is this possibly somebody like Obama or Edwards that is releasing this?
RIDLEY: I -- look. It`s politics. It could come from any side. You can`t dispute the fact that perhaps some of the Democrats see that the -- the gap between Hillary Clinton and everybody else is just getting wider and wider. They`ve got to do something.
It would make sense, of course, for the Republicans to get involved and say we`ve got to start taking the wind out of her sails now. To me what`s perhaps interesting is some of the far-right conservatives, the neo conservatives looking at Hillary Clinton being so strong that only someone like Giuliani could take her on.
They don`t want Giuliani to be the front-runner, so they`ve got to start going after Hillary Clinton, really bring her down so that someone who`s more palatable to their ideology can get in.
BECK: I should tell you, I don`t know a single real conservative -- I mean, you know, uber conservative that says they`ll vote for Rudy Giuliani.
They might in a head to head race, but they`re not pitching for Rudy Giuliani at this point.
RIDLEY: Exactly. I agree with you. And so do they start now really going after Hillary Clinton this early so that they can have one of their, again, somebody who`s more ideologically aligned start to move up to the front? Who knows what...
BECK: John, I -- I just have to ask you this, because in my gut, I`m not surprised if this -- you know, if, indeed, this were true -- and you know, these guys claim that it is -- if this, indeed, were true, I wouldn`t be surprised if she was doing something like this.
I think this woman and this couple, there are absolutely ruthless and they just -- they will engage in what it takes.
But what shocks me is the American people never seem to pin anything on them. They never remember anything. All the way from Sandy Berger to this. It doesn`t stick. Why?
RIDLEY: Well, whatever it is about these Clintons, there has not been a stink invented that can stick to these folks. That flagrance doesn`t exist.
And the reality is Bill Clinton is an incredibly charming guy. You can say whatever you want. He`s charming. And I think Hillary Clinton has learned that from her husband.
BECK: OK. Thank you very much, John. Appreciate it.
Free at least, free at least. Thank God almighty. Good news. Gilmer Hernandez is free at last. One of the political prisoners from our war on the Mexican border has just been released. You will not believe what our government has asked him to do. Back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BECK: Well, once again, tonight I`m going to bring you news that nobody else is paying attention to. It is our sovereignty that is at risk. And this time not by land, but by sea, where an international treaty is now in the Senate that Ronald Reagan opposed, and it is back in the limelight.
It`s not that big of a deal as long as you have zero interest in national security or free market enterprise, and it`s all in tonight`s "The Real Story". Please don`t miss it.
But first, in this country we have a real problem along our southern border. And I`m not talking about the stream of illegal immigrants waltzing into this country to the tune of half a million a year.
I`m talking about the shameless U.S. attorneys like Johnny Sutton who are spending their days and your tax dollars prosecuting our border agents, most of which are honest Americans who are just trying to keep our border secure and our country safe.
Sutton has already damned Ramos and Compean to decade-plus prison sentences for trying to stop a drug smuggler. He also went -- went after Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez for shooting at the tires of a van full of illegals who tried to run him over.
I believe these three men -- Hernandez, Ramos and Compean -- are our first political country -- political prisoners. It is sad news.
Now, there are some in Washington doing what they can to end the travesty of injustice and prevent it from happening again. We`ll get into that here in just a second. One of these three brave men is finally home. I am proud to be joined now by Gilmer Hernandez.
Gilmer, first of all, sir, thank you for all that you have put up with and all the service that you have provided our -- our country. You were released yesterday. Last time you saw your baby daughter, she was four months old. She`s now 14 months old. What was that like to be home?
GILMER HERNANDEZ, SHERIFF`S DEPUTY: It was pretty hard, you know, not seeing my daughter. But when I got home, it felt real great, you know, holding her and spending time with her.
BECK: You say that Johnny Sutton and the prosecution used lies and their -- I believe you said usual tactics to put you behind bars. What do you mean by that?
HERNANDEZ: Well, the tactic lies that I saw through the -- there at the court and actual having an investigation, they used prior -- a month before the -- for the court time because my court was in November. And it was like the end of September when they just did the investigation. Because I was never interviewed by the FBI.
BECK: Hang on just a second. FBI never talked to you?
HERNANDEZ: Never talked to me, interrogated me or interviewed me at all.
BECK: You are a deputy sheriff. You discharged your gun. You were going to a federal prison and the FBI never interviewed you?
HERNANDEZ: Never talked to me or asked me any questions about the case. The only thing was the Texas Ranger who actually cleared me from the case.
BECK: Is it true that they offered you a plea deal to where they asked you to change your report?
HERNANDEZ: That is correct. They offered me a six months probation to stipulate with the story that they wanted.
BECK: And what did they ask you to do to your report?
HERNANDEZ: They had -- I mean, they -- it was sent on paper with the plea bargain. And they had to -- like the incident that happened that night and they wanted me to just agree and agree with that report.
BECK: OK. And so you were supposed to change the report to say that you fired into the van and not at the tires?
HERNANDEZ: That sounds correct.
BECK: What did you think when your government actually asked you to lie on a report?
HERNANDEZ: It was tough. That`s why I didn`t take that plea bargain, because it was all a lie. It wasn`t, you know...
BECK: Gilmer, God bless you, man. God bless you. Thank you very much.
Let me go to Congressman Ted Poe now, Republican from Texas.
Congressman, we just heard that Gilmer was offered a plea deal if he would change his report. Is that even legal?
REP. TED POE (R), TEXAS: Based on what I believe in the law is no, of course not. If you change your report, it`s not the truth. So that`s very disturbing news, Glenn, that you have just relayed to us.
BECK: OK. Let me -- let me give a quote here from you. You said the Mexican government wanted a Texas deputy sheriff prosecuted, and they got - - and they got their way. What do you mean by that?
POE: Well, Gilmer Hernandez, after this episode occurred, the situation was investigated by the sheriff`s department, the Texas Rangers. Then the Mexican government wrote a letter to our government, demanding prosecution of Gilmer Hernandez.
And then our -- you know, our Justice Department was quick on the scene and a year later, prosecuted him for this alleged civil rights violation.
BECK: There doesn`t seem to be any justice coming. And I hope I`m wrong on that. We have a new attorney general coming in. I know you`ve written him a letter asking his help on this. What have you put in that letter?
POE: Well, we`ve asked that the new attorney general review this whole situation about why is the Justice Department continuing to seek out and prosecute border protectors and seeming to give a pass to human smugglers and drug smugglers in some of these cases? We want him or her to reevaluate this entire situation.
BECK: But you -- you know as well as I know it`s been a tight little circle of ring. It`s been -- it`s been our attorney general, Johnny Sutton, and George Bush. These guys have known each other forever. I mean, how are you going to break up that ring? How are you going to get in and prove that anything was going on with the Mexicans?
POE: Well, we just have to bring the truth to light, Glenn, as you continue to do. And maybe in the confirmation hearings before the Senate, we can convince some of our senators to ask some very pointed questions to the new nominee about these cases -- Gilmer Hernandez case, Ramos and Compean case -- and get a perspective from this candidate.
BECK: I know that your bill passed in the House to sever the appropriations for the prison term of Compean and Ramos, but it`s going to the Senate now, and you have two supporters that say they don`t want this. It`s going to set a bad precedent.
What`s going to happen in the Senate?
POE: We don`t know what will happen in the Senate, but it did pass the House overwhelmingly by voice vote. So regardless of what the Senate passes when it goes to conference committee to come up with one bill instead of two, we hope to have that in the conference bill, to make sure that they`re defunded -- their incarcerations defunded.
BECK: Stay in touch with us, Congressman. Thanks very much.
POE: Thank you, Glenn.
BECK: Now, coming up, Howard Kurtz joins me to discuss his new book, "Reality Show" and explain to me the battle between Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric for ratings. It`s a good thing they`re not battling with me, going head to head, because it would be a race to the bottom.
And "The Real Story" beside the "Seed Treaty" (ph). What Ronald Reagan said about it 20 years ago and why it is still right today. Coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BECK: Well, I want to take a moment here just to tell you what it`s like to be an anchor on a nightly news show. The fans, the babes, the free doughnuts. It`s a crazy, upside-down world, and it`s all documented now in a brand new book by Howard Kurtz, "Reality Show: Inside the Last Great Television News War".
Howard, I`m just assuming they get free donuts.
HOWARD KURTZ, AUTHOR, "REALITY SHOW": Sure. It`s -- it`s covered in the contract.
BECK: Yes. Evening news is dead. You know it and I know it.
KURTZ: No, no, evening news is in danger of dying. No question about that, Glenn. But we`re talking about it 25 million viewers a night. It`s a lot more than cable. These programs still have...
BECK: It`s in a hospice -- it`s in a hospice center. You know it. It is.
KURTZ: Well, here`s the problem. Brian, Charlie, Katie are trying to fill the shoes of Dan, Tom and Peter. And they have a very loyal audience, average age about 97. And if they don`t find some way to get younger people to watch, then in five years, your prediction might be true.
BECK: See, here`s the thing, Howard. People don`t watch television this way anymore. We`re not watching television for news. We`re not even reading it in the "New York Times". Here`s the problem. And you talk about it in your book.
All of the media is -- lines up at the daily trough to get their news from the "New York Times". That "New York Times" is not in touch with most of America. Most of America gets their news on the Internet, be it the Drudge Report or wherever. They`ll get their news there.
When they get home, they want perspective on the news. They want opinion on the news from people they trust. They don`t need the news. They`ve already seen it.
KURTZ: Well, not everybody is watching cable all day or sitting in front of a computer screen.
And I agree they need perspective. And there`s plenty of room for opinion.
BECK: Yes.
KURTZ: We all like that. That`s why people watch your show. But I argue in this book, Glenn, that "The CBS Evening News", "NBC Nightly News" and ABC`s "World News" had a really big impact in 2005 and in 2006 in helping turn public opinion against the war. Not because the anchors were anti-war or anti-Bush or any of that, but because they showed us the carnage from Baghdad every night.
BECK: No. I mean, these guys -- and I think they`re intentionally doing it.
Tell me about -- tell me about O.J. and Anna Nicole. They`ve made -- which network is it that said, "You know what? Maybe we should go more along those lines"?
KURTZ: Look, those are much bigger cable stories and morning show stories. But the fact is that these evening newscasts exist in this cacophonous media echo chamber that we all live in and Paris Hilton goes to jail or O.J. gets arrested or something like that. Sometimes that makes it onto the evening news, as well.
BECK: Is that -- is that a sign of those networks or those shows not really knowing who they are? I`ll rat myself out. We covered Anna Nicole an awful lot.
It was about eight weeks ago that I finally got it in my own head where I said, "Oh, my gosh, I know exactly who we are. I know exactly the kind of story that we should be covering." And everything has changed for us.
And the audience may not have noticed, but we`re truer to ourself, and I think we`re truer to our audience right now. Anna Nicole would not be covered on this show three nights in a row. Isn`t it just a case of being lazy or not knowing who you or your audience is?
KURTZ: Well, Anna Nicole would not be covered in your show. That`s a small step forward for mankind. But, you know, Brian Williams wrote on his blog -- one of the things he does is he blogs on the NBC site.
But you know, he didn`t want -- he didn`t care about Paris Hilton. But so many people did it that "NBC Nightly News" covered it, as well. I still think that these newscasts, even though they`re in danger of extinction, are still a serious repository for real news.
BECK: Yes.
KURTZ: But the fact is that, if everybody who watches is 97 years old, how do they survive?
BECK: They don`t. And I never said we wouldn`t cover it. I just said we wouldn`t cover it every night. Howard, thanks a lot.
Coming up, there is a fight on the high seas, although it is not happening in open water. It is happening in the Senate chambers in Washington, D.C. We`ll have the details in "The Real Story" next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BECK: Well, after being pulled over for driving without a license plate and not having a valid driver`s license, Chester "Chet" Stiles finally caught by authorities. This is the guy who allegedly molested a 3- year-old girl on a sex tape in Las Vegas. We have more on this disgusting story in just a bit.
But first, welcome to "The Real Story." And trust me, this one, do not delete from your TiVo, and share this with all of your friends. Today`s story has everything in it. It has money, it has power, it has socialism, it has national security, world government, oil. It even has global warming. And yet no one in the media is talking about it.
It all revolves around an international agreement called the Law of the Sea or the LOST treaty. And even though we`ve been fighting it off since the days of Ronald Reagan, we are now closer to it than ever before, and the Senate is about to ratify it. The politicians who want to rubber stamp this through Congress tell people that it is harmless. Pay no attention to it. The media is going right along with it.
It just formalizes international laws that we`ve been following anyway. Well, great. Then why do we need a treaty? The "Real Story" is that the only thing that will be lost if this treaty is ratified will be more of our sovereignty. This is a big one.
Now, I realize it`s not exactly a ratings bonanza to have me talk about the fine print in international treaties, but, please, let me -- if you`ll just give me a second to explain why any of this actually matters to you.
International treaties are being used by the rest of the world as something called law-fare. This basically means that our adversaries use all of these treaties and accords and conventions that we sign as a way to reduce our power in the world without ever putting a boot down on the ground. This is as much of a weapon as any gun or missile, and it is basically a natural gas war. It will kill you, but you never see it coming.
The Kyoto treaty, thankfully neither Clinton nor Bush ever ratified this thing. This is one example of it. But so is something called the Vienna Convention that we told you about last week. Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court is trying to decide if that convention supersedes our own laws and Constitution on due process for foreign nationals, otherwise known as illegal aliens.
In essence, while these treaties may seem harmless, and we all love to play nicey-nice with the rest of the world, they can actually have more power than our own Constitution, which brings me back to the LOST treaty. Those pesky, little, boring details that nobody wants to pay attention to, here`s just a few of them.
First, it would give the U.N. related body control over 70 percent of the world`s surface. Second, the agency would have the power to tax -- no, sorry, the word tax isn`t actually in there. They get to -- they have the power to, oh, I remember, levy fees and royalties on us and create a great new revenue stream for the socialist, anti-American U.N.
They also get the power to settle disputes, which, if I may translate, means the power to set up a world court run by, most likely, anti-American foreign judges, which kind of sounds like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, but, trust me, it is even worse.
This is really about socialism, the systematic redistribution of wealth by the United Nations and the usurping of your rights as a citizen of this country, the taking away of the Constitution. One of the original creators of this treaty was a public supporter of one world government. She was a woman who saw LOST as a trial balloon for developing a, quote, "common global constitution."
America, please, this is not a joke. You must look into the LOST treaty. It is in the Senate now. We must wake up. The killers are inside the house! Our country and our sovereignty is being lost to socialists, globalists, elitists, and corporations, and it`s happening right in front of our eyes. We must stand up and say, "Enough!"
Now we go now to Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. Senator, good to have you on the program again.
SEN. JAMES INHOFE (R), OKLAHOMA: Hey, Glenn. Good to be with you again.
BECK: Let`s start here. This is the first time now the U.N. will be able to actually levy a tax. Is that true?
INHOFE: What it is, is the Law of the Sea Treaty, I think, is the greatest single raid on our sovereignty, in my lifetime, anyway. And, yeah, they would be able to do it. This new group that`s called the International Seabed Authority would have the authority to level taxes on everybody, us and other countries.
Now, I`ll tell you what I think. And you know my bias against the United Nations. I think that every time the United Nations does something that we don`t like, we pass a resolution to say, "We`re going to withhold so much of your funds." They don`t like to be accountable to anyone, Glenn. And so what they`re going to do is try to pass a global tax, and they can do it with this authority.
BECK: It`s taxes, fees, and levies actually in this.
INHOFE: Yes, it`s there.
BECK: And what America doesn`t understand is, once the Senate approves something -- correct me if I`m wrong, Senator, but it`s only been a couple of weeks since I`ve read this part of the Constitution -- but once you approve it and ratify it, it becomes part of our Constitution.
INHOFE: And it allows the United Nations to regulate 70 percent of the Earth`s surface and the air above it, I might add.
BECK: OK. Now, we can`t stop ships except for three reasons, and terrorism is not one of them.
INHOFE: No, that`s true. If we have knowledge that a terrorist was on a ship in the high seas or they had weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn`t be able to do it, because you can only do it for three specific reasons, which are really kind of stupid to start with anyway.
BECK: OK.
INHOFE: So that`s the problem that we`re having with this thing right now.
BECK: We`re going to put up on the bottom of the screen here a Web address. And it is -- do you have it handy real quick? Do you want to say it real quick?
INHOFE: Yes, it`s EPW.Senate.gov.
BECK: OK, go there, because it has all of this information and so much more that you`ve put together. Just click on the Glenn Beck viewers and listeners.
How close do you believe we are, Senator, to losing America as we know it? We have the Supreme Court answering to an international court last week. We have this LOST treaty, possibly, most likely, would you say, being ratified by...
INHOFE: No, I think most likely. Look, Glenn, we stopped it in `04 only because no one knew what it was. It passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 16-0. So it would have been ratified, but we stopped it by having hearings. But that`s when Republicans controlled the Senate. We don`t control it anymore, so we may not be able to get hearings.
BECK: Real quick, Senator, how close are we to losing our sovereignty in this nation?
INHOFE: Way too close. I`ve got 20 kids and grandkids, and I`m really worried about it.
BECK: OK, thank you very much.
INHOFE: Thank you, Glenn.
BECK: Now, the LOST supporters love to say that Ronald Reagan was only opposed to this piece of garbage treaty because of one specific clause about seabed mining. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Reagan kept a diary.
June 29th, 1982, this is what he wrote in his diary, quote, "Decided in National Security Council meeting -- will not sign Law of the Sea treaty even without the seabed mining provisions." I can see how you might misinterpret that one.
Frank Gaffney, he was a former assistant secretary in the Reagan administration, now the president of the Center for Security Policy. Frank, I don`t even know where to begin on this one. Please tell me that I`m overstating this, that this is not the taking of our sovereignty.
FRANK GAFFNEY, JR., FOUNDER, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: I don`t think you`re overstating it at all. Unfortunately, it will happen incrementally, Glenn, so it may not seem as painful. Over time it will be, but immediately it may not be as bad as you say. But I think there`s no question, what you`ve described is where this thing will take us. And it`s not good for America.
BECK: Frank, I have to tell you. And maybe this is what Reagan saw. I mean, you were there. They never take it -- they never say, "I`m going to take all of it," because they know they`ll never get it through. They take it piece by piece by piece. And that`s exactly what they`re doing. Give me just the highlights of the worst things about this.
GAFFNEY: Well, as you said, President Reagan rejected this treaty, because I think he did anticipate the kind of threat that it would represent to our sovereignty as a global constitution of the oceans inevitably migrated to the land.
In fact, one of the architects of it, as you spoke of, talked about this as the implementation of the old adage, "He who rules the oceans rules the land." And what we see about this treaty is an opportunity for -- in much the same way as this may be in case demonstrated, the Bush administration or perhaps its successor compelling us to submit our constitutional representative form of government to these faceless, unaccountable, unresponsive, international bureaucrats.
Taxes is one thing. Law-fare, as you put it, is another very serious problem for the United States Navy and our security interests. And I think it`s -- bottom line, it`s putting the U.N. on steroids. And given its performance to date, I can`t imagine why we`d want to do that.
BECK: OK, they even have the right under this treaty to boss around our military on the seas, do they not?
GAFFNEY: They do. Now, the Navy, interestingly enough, is one of the principle champions of this treaty. I think it`s mostly the lawyers in the Navy, frankly, but they, nonetheless, as a corporate position, embrace this treaty and want it desperately.
BECK: Why?
GAFFNEY: And, ironically, they`re going to be the first to suffer as these mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms, which they think they`re going to be exempted from, are, in fact, used against them. You know, remember the case...
BECK: Why do they want it, Frank?
GAFFNEY: Well, there are really two treaties here, in a way, Glenn. There`s a treaty that just governs international navigation through places like archipelagos and straits that the Navy has for decades thought was really important, and I can understand that.
Unfortunately, there`s this whole other treaty. And when they go out and shill for the treaty they like, they are completely ignoring, I`m afraid -- worse, they are misleading people about the consequences even for the Navy itself, let alone for the rest of the country, associated with this other part of the treaty that has to do with control of the international waters of the world and, as I say, the opportunity that the bodies that would be given that control have to extend their power ashore.
BECK: Frank, I`ve got five seconds. Pass or not pass?
GAFFNEY: If the American people don`t know about this treaty, it will pass. It must not. We need their help, and thanks for yours.
BECK: You got it. That`s "The Real Story."
Coming up, Chester the Alleged Molester has been captured. Details are next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: China is, quote, "furious" at the Dalai Lama. President Bush is meeting with the Dalai Lama up in the residence. How are you furious with the Dalai Lama? I mean, first of all, he`s got "Lama" in his last name. So automatically you have to smile.
And then the second part, I don`t know if China has noticed this, Tibet is still not free. So he doesn`t seem to be real effective on that whole thing. But China is very upset with the president and everything else. It`s just another good day in America. It is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Yesterday, good day in America. You know, assuming you`re like me and you`re in favor of getting pedophiles off of streets. Chester the Alleged Molester Stiles arrested in Las Vegas last night after being pulled over for a routine traffic stop and telling police that he just wanted to stop running, which is pretty much exactly the cowardly ending you`d expect from a guy who videotaped himself molesting 3-year-old girl.
So with one on the books for the good guys, our attention now turns to, where else, but Thailand. That`s where authorities now believe 32- year-old Canadian Christopher Paul Neil may be hiding out. Police have a few questions for Neil about why 200 Internet photos allegedly show him molesting 12 children, some as young as 6 years old.
Meanwhile, I have a few questions of my own, like what the heck is up with Thailand and the child molesters? Why do all these monsters who run there seem to have three names? You know, John Mark Karr, Christopher Paul Neil, honestly, why don`t we just ban three-named males from going over to Thailand? Wouldn`t it be a little easier?
Norma Ramos, she is the executive director of Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. And Gary Haugen, he is the president of International Justice Mission.
Norma, let me start with this. Thailand, why do so many people go there for horrible sex things?
NORMA RAMOS, COALITION AGAINST TRAFFICKING IN WOMEN: Well, Thailand, there`s a history to Thailand, and this could be said, in part, to be the legacy of the Vietnam War. There was a military presence in Southeast Asia, and there was an organized and supported sex industry. It was called R&R. And once the military presence left, that was filled by sex tourism.
BECK: OK, so hang on. Gary, the people who are going for sex tourism, they`ve got to be the worst of the worst.
GARY HAUGEN, INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE MISSION: Well, at International Justice Mission, we`ve spent thousands of hours actually infiltrating these commercial sex industries. And the thing we learn about these pedophiles is that they`re not brave people. And what you see happening right now is just good law enforcement changing the fear equation, so it`s not the children who have to be afraid anymore. It`s the alleged pedophile who`s on the run. And that`s what good cooperation between the public and law enforcement can achieve, because you can shut this down.
BECK: OK. Who`s making the money here over in Thailand, Norma? Is it the families? Is it the kids? Are the families pimping the kids out? How does someone give up their 6-year-old to a pedophile?
RAMOS: You have to understand that the conditions in some of these countries are very desperate, so I think that we probably want to move away from making judgments, more to looking at the legal structure and the culture of acceptance of the commercial rape of women and children.
So we have to look at the traffickers. There`s enormous money in trafficking, because you can sell a human being over and over again. I think that`s what we have to start focusing on. We have to create a global, cultural and legal intolerance of commercial sexual exploitation of women and children. And once we do that, we remove the incentive.
BECK: OK.
But, Gary, is there such a thing as -- I mean, do I go to some sort of tourist agent that specializes in this kind of stuff? I mean, are there places that you -- God forbid, don`t tell me any of these places -- but are there places that you could go and say, "Hey, this is what I`m looking for in my vacation," and they`ll line it up for you?
HAUGEN: Well, it`s even easier than that. You just need to basically arrive in many of these countries, and you`ll be solicited immediately by taxi drivers, people at the hotel, who know that there is an interest and appetite for this.
And so what we have to do is precisely what Norma says. We have to create a culture of simple zero tolerance. And what we know is that, if we provide strong advocates for the children, and we pursue these pedophiles aggressively, we don`t wait for them to come forward, we go find them...
BECK: Yes.
HAUGEN: ... and we develop the evidence against them, work with local law enforcement and send them to jail, they will stop exploiting children.
BECK: But if there`s that much money, I`ve got to believe that the law enforcement officials are in on it, that it`s got to be a dirty system from top to bottom.
Norma, you know, I`ve got to go back to something you just said. You said let`s not, you know, nail the victims, and I agree with that, but, again, I`ve got to go back to myself and say: I don`t care how hungry I am or my family, I would never sell my child. I`d never sell my 6-year-old.
RAMOS: I think people find themselves, in poor countries, in horrific circumstances. And, yes, we all want to believe that; I certainly feel the same way you do. But what I want to do is change the cultural forces that make it possible for people to be so desperate that we see this kind of thing happening.
We also have to create a culture of equality for women, because poverty makes the commercial exploitation of girls and women even more possible.
BECK: Right.
RAMOS: So we`re also talking about -- you mentioned corruption, definitely corruption. There`s corruption in every country in the world, but some countries suffer from more corruption than others, and that creates more of a likelihood of commercial rape of children and women.
BECK: I hate to even ask this question, but if you were somebody going over and you wanted to have sex with a 6-year-old, what would that set you back?
HAUGEN: Well, in many of these countries, it would set you back just a few dollars. It`s extremely cheap. But you`re right about the notion that you can only get away with this if it`s tolerated by local law enforcement. And the way it happens is that law enforcement broadens the business, so these countries have to have the political will to get rid of it, and then they need to get rid of dirty cops who make money off of it.
BECK: OK, guys. Thank you very much.
Coming up, the pious flame, you tell me, Pope John Paul II or a wind- blown campfire?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BECK: Well, it was 2 1/2 years ago that Pope John Paul II sadly passed away, and miraculously he has returned. During a ceremony marking the second anniversary of the pope`s death near his birthplace in Poland, an onlooker took some photos, brought them home, and when he looked at them, lo and behold, yes, there is the pope, kind of.
Not really sure if this is proof that the pope was indeed there, but it is not the first time the pope has appeared in an apparition. It was actually four days after his death, the pope appeared in a cafeteria in Eastern Illinois University in the form of a chicken breast. Apparently, that`s his profile. It eventually sold on eBay for $232.
And yet the pope is not alone. Who could forget the time the Virgin Mary appeared in the form of Diane Duyser`s grilled cheese sandwich, which -- I mean, what a -- this sold for $28,000. Soon after, the Virgin Mary, who apparently has nothing to do, was spotted underneath a vat of chocolate drippings inside a California candy factory. Look at that spooky image. And then she was seen in the drip pan of a George Foreman grill. And then, let`s see, she was on a potato chip. She was on a piece of defective paneling, a coffee stain on a napkin.
Now, if you`re interested in buying your very own apparition, on eBay right now there are hundreds of these opportunities to choose from. But if you`re the impatient type, for $250,000, you can buy now this rock. Let me look at it. Where is it? This rock embedded would the likeness of the Virgin Mary. Or is it the Mona Lisa? I`m not really sure. But for $250,000, you can have it, you moron. If it`s a bit out of your price range, the seller is offering also this commemorative Nolan Ryan plate for $6.99 plus shipping.
And while you`re online, go over to Amazon.com and preorder this. It comes out in about a book. It is a fantastic, groundbreaking new book which, if you didn`t know it, I mean, the image on the cover bears a remarkable likeness to me. It`s uncanny; it`s one of the weirdest things. And the weirdest part of it is, every single book has that same image on it. Every single one. It is indeed frightening and spooky.
Well, that`s all for me. Don`t forget my free e-mail newsletter. Tomorrow, if you missed it in the show earlier today, you`ll get the entire interview with Gilmer Hernandez. He`s the deputy sheriff who was arrested and spent more than seven months in solitary confinement for the crime of trying to defend himself from a van full of illegal aliens who were just trying to run him over. It will be his first TV interview. You`ll catch it on the newsletter and radio tomorrow. Just sign up for the free newsletter at glennbeck.com.
From New York, good night, America.
END
