Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban; Antiwar MoveOn.org Ad Uses Baby

Aired June 26, 2008 - 19:00   ET

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

MICHAEL GRAHAM, HOST: Hello, everybody. I am Michael Graham, sitting in for Glenn Beck.
In one of the most anticipated decisions in recent memory, today the Supreme Court struck down the Washington, D.C., gun ban, concluding it violates the fundamental and individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Obviously, this decision will have national implications for both sides of the gun debate.

Joining me now to help shed some light on the court`s decision are Nelson Lund, a professor at George Mason School of Law, and a Second Amendment expert, and Alan Guru, an attorney who argued this case in front of the Supreme Court.

Alan, I want to start with you. Tell us the story. How did this case end up in front of the Supreme Court?

ALAN GURU, ATTORNEY: Well, about six years ago, six Washington, D.C., residents and a team of lawyers working independently decided it was time to challenge Washington, D.C.`s, ban on handguns and other functional firearms in the home.

We felt we had a very, very strong case. It`s clear that the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights to keep and bear arms, and if that right means anything, it means that you have the right to have a basic, simple handgun inside your own home to defend yourself and your family with.

And we`re very gratified that the Supreme Court today affirmed that right and struck down the D.C. gun ban.

GRAHAM: Because you know, Alan, I used to work in D.C., and my understanding was if you owned a gun and lived in Maryland and had to drive over to Virginia, you technically couldn`t even drive through the district with it in your car? Was it really that strict, the handgun ban in D.C.?

GURU: Oh, yes. It`s was quite a bad idea. The federal law does let you cross interstate lines with guns sometimes. But in Washington, D.C., if you were stopped and they happened to find a gun on you, it was bad news. I mean, they would show no tolerance at all. They prosecute everybody.

They had a very, very aggressive program of prosecution. If you had a gun and it wasn`t registered, and of course you can`t register a handgun...

GRAHAM: Exactly.

GURU: ... you`re going to go to jail.

GRAHAM: Nelson, people keep talking about the individual right, and I`m just a guy who reads words on paper. Look to me, Second Amendment, keep and bear arms. How is this even a controversy? And how could the court have allowed something like this to stand for 33 years?

NELSON LUND, PROFESSOR, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: I`m not sure why they would let it stand for so long, but for a very long time, all of the lower courts, the lower federal courts accepted the view that this was a kind of collective right that applied only to people who were serving in a government-organized military organization.

And it really is a great day for the Constitution that the court has thoroughly debunked that reading of the Constitution and adopted the position that this is not only an individual right, but that the core of it is the right to individual self-defense.

GRAHAM: You know, I want to hear this, but it`s hard to cheer guys when something that`s written down in the Constitution is barely held up by a 5-4 margin. What happened to 9-zip on this?

I want to read to you Stephen Breyer from his dissent. In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas? Alan, no untouchable constitutional right at all? In other words your guns are at the whim of the government around you? What`s the point of the Constitution?

GURU: Well, the right is not untouchable. If you`re a felon or if you`re crazy, you can lose your gun rights. But -- but what the government can`t touch is law-abiding citizens` guns. If you are a law abiding, adult, responsible person you are allowed to have a gun, and that`s what the government can`t touch. And the Second Amendment guarantees that right against government interference.

GRAHAM: You know, Nelson, I`d love to see the day in America where the court will stand as strongly behind my right to own a gun as written down in the Constitution as they do a right to a partial birth abortion, which came from, what, a penumbra, an emanation?

Why is there so much hostility to something that normal citizens can see? It`s right there in the text. If we don`t like it, we can amend the Constitution any time we want.

LUND: Well, I think too many people, including four members of this court, as you have suggested, have gotten in the habit of thinking that any constitutional provision must mean whatever they think is good policy.

And another important aspect of this case is that -- is that the court rejected the position taken in Justice Breyer`s dissent, according to which just about any restriction on a fundamental constitutional right should be upheld if the judges think that it will promote public safety on the basis of some kind of cost benefit analysis.

GRAHAM: Alan, I`d like to know what kind of local laws now will be re-looked at? If people are watching out there, obviously, there`s a quilt work of patchwork of laws around the country. What kind of laws are most in danger?

GURU: I think Chicago`s handgun ban is going to be looked at. Other laws that impose huge taxes on gun ownership, laws that basically harass the ownership of guns and don`t serve any compelling government purpose are going to get looked at. Laws that make sense, banning criminals from having guns, for example. Those aren`t going to go away any time soon.

GRAHAM: I know that Senator Obama said he supports the Chicago handgun ban as it exists. It`s kind of hard to figure out the line here, Alan. When you were arguing for the Supreme Court, how much did they talk about the actual impact? Because D.C. has the toughest gun law ban, or they did. And they also had one of the highest gun crime rates.

Did that point come up in the conversation with the Supreme Court?

GURU: It came up in conversation with the court. Obviously, the court wants to be comfortable with what they decide. But the policy decision is made in the Constitution. And we know from looking at 32 years of the gun ban in Washington, D.C., that it`s been a complete and total failure. If anything, the gun ban has made things worse.

But even if the gun ban were a good idea, the fact is it`s an unconstitutional idea. And we made these decisions in the Constitution, and we have to respect the Constitution as it`s written.

GRAHAM: One last question for you, Nelson. Those of us who wish the judges would go by what the Constitution actually says, is this a victory or are we still going to see the court looking for ways to impose social and legal, political policies on us by the bench?

LUND: Given the 5-4 nature of the decision, I think we shouldn`t expect in other areas to see the same kind of careful and faithful attention to the history and text of the Constitution.

We just saw an example just recently with the case of child rape laws. And so I don`t know how -- I`m not sure this is all that promising a sign about other provisions of the Constitution.

GRAHAM: Well, hey...

LUND: But it`s a very important victory in this case.

GRAHAM: Hope stays alive. Alan, Nelson, thanks.

Now, as you know, the Second Amendment is something that Glenn Beck feels very strongly about. And even though he`s still under the weather, we couldn`t keep him quiet once he heard the good news from the Supreme Court.

Joining me now by telephone, the lovely and talented Glenn Beck.

GLENN BECK, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes, I think. I`m feeling fine. I`ve just been burying my guns for the last few days just in case.

GRAHAM: You know, Glenn, you say that this doesn`t apply to people who are insane or felons. How does this apply to you at all then? I don`t understand.

BECK: Yes, yes. You know, here`s the thing. You know, you find it hard to understand, you know, who can -- who can buy guns and who can`t. If you`re a criminal, you can`t buy guns. If you`re mentally impaired, you can`t buy a gun. Anybody else, you can buy a gun. You can buy a gun, you can carry a gun, you can have a gun.

Now, I just want you to know, if you`re a pedophile, apparently, the state can`t sentence you to death, but if I catch you molesting my children in my house, I`ll kill you with my legal handgun.

GRAHAM: Well, as long as you can have it. But, you know, the same members of the Supreme Court who said leave the child rapist alive also said don`t let Glenn Beck have a gun to protect himself.

BECK: Michael, look, this is -- this is why, you know, you have to look at the candidates. This is one thing in favor of John McCain and another one against Barack Obama in my book.

Barack Obama said, you know, what kind of people would he appoint to the Supreme Court? The people he named were the people that said, "Yes, pedophiles can be set free. They can`t get the death penalty. No, you can`t have a gun."

So in other words they think it`s OK to let child rapists not be killed. But I can`t protect myself in my own house. Those are the kind of Supreme Court justices that Barack Obama has said that he would appoint.

GRAHAM: And, Glenn, do you think this is going to impact the upcoming election? I mean, this is a legitimate thing to debate on, and Barack Obama and John McCain very far apart.

BECK: I think -- John McCain, the one thing he is solid on is -- is guns. He is good with the Second Amendment. Barack Obama is just slippery. The guy is better at being Bill Clinton than Bill Clinton.

What Americans need to understand is the Founding Fathers were clear. They were afraid of an out-of-control government. That`s why the Second Amendment is in there.

The militia wasn`t the state-run militia. Benjamin Franklin went door to do to his neighbors and said, "Chief, these guys in Congress won`t do anything. The British are coming. Grab your gun over your fireplace. Will you come and be in the militia? It was a militia of townspeople. It was just your neighbors down the street that got together to defend their own town. That was what the Founding Fathers meant when they said a militia.

And I`m telling you, the only thing that will keep these weasels in Washington on track is if they have a healthy fear of us.

GRAHAM: Absolutely.

BECK: And people say, well, you`ll never beat the United States military. Really? How come the people that are so eager to take away my gun and try to use the excuse that, oh, well, if there was ever an uprising, you`d never beat the military anyway, they`re the same ones that tell me, we`re losing in Iraq because of insurgents?

GRAHAM: Very good point. Glenn, I got to ask, when do you get back from Cabo -- I mean, when do you think you`ll be feeling better? Will I see you on Monday?

BECK: Feeling better, I`m sensing, maybe Monday.

GRAHAM: Sensing that. OK.

Coming up, Hillary Clinton needs to pay off millions in campaign debts, and she wants Obama to help. But getting an assist from Obama will be a lot easier said than done. I`ll explain in just a bit.

And just a reminder: tonight`s show is brought to you by is the Sleep Number Bed by Select Comfort. Sleep Number, the bed that counts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRAHAM: Coming up, if you`re a guy and Scarlett Johansson has our personal e-mail address, that is a good thing. Unless you`re Barack Obama, who is now deflecting reports about his e-mail relationship with the actress. We`ll have the details next.

Today, the Supreme Court ended their session, and they went out with a bang. The court struck down the Washington, D.C., gun ban, saying that private citizens do have the constitutional, individual right to own a handgun.

That decision is great news to a lot of conservative Americans, unlike the court`s earlier decision that struck down a Louisiana law, which applied the death penalty to convicted child rapists.

Let`s turn to a man with strong opinions on both these rulings, Louisiana`s Republican governor, Bobby Jindal.

Governor Jindal, thanks for joining us.

GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (R), LOUISIANA: Michael, thank you for having me.

GRAHAM: First of all, what`s your reaction to the overturning of the D.C. gun ban?

JINDAL: You know, it was a great ruling. I was astonished after yesterday`s awful ruling. To me it`s just black letter law. It`s amazing to me how people can read the Constitution, ignore the plain English meaning of the Second Amendment. And yet, some of these same people are the ones that want to create meanings, create words that are not in the Constitution.

I was glad the court ruled that there is, indeed, an individual right to own firearms, especially for law-abiding citizens. It was the right ruling. I`m glad that they actually read the law and didn`t try to create one in this case.

GRAHAM: Yes, but Governor Jindal, it also mentions capital punishment, I think, twice in the Constitution. And yet, the Supreme Court says, well, you can kind of use it sometimes, but not on those poor child rapists? It seems to me like that`s the No. 1 group you`d use it on.

JINDAL: You know, it is amazing to me. They were wrong on the facts. They were wrong on their rationale. I`m offended by both. First of all, look at the facts. These are the worst types of monsters in this case.

You had an 8-year-old victim, an innocent child, an innocent little girl, a 300-pound attacker. This little girl ended up in the hospital. She`ll never be able to have children. You think about what she has gone through, what she`ll go through for the rest of her life. To me, clearly, the death penalty should have applied here.

The justices actually wrote that the crime, the punishment was not proportional to the crime. That is absolutely ridiculous. You try telling that to the little girl. You try telling that to her family, the people that care for her.

And here`s what also deeply concerned me. In reaching this absurd conclusion, the court pointed to what they, quote, said was our growing national consensus against the use of the death penalty in these cases.

Well, first of all, since when did the court become a pollster? When was it their job to go out there and try to decide what the voters were thinking. And secondly, they`re just wrong. More states -- I thought their job was to read the law and interpret the law and try to apply it to the Constitution as intended by the Founding Fathers, not to create their own interpretations.

When you read this decision, it just sounds to me like another example of lawmaking of an activist court that doesn`t understand the separation of powers.

Here in Louisiana on the day the court handed down their judgment, I actually signed into law a chemical castration bill that will say, for those monsters and others that commit a host of these types of crimes, related crimes, the judge will actually have the option of chemical castration.

The first time it will be mandatory. The second time, the judge can choose physical castration. Now this doesn`t minimize or doesn`t mitigate their sins. They still have to go to jail. We`re serious in Louisiana about protecting our children and protecting our people.

GRAHAM: I want to ask you about that, because talk about cruel and unusual punishment. I actually happen to be a death penalty opponent. Because I think small government conservatives don`t want the government that couldn`t convict O.J. to decide who lives and dies.

But you`re going to chemically castrate sex offenders, which hey, comes up to me. What`s the court`s reaction going to be to that if the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment?

JINDAL: Well, we have committed a host of laws that they may or may not like. And I really don`t care. And I did this not only as the governor but as a father of three young children. We`ve doubled the sentences in some cases, increased them by fivefold, closed the loopholes that let these offenders use text messaging.

We also have lifetime registration, not just for a few years, because again, the impact on these victims lasts an entire lifetime.

The bottom line is this: next to a murder or a crime that takes another person`s life, this is one of the absolute worst crimes that can be committed. I can`t think of any other crime that cries out for the death penalty.

The ruling is absurd, both on facts, but also the rationale. This is the same kind of rationale that relies on international precedent or looks for opinion polls. That`s not what the court`s job is to do. It reads like a legislative debate and not like a court`s proceeding.

GRAHAM: Governor, I hate to correct you on national television. There is a national trend. It`s just not in our nation. You know, it`s France or someplace in Europe, and that`s where the court is looking.

This is -- the world that these justices who ruled on these two cases live in, apparently, a guy breaks into your home. They don`t want you to be able to legally own a gun to stop them from raping your children. But then if he does rape your children, the state will step in to protect them. Is that the universe that these left of center judges live in?

JINDAL: Well, you know, my answer to them is the state of Louisiana will send them another law. We`re going to read this ruling carefully, consult with our attorneys. We`re going to send them another law that will try to preserve the death penalty for these monsters. And they`ll get another chance to look at this issue all over again.

It`s one of the reasons that elections matter and nominations to the court matters. I was pleased they got the Second Amendment ruling right. But it just -- it troubles me, not only as an elected official, but as a father. They just don`t get it. How this is not proportional punishment? To me, it`s just crazy.

GRAHAM: I want to ask a philosophical question that applies about the death penalty and castration, which is this relationship between the citizens and their government. I mean, come on. I know this government can take my property, make me pay taxes. They can take away my liberty if I commit a crime, put me in a box.

But you`re prepared to have them snip, snip a guy who`s a criminal? You`re comfortable as a conservative, small government guy. You`re comfortable with having judges, juries and the state to make that decision?

JINDAL: I don`t like the state to have any powers that it shouldn`t have. I agree with you, Michael. I think one of the things, however, that the state is supposed to do most fundamentally is keep us safe. Absolutely. I`m ready for the state to keep our children safe.

We did other things, as well. We`re prohibiting these offenders from wearing masks on Halloween. We`re prohibiting them from doing a lot of things to target our children. I guess the frustration of so many parents and Americans out there is you see these criminals get a slap on the wrist. And you`re wondering why they`re living in my neighborhood. I`m not at all impressed you can go online and find out where they live, block by block. I don`t want them living anywhere near my kids. I don`t want them living anywhere near anybody`s children.

GRAHAM: One last quick question, very quickly. The reaction of Louisiana, both to the court ruling and to your chemical castration bill?

JINDAL: Well, I think that we are obviously. The good people believe they are deeply offended by yesterday`s ruling, throwing out our law.

And, again, I hope they actually look. I hope the justices look at the details of these cases. Not a generic case. An 8-year-old girl, innocent girl, a 300-pound attacker.

On terms of affirming the Second Amendment rights, we are thrilled. We are thrilled with that ruling. In Congress, I passed a law protecting our Second Amendment rights after storms like Katrina and Rita. We think today`s ruling was absolutely the right ruling.

Kind of a surprise after yesterday`s ruling, but it shows you who we put on those courts are important. We need justices who are reading the Constitution, not trying to rewrite it.

GRAHAM: Thank you so much, Governor. We appreciate your time.

JINDAL: Thank you.

GRAHAM: Coming up, controversy is brewing over a new MoveOn.org ad that has John McCain supporters crying foul. Details in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRAHAM: MoveOn.org has a new ad. It`s an attack on John McCain`s Iraq policy, called "Not Alex." It begun airing a week ago in key swing states and on national cable channels, this one among them. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he`s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That and making my heart pound every time I look at him.

So, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can`t have him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Over 3 million members of MoveOn.org political action are responsible for the contents of this ad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Chere Pedersen is a member of Families United and a Blue Star Mom.

Chere, thanks so much for joining us.

CHERE PEDERSEN, FAMILIES UNITED: Thank you.

GRAHAM: What was your reaction when you first saw this ad?

PEDERSEN: Well, my first reaction was that it was very misleading. You know, my son joined the military. There is no draft. He is my first- born, too, and as a matter of fact, he phoned me yesterday, and when I hear that delay and I hear my son`s voice, my heart skips a beat, too.

GRAHAM: You know, I have four kids, and I don`t think any parent can watch that ad and not have an emotional reaction to parents who love their kids.

But I got to tell you, the first couple of times I saw it, I couldn`t figure out what bugged me about it. But then I realized there`s something fundamentally selfish about that message of, "Oh, you need to defend America? You can`t have my kid." Is this you saying, Chere, that she wants him to take your kid?

PEDERSEN: Well, you know what? If not my son, whose son? And I honestly -- I am so proud of my son and proud that I raised a hero and that he`s willing to go out, he loves his country. He`s so happy to be out there defending it. He knows he`s making a difference. And I am very proud of him and his choice.

GRAHAM: You know, it`s very frustrating as the U.S. military continues to get the job done in Iraq and good news finally after so long, it`s coming out, we can`t seem to get any credit. And now here`s an ad basically saying you have to stay there and implying you have to fight for 100 years.

Your son is getting the job done right now so that we don`t have to stay and fight for 100 years. That`s how I understand it.

PEDERSEN: Well, again, it`s misleading. We`re not going to be fighting over there for 100 years. It`s important that our presence is there, as it is in Germany and many of the other places that we`ve had to go to war.

I think that our country is in danger and we need to keep there. We need to stay the course. We need to complete the mission.

GRAHAM: Right.

PEDERSEN: And I have seen, and I`m hearing many my child and many other mother`s children on -- we`re doing exactly that. And they want us there.

GRAHAM: You know, I see something generationally here. I can`t imagine my grandparents saying, "President Eisenhower, you think my son is going to be patrolling the border of Germany 50 years from now? No way. You can`t have him." It really is this notion that America`s not worth the kind of sacrifice that generation after generation of Americans have made before.

PEDERSEN: And that`s terribly sad, because as an American, we should be so proud of our country. And then she should be proud of our sons and daughters that are out there fighting for her freedom and protecting this country as they are.

GRAHAM: And you know how it is, Chere. My son`s never going to be a blank -- whether a farmer, banker, actor, whatever -- what is it they turn out to be? I would not be surprised if Alex says, "Mom, I`m going to go sign up. That`s what I want to do." And that would be great.

Thanks, Chere, so much, but thank your son for his service.

Up next, actress Scarlett Johansson says she and the likely Democratic nominee have a private e-mail thing going. He says that they don`t. Details after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRAHAM: Coming up, a Massachusetts state representative says he would rip apart child rape victims on the witness stand and make sure their lives are ruined? What was this clown thinking? Find out next.

But first, even though the primaries are over, Bill Clinton continues to mix it up like he`s got a dog in the fight, or on the porch or on the hunt. It`s Arkansas. That`s what they do.

His wife and former candidate Hillary is now pleading poverty, sending an e-mail to supporters, asking them to pay her $22 million campaign debt, or at least the $10 million owed by vendors.

And then there`s Barack Obama. Actress and Obama supporter Scarlett Johansson says she has an e-mail relationship with the presidential contender, but Obama fervently denies it. Is this all just politics as usual?

Let`s ask tonight`s political panel: Peter Fenn, Democratic strategist and former adviser to Al Gore, and Amy Holmes, a CNN political contributor and former speechwriter for Senator Bill Frist.

Peter, is it fair to say that Bill Clinton doesn`t have the highest regard right now for Barack Obama, that there`s at least some tension there?

PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I would say that you might find a little tension there. I think actually Hillary may be taking this better than Bill is. But ...

GRAHAM: But why is that?

FENN: Well, you know, I think that he had hoped that she would make it, but it`s tough. She`s going back to the Senate. You know, I`m not sure that he`s sitting in a room staring at the wall here. He`s got a foundation to run and a library to go back to. But, you know, he had other plans right now, I think.

GRAHAM: See, Peter, I think it`s because of this Scarlett Johansson thing, personally. But we`ll get to that in a second.

But you know, Amy, a lot of us were saying that we weren`t sure Bill Clinton wanted Hillary to be the nominee and go on to be president because of all kinds of problems. Where do you put Bill Clinton in the universe of Democratic assets today?

AMY HOLMES, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: On Ron Burkle`s jet flying all around the world. But you know, Bill Clinton was an asset to the Hillary campaign in a very narrow sense.

When he was sent to small rural areas, he was able to increase turnout and support for Hillary Clinton. So if Barack Obama can keep a tighter leash on him than Hillary was able to, he may be able to be an asset. But right now, Bill Clinton, he gave sort of a tepid endorsement of Barack Obama.

GRAHAM: Sure.

HOLMES: You know what? Also, Barack Obama, he made it personal too.

During the primary, he was musing about Ronald Reagan being a transformational president, whereas Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon not so much. I mean, I think Bill Clinton probably, you know, took that very personally.

GRAHAM: I want to ask both of you on the pander question, Bill Clinton was great at telling everybody exactly what they wanted to hear. I remember he gave a speech to farmers. He said he knew more about farming than any other Democratic president, forgetting, of course, that Jimmy Carter was an actually farmer. But he didn`t (ph) just say it.

I think even though Barack Obama is doing some shifting, I would say, I would argue, Peter, that Barack Obama is trying to run as a solidly progressive -- wink, wink -- liberal candidate and trying to bring America with him, as opposed to moving to the center traditionally. And that`s kind of a repudiation to Bill Clinton`s, hey, I`ve got to do this because it`s the only way to win.

FENN: Well, I`ll tell you, I think that there`s a lot to be said about Barack Obama`s sort of centrist views on a number of issues. So, I think that if you start to compare the Bill Clinton of `92 and Barack Obama this year, you might find soft interesting similarities.

GRAHAM: Where?

FENN: Well, for example, I`ll tell you one of the things that he`s getting a lot of lip from the left, he`s going to support this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act redo.

GRAHAM: Good point.

FENN: He`s going to support it with Jay Rockefeller and others. You know, in the Supreme Court decision the other day, it said that there shouldn`t be a death penalty for folks that rape children. He`s against that ruling.

I mean, so you see some things here, I think, which are fairly telling. And my guess, again, is that just as Bill Clinton wasn`t that well known at this stage of the game in `92, you see the same kind of thing about Barack Obama, you see this reintroduction that`s going on right now.

GRAHAM: Yes.

FENN: Who he is and what he stands for.

GRAHAM: But Amy, isn`t the reintroduction we`re getting, this brand new Barack Obama -- I saw those ads that he had of these pasty-faced white people in middle America. It looked the cast of "Hoosiers." I mean, the guy...

FENN: Those were his parents.

GRAHAM: ... he`s trying to reinvent himself as a cast member from "The Andy Griffith Show."

HOLMES: Well, that ad was fairly conspicuous in its lack of African- Americans. And Barack Obama trying to reassure those voters that he shares their values. And I think this is work that he needs to do.

After the Jeremiah Wright fiasco, after Pastor Pfleger, that fiasco, the fact that he belonged to a church with a black liberation theology, which is something that a lot of people don`t know a lot about, and let`s face it, a lot of African-Americans, Democratic politicians, up to this point have been very divisive when it comes to racial politics. Barack Obama needs to reach out and say he would be a president of all the people. In that ad you see him trying to do just that.

GRAHAM: Well, that`s an interesting argument, and it brings up the comments of Ralph Nader. I want you to watch and listen to what Ralph Nader had to say about Barack Obama and race issues in the campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RALPH NADER (I), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I haven`t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos -- payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. You know, what`s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Now, Amy Holmes, I will tell you, I happen to think that Ralph Nader is one of the whitest people on the planet Earth.

HOLMES: I think he might be Lebanese, actually. I`m not sure.

GRAHAM: But there`s something -- but from a standpoint of, you know, Mr. appealing to the traditional liberal, white academic base, I mean, Ralph Nader is that guy. But there`s something here.

What about this trend of Barack Obama, no Muslims in the room, make sure plenty of white people are on stage with me, don`t talk to Scarlett Johansson, which we`ll get to in just a second here? There are a lot of people getting thrown under the bus, and I`m trying to figure out, what is Barack Obama trying to tell us about himself?

HOLMES: Listen, I think that Ralph Nader clip shows you that once again, he is a thorn in the side of Democrats. Once again he`s being completely unhelpful.

I don`t understand why he`s trying to be blacker than Barack Obama. Was he like a -- is he like a secret brother? Was he a former Black Panther? Like, I don`t know what`s going on here. You know, Barack Obama, he has a campaign to run, Ralph Nader is not being remotely help.

GRAHAM: Peter?

FENN: Listen, I don`t know what planet Ralph Nader is on. He clearly hasn`t read the speech that Barack Obama gave in Philadelphia on race. He clearly hasn`t paid much attention to his issues, stands. He clearly hasn`t paid much attention to his going into the church on Father`s Day and talking about the responsibility of parents to their kids and fathers to their kids.

Look, Ralph Nader to me is a poor, angry guy who should have stopped this eight years ago. And he`s back.

GRAHAM: Well, I`m going to now bring in the Scarlett Johansson story, because I can`t make it make sense without the context of Ralph Nader. And I`ll bring those two together.

First of all, let me just say, like most red-blooded Americans, if someone alleged a relationship between Scarlett Johansson and me, I would be promoting that. Like, I`m not above making one up if necessary. I would even stretch the truth to get a little Scarlett Johansson thing going. In fact, I want to confirm right now on the air that we are, in fact, very, very close.

But Peter, this came out of nowhere. Barack Obama said, oh, no -- why does Barack Obama have the need to deny an e-mail relationship with Scarlett Johansson?

FENN: Well, I want to set the record clear here. I think Amy Holmes is a lot better looking than Scarlett Johansson. So let`s just get that right on the table right now.

HOLMES: Keep me out of this.

(LAUGHTER)

GRAHAM: What was the problem he was trying to solve?

FENN: You know, I think he should have thanked her for her support and said, listen, that`s what I did in the e-mail, it was forwarded to me by my aide, that I thanked her for her support. But, you know, I think that everybody`s so nervous out there about relationships and who`s saying what to whom, and that there probably is this need to sort of set the record straight right away.

GRAHAM: Amy, if this were Halle Berry, would Barack Obama feel the need to deny this? No, there`s an actual issue here. Would he be denying it if it were Halle Berry?

HOLMES: You know, I don`t know. I think that`s pretty scurrilous to be like going down that road that, you know...

GRAHAM: Why did he deny it? What`s the problem?

HOLMES: I think that actually, he was asked offhand, it was an offhand comment. I thought it was really ungracious that Scarlett Johansson has been out there campaigning for him, made that video for him.

GRAHAM: Absolutely.

HOLMES: You know, that she`s helping him with the young voters and a young voter turnout. But I would have to say that if she was e-mailing my man, I would be telling her to keep her e-mails to herself.

(LAUGHTER)

GRAHAM: See, I`m telling you, it`s a Michelle Obama thing. We`re seeing the power behind the throne. Barack, what are these e-mails you`re getting from who?

Amy, Peter, you guys have been great. Thank you so much, as usual.

FENN: Thanks, Michael.

HOLMES: Thank you.

GRAHAM: Coming up, a Massachusetts state representative says he was rip apart child rape victims if they were testifying at trial. What was this moron thinking? I`ll have the details in just a minute.

(NEWSBREAK)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRAHAM: When we think of tearing apart someone involved in a child rape case, it`s usually the rapist we`re talking about. But not Massachusetts state representative and trial lawyer James Fagan. Here he is describing how he would treat child rape victims if he ever got them on the stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES FAGAN, MASSACHUSETTS STATE REP.: I`m going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they`re 8 years old they throw up. When they`re 12 years old they won`t sleep, when they`re 19 years old they`ll have nightmares, and they`ll never have a relationship with anybody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAHAM: Folks, I`m as astonished as you are. Fagan made the comments on the statehouse floor arguing against Jessica`s Law, legislation that would set a mandatory 20-year sentence for convicted child rapists.

Now, in his defense, Fagan said his point was to show lawmakers that if the law was passed, defense attorneys would take every case to trial because there would be no chance for a plea bargain, and that would lead to more victims being traumatized in court.

Wendy Murphy is a professor at the New England School of Law and author of "And Justice for Some."

And Wendy, we can certainly say that if James Fagan is the trial lawyer, these children will be traumatized, obviously. He`s practically bragging about it.

WENDY MURPHY, NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW: Yes. They`ll be traumatized by just looking at the guy, frankly. I`m traumatized by looking at the guy.

No, Michael, let me say something very important. This does not happen. And I want to be clear about this.

I have tried cases with 6-year-olds on the stand. The defense attorneys do not beat them up, attack them, destroy them, period. And the reason is the jury would be furious. They don`t do it.

But what kind of sick human being says that that`s what`s going to happen to a child? It`s the guy who wants to scare children and parents away from the criminal justice system. So we shouldn`t be afraid of testifying, parents and children should not be afraid of testifying. They should be afraid that this man is making laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

GRAHAM: But Wendy Murphy, he`s not the only lawyer/legislator out there. You know, Jessica`s Law is moving around the country. In some places they do it right, other places there`s resistance.

And, you know, I mean, as we all know, the Corleone family doesn`t send Michael Corleone to the legislature because he`s smart. They sent Fredo. So you`re stuck with the Fredos who are literally -- am I wrong here? He is protecting his cash interest in being able to say to basically child rapists, look, I can help you out, I can get you off the hook. But minimum sentences make him less valuable.

MURPHY: Well, absolutely. I think it`s selfish. There`s no question it`s to his advantage.

I think it`s ideologically true that this guy just doesn`t believe in locking up criminals because he`s a Birkenstock-wearing loon, frankly. We`ve got plenty of those in Massachusetts, too, don`t we, Michael?

GRAHAM: Absolutely.

MURPHY: But you know, I want to be really clear about this, because as an academic -- and I`ve written about this in my book, by the way. There is no question, children who testify actually do better in the long run than the children we save from the system.

GRAHAM: Now why is that?

MURPHY: Well, because this is what they say. When they age into maturity and start to understand complex ideas like justice, they look back on their trial -- win or lose, they don`t really understand -- and they say, people cared about me, I had my say. Important people believed me. That helped me resolve what I went through.

GRAHAM: Right.

MURPHY: The kids we save from the system, when they get older, they look back and say, people didn`t care about me? Wasn`t I important? Didn`t people believe me?

And God forbid the guy rapes again, which happens almost all the time. That child feels terrible. They actually suffer more in the long run.

So I want to be really clear with parents, please encourage your children to testify. This guy is a bully. And he`s a liar.

GRAHAM: This is what I`m trying to figure out, this mentality. We`re not talking about close cases. And the majority of the cases, we know what`s going on here. It`s just a matter of proving it in court.

So now we have this guy saying, look, your kid gets on the court, I`m going to ruin her life, what, until she`s 19? I mean, ruin her life in perpetuity? We just had the Supreme Court say that, as you and I discussed, Wendy, that the death penalty cannot apply to vicious repeat child rapists because that`s cruel and unusual.

I think the cruel and unusual part is executing them without torturing them or beating them up first. I don`t understand. Is there sympathy in academia or in the legal establishment for child rapists?

MURPHY: I wish I could say no, but the truth is, especially in states like Massachusetts, there`s a lot of sympathy. We should be doing (INAUDIBLE) philosophy and, you know, legal policy. Educate, teach them not to do it. It`s all nonsense.

And you know, I have been saying for a long time, Massachusetts, Vermont, some of the worst states...

GRAHAM: Right.

MURPHY: ... are the places where kids are at greatest risk. And people would say, well, Massachusetts seems like such a lovely place. Although you know, Michael, families are moving away in droves because they`re scared to raise their kids here, as well they should be.

And, you know, look, at the end of the day, if you don`t get tough on these guys, they`re going to move to your state, where they get hugs instead of getting locked up. Fagan knows it, he makes money because all the predators are living here.

GRAHAM: Right.

MURPHY: And shame on us.

I want to send this guy a thank you note, frankly, because now this is exhibit A, proof positive that the people running the lawmaking business in Massachusetts are insane.

GRAHAM: And it`s not just Massachusetts. There are other states where Jessica`s law is struggling too, because you have lawyer legislators. You have, "I get to work the law and I get to make money off the law." And it`s just -- I mean, it`s common sense that self-interest is going to prevail, and I think you have hit it on the head, absolutely.

MURPHY: And it`s not even lawyers alone, Michael. It`s criminal defense attorneys.

GRAHAM: That`s -- good point. Very good point.

MURPHY: They run our statehouse, and they have a particularly sick ideology.

GRAHAM: Thanks, Wendy. I appreciate you being with us again.

MURPHY: You bet.

GRAHAM: We`ll be back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRAHAM: Ah, dinner theater, where you can enjoy the dramatic complexities of "Death of a Salesman" while putting down a double order of buffalo wings. Now it seems some churches are trying the same approach, offering not only the word of God, but also a nice jazz brunch. And blessings for every member of the family.

CNN`s T.J. Holmes has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

T.J. HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Yes, dogs. Even dogs are welcome at Sacred Tapestry. Some even receive a blessing as their owners receive communion. It`s an example of the alternative approach to church that is becoming more and more popular across the country.

The Reverend Teresa Angle-Young, a product of a traditional Methodist seminary, realized her congregation wanted something different. And this church delivers.

First there`s the gourmet coffee bar run by Angle-Young`s husband Phil (ph). He`s also the official church greeter.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would you like?

HOLMES: Then there`s the catered brunch featuring everything from fresh fruits to light pasta, and even cheesecake, all to be enjoyed during the service. And the music before and after worship is jazz.

There are no pews. Families sit at tables. Angle-Young delivers the message, while children play quietly in the back.

In this nontraditional approach to the church experience, Angle-Young thinks she has found the tool that helps people connect with God and each other.

REV. TERESA ANGLE-YOUNG, SACRED TAPESTRY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: The church really needs to be a community, not just a place that you come on Sunday to be lectured.

HOLMES: While Angle-Young follows the Methodist Church`s weekly schedule for bible readings and combines many historical liturgical elements in her service, she is far from a traditional United Methodist minister. Churchgoer Frenesa Hall drives more than 45 minutes to attend Sacred Tapestry. She says she`s drawn by the lack of rigidity and acceptance of all faiths.

FRENESA HALL, CONGREGANT: Everybody`s God`s children. It doesn`t matter what God it is necessarily that you believe in. You`re welcome here to experience it here. So, I mean, I just think it`s much more inclusive.

HOLMES: Stephen Lewis is a Baptist minister who observes dozens of congregations nationally in his travels for an independent religious foundation. He said while he enjoyed the service, this approach to church may alienate some people used to more formality on Sunday mornings.

STEPHEN LEWIS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, CALLING CONGREGATIONS: A more kind of higher church liturgical traditions like Episcopalians or Catholics or Lutherans. That may not be as tasteful for them.

HOLMES: So, is Angle-Young`s approach actually church? Bill Urban and his wife, who left a large traditional church three months ago to attend here, certainly think so.

BILL URBAN, CONGREGANT: It`s a place where both of us feel comfortable and we both feel inspired, really.

HOLMES: And for Sacred Tapestry, that`s a great place to start.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GRAHAM: I`m Michael Graham filling in for Glenn Beck.

From New York, good night.

END