Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Ted Stevens Indicted for Lying to Investigators; Court Upholds Sentence for Jailed Border Agents; Study: Media Tougher on Obama Than McCain; California Law to Mandate Global Warming Education Fails

Aired July 29, 2008 - 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, justice denied. An appeals court upholds the prison sentences for border agents Ramos and Compean. But will the court ever hear the truth about the drug dealer they shot? I promised both of these agents and I promise you we`re not going to let this story die. We lead with it next.

Plus, a new study claims the media has been tougher on Obama than McCain. You`ve got to be kidding me, right? A guy with some credibility that did this study says no. We`ll talk to him.

And more mortgage fallout on Wall Street as Merrill Lynch dumps $30 billion in more bad loans. Why this spells more trouble for the rest of us.

All this and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Hello, America. Let`s start things off tonight with some breaking news. Beep-deep-beep, beep-deep-beep. Alaska`s Ted Stevens, he`s the longest serving Republican senator. He has been indicted now on charges that he lied about getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from an Alaskan energy firm.

Some of the goodies he allegedly received included some home renovations and a car. I find this hard to believe: somebody in Congress, dirty? What, the guy who wanted to build a Bridge to Nowhere, he wasn`t 100 percent honest? I`m having a hard time getting my arms around this story.

Jonathan Allen is a reporter for the "Congressional Quarterly."

Jonathan, bring me up to speed on this one. I find it hard to believe, a senator.

JONATHAN ALLEN, "CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY": Well, it appears to be a seven-charge indictment against Senator Stevens of Alaska for -- for not disclosing on financial disclosure forms gifts that he`s alleged to have gotten from an oil company -- sorry -- company, VECO Corporation, that is embroiled in a big corruption scandal in Alaska.

BECK: OK. Hang on. Hang on just a second. Steve Forbes gave me this tie. I just got a box from Stephen, a nice note. It says -- it says, corporate tool or capitalist tool." That`s what it says. So I got that gift. I didn`t tell anybody until now. I didn`t tell anybody.

I mean, you know, we all get gifts. What were his gifts?

ALLEN: Well, Senator Stevens was required to disclose them on federal financial disclosure forms.

BECK: Yes.

ALLEN: And the gifts, according to prosecutors, amounted to more than $250,000, including some home renovations, as you noted, a nice Viking stove, and in addition to that, being able to exchange cars that he drove for nicer cars.

BECK: Like -- like what did he exchange? Because this -- you all -- people in the media always try to make these senators look so bad. What was he exchanging, car for car?

ALLEN: I actually haven`t found out what kind of car for what kind of car yet. I think that`s something that will come out as more of the details...

BECK: I`ve got it for you. I`ve got it for you. Crappy car for a Land Rover. That`s what -- that`s what it was.

Come on, man. First of all, are people on the Hill, are they just shocked that the guy who wanted to build the Bridge to Nowhere is somehow or another corrupt?

ALLEN: Nobody is shocked. This is a -- this is a longtime investigation...

BECK: Yes.

ALLEN: ... into Senator Stevens and into a lot of Washington politicians, including his son. There have been several convictions in this case already. No one is the least bit surprised. Although the charges are a little bit surprising that it`s failing to disclose properly. It`s a little bit like getting Al Capone on taxes.

BECK: Here we go, America. I just want you to give you this last segment. I want you to know that everything is OK in Washington, because the indictment does not restrict his ability to vote in the Senate or to speak on the Senate floor or to participate in any of the committee work. So business can continue.

Jonathan, thanks.

Now, yesterday, I brought you an update on the case of the imprisoned Border Patrol agents, Ramos and Compean. Tonight, the news, it seems, is even worse than I told you last night. Federal appeals court upheld most of the convictions, including the use of a fire arm to commit a violent crime. This is a ridiculous charge, and that charge alone carries a mandatory ten-year sentence.

The whole case has been a travesty since day one. I talked to Monica Ramos about that fact for a couple of days when I spent some time with her about two weeks ago. Also, I spent some time with Ramos and Compean. I spoke to them -- I spoke to them-- we did a piece one-on-one in their prisons.

And when I talked to Monica and also the guys in prison, you know, I really wanted to tell them that truth and justice is going to prevail. The families are going to be reunited soon. But you know what? Here`s "The Point," tonight.

I think everybody in this case is dirty except for the two guys in jail. I`m afraid it has too many people with too much at stake to let the truth out and set these innocent men free. And here`s how I got there.

You know how many people have died on our border, on our border with Mexico? Recently, 6,000 people are dead. This is a result of violence along our southern border. Most of these deaths stem from the drug trade from Mexico and the United States.

Back in February of 2005, Nacho Ramos and Jose Compean, they were trying to keep those drugs and what they believed was an armed drug smuggler out of the country when they shot a Mexican career criminal in the butt. Now, not only is that drug smuggler not dead, unfortunately, but he was given full immunity for his testimony against the two border agents. After all, I mean, you want to believe border agents or the trusty drug smuggler?

To make matters worse, U.S. attorney Johnny Sutton also gave this drug smuggler a humanitarian visa so he could travel back and forth between Mexico and the U.S., you know, easier. Here`s a fun fact, by the way. When he had that visa, the scum bag smuggler, he attempted yet another drug delivery in October 2005.

When he heard about yesterday`s decision by the federal appeals court, Johnny Sutton actually had the cojones, if I may, Johnny, to actually say this in a statement. This is a U.S. attorney.

In it, he said, "By affirming the convictions of the most serious charges against Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean, the court has validated what this office has said all along: this prosecution was about the rule of law" -- bull crap -- "plain and simple."

Mr. Sutton, may I tell you something? Fall to your knees and ask God to forgive you, and I know he will, for ruining the lives of these guys and their families. But you know what? I ain`t Jesus. I`m never going to forgive you for this. You`re a dirty, corrupt official. Something isn`t right here, sir. My gut tells me you`re not on the up and up.

Tonight, America, here is what you need to know. This has been a shameful example of prosecutorial overreach from the beginning. Johnny Sutton dug in and, through misinformation and back-room double dealing, everybody is working overtime to cover their ass on this one.

Not only will these two men pay the price by spending over a decade in prison, as political prisoners, but wives are without husbands, children are without fathers.

In the bigger picture, our own courts have sent a clear message south of the border. And I think that`s the intention of our government. We will not protect those who protect our border. It is now even more dangerous: 6,000 are dead. The angel -- the agents protecting this border are at greater risk tonight than they ever have been. Morale is plummeting.

But do not give up hope, America. Men and women across this country refuse to forget these men. And we`ll continue fighting for their rights and their freedom and fighting for the sovereignty of this great nation of ours.

More than ever, Ramos and Compean and their families need us to keep them in our minds, in our hearts, and in our prayers.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is a Republican from California.

Congressman, where am I wrong on this? Do you -- do you think that Johnny Sutton is part of -- I don`t think he`s the ring leader or anything. I think this guy is part of something dirty going on all the way up to the top.

REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, first of all let me suggest that I agree with everything you just said and, especially, I agree with the sentiment and the passion that you have said it. I -- this has got to be the worst travesty of justice I`ve witnessed. I`ve said that all along.

Mr. Sutton was out calling these two men -- before their trial, he was calling them criminal -- excuse me, corrupt border guards. There was -- and there was never an indication that these two gentlemen, these two protectors that we have were-- had anything but a very clean record. They`d never been involved in any corruption.

There was one incident with this drug dealer. And Johnny Sutton permitted that type of misrepresentation. He permitted the Department of Homeland Security to brief the Congress. Members of Congress were briefed, and they were told that these two Border Patrol agents had said we`re going to go out today and shoot us a Mexican.

And later on, of course, that proved to be totally untrue, just like the fact that they were not corrupt. So you have the prosecutors out, not muddying the water, throwing muck on Ramos and Compean to try to influence this case.

BECK: You know, Congressman, I was on this story early, and then I heard that they were going to go out and shoot some Mexicans and everything else. And I backed off this story. And -- I think at least on radio -- I may have said t on television, as well, that I don`t think this story seems to be as clear cut. And that`s because I was hearing the same stuff they were saying to you in Congress, trying to get people to back off it.

ROHRABACHER: It turned out to be a lie. A total lie.

BECK: A lie.

ROHRABACHER: Now, why is it that Ramos and Compean, when they`ve collected a couple shells, which, by the way, any time they`d ever fired their weapon -- because this is the first time they fired it in actually fulfilling their duty. They were at target practice before. They were always taught to pick up their shells.

Now, that`s a cover-up and that`s bad that they covered up something bad. But when the Department of Homeland Security -- and you`ve got a U.S. attorney lying to the public and lying to Congress, isn`t that illegal? Shouldn`t they be prosecuted for things like this to the full extent of the law?

BECK: Let me change subjects for you quickly. Where is Davila today? Where is the drug smuggler?

ROHRABACHER: The drug smuggler is awaiting sentencing. And...

BECK: What is he facing in sentencing, do you know?

ROHRABACHER: I do not know, but my guess is the drug smuggler will receive less of a sentence than Ramos and Compean. And I`ll tell you another thing. The drug smuggler won`t be lingering and languishing in solitary confinement, because of the mean-spiritedness of our president.

Our president could have decided to send these guys to a minimum security camp where they wouldn`t have been at risk. But he wouldn`t permit that to happen, so they`ve ended up in solitary confinement, supposedly for their own protection. That`s the worst kind of torture you could imagine.

BECK: Congressman, I want to do a follow-up with you. I appreciate your passion, sir, and I appreciate your willingness to be as frank as you are, especially when you`re going after somebody in your own party. We need more of it, sir.

ROHRABACHER: We`re not going to -- we`re not going to back down one inch on this. All the way to the Supreme Court.

BECK: You count us in, anything we can do.

ROHRABACHER: Yes, sir.

BECK: If you`d like to know what`s going on in the minds of these border agents, please, sign up for my magazine, "Fusion." I couldn`t bring cameras into the prison, so I couldn`t do a one-on-one face-to-face with them and bring the audio or the video for you. Had to write it down.

September issue, exclusive jailhouse interview with Jose Compean. You`ll also get the exclusive interview with Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos in the October issue. But you can only get it now by signing up at GlennBeck.com.

Coming up, a new study claims that broadcast networks have been far more critical of Barack Obama than John McCain. Shut the hell up. Well, that`s what they say. It`s coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: I don`t know why this doesn`t catch on. The winning argument on illegal immigration. It is modern day slavery. "Oh, Glenn, it`s not. Those are just jobs Americans won`t do."

Let me tell you something. If you had a job and you`re an American, you think that job is beneath you, you ain`t American at all. That`s a load of bull crap. You point to the America -- the job Americans won`t do. Please, give me a break. It`s slavery, and I`ll tell you why in tonight`s "Real Story."

But first, I started my day reading an article in the "L.A. Times." The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University has just released a study where they found that, during the six weeks, the first six weeks of the general election campaign, ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Democrat Barack Obama than Republican John McCain. Really?

Best of all, "The L.A. Times" suggests that I`m just a conservative conspiracy theorist claiming that the media, mainstream media have overwhelming bias on the left. I know, that`s a crazy thought.

So they seem to imply in the story that I would not give this study credibility by having its director on as a guest. I hate to disappoint the left, but I`m going to do it again.

Robert Lichter is a professor of communications at George Mason University and director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

And Robert, I know you to be a credible guy.

ROBERT LICHTER, PROFESSOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: Thanks very much. I appreciate that.

BECK: So -- but I`m a conspiracy nut. So when I first read this, and I -- and I know who you are, I read it and I went, what the hell? How does that happen? How is my perception that the media has deified Barack Obama and dons everything but anoint him the new savior, and yet you say they`re tougher on him than McCain?

LICHTER: Because that`s what was happening three or four months ago. Barack Obama got great press and a lot of it during the primaries. We tagged him as about two of three comments about him were favorable at the same time that two of three comments about McCain were unfavorable.

But that was during primaries. Once Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, all of a sudden, the bottom dropped out of Obama`s coverage. He`s still getting a lot of coverage, much more than McCain, but much more of it is critical. Now, about three out of four comments about him have criticized him in some way.

BECK: Yes, but you know what? I have to tell you, I saw what you take as a negative. And I mean, one of them was Katie Couric saying -- asking, you know, "Why won`t you say that the surge worked, that you were wrong on the surge?" I can`t remember exactly the phrase that she used, but it wasn`t even that tough. I mean, is that negative?

LICHTER: Well, she said people are scratching their heads over your position. That`s what -- that`s what put it in. Like, I can`t understand this. What`s going on here?

BECK: Wait a minute. Do you remember when the media was saying if -- if the president can`t admit a mistake, he doesn`t have the right to be the president. You can`t have somebody that arrogant. That`s negative. Somebody saying, "I`m just scratching my head trying to figure out, you`re so dreamy" -- how is this -- do you see the difference?

LICHTER: I see the difference, but there`s a difference between negative and more negative. This is the system we`ve been using since 1988. And as you say, in the past, we`ve found imbalances. And we`ve also found that, if you try to use our numbers to predict changes in public approval ratings of politicians, they work.

As we define them, more positive or more negative ratings on television are followed by more positive or more negative performances in the polls, in the approval ratings. It does mean something.

BECK: OK. So then you would be predicting that Obama`s approval rating will be coming down?

LICHTER: Yes.

BECK: OK. Did you see his trip to Berlin?

Again, look, I know you`re right because I have trusted your service before. I have seen the way you do these things. And just because I don`t agree with it doesn`t mean that it`s not right. I`m just trying to figure out, is it possible that maybe my -- my vision of what the media is doing is just because the positives are maybe so positive?

LICHTER: Well, it could be. There`s also a German media monitoring group called Media Tenor (ph) that was monitoring his coverage during the trip and found also that it was surprisingly negative.

You know, Jeff Greenfield on ABC, when asked about his -- his perception of Berlin, suggested that Americans may not want a president to be popular in Europe. There`s always a way to get a negative out of a positive.

BECK: Is there something to be said for -- is there something to be said that, if the media really endorses somebody and is seen really endorsing somebody, then it actually hurts them?

For instance, I think John McCain getting the endorsement from the "New York Times" hurt him with conservatives, but when Rush Limbaugh said, "I`d never vote for him," that helped him with the people in the middle. Is there anything to that when it comes to the mainstream media?

LICHTER: Well, I think so. And certainly Republicans, especially, think so, because there`s such widespread feeling among Republicans and conservatives that the media are on the other side that it sort of makes them feel better about somebody if he gets criticized by the media.

BECK: Right. Yes. Well, I know the media just loves me. So that must say great things about me.

Robert, thanks a lot. Appreciate it.

Coming up, California`s governor has vetoed a bill that would have added climate change to school text books. You think you agree with him. You won`t after the next break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, people like Al Gore would, you know, have you believe the science is settled on global climate change. Not really the fact. Even adults like me can understand that fluctuations in the earth`s temperature complicated enough to allow for a diversity of opinions.

Thankfully, riding in to our rescue, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He has agreed and terminated -- I love that -- a bill that would have required climate change to be added to his state`s school curriculum. Trust me, he`ll be on this one. This is a sham.

Patrick Michaels is the senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

OK, Patrick, here is my -- here is my read on this. Why do you have to put it in the school? We already got it in the movie theater. They`re already teaching it. They got everything. What does difference does it make if Arnold Schwarzenegger just wants to look modern? True or false?

PATRICK MICHAELS, CATO INSTITUTE: I agree. This is a real scam. You know, it`s being talked about in the schools, anyway. The teachers are always propagandizing about this. I maybe a little cynical, Glenn. After all, this is Washington.

BECK: Yes.

MICHAELS: Maybe he doesn`t want the actual numbers out there to be taught to the children, because I can see a great homework problem, asking the students how much will the global warming -- will the California laws on global warming, which are the strictest in the nation, prevent? If they were applied to the entire United States, you know how much? The answer will come out? Five thousandth of a degree. Five thousandth.

BECK: It is -- it is so crazy, Patrick. First of all, if you actually believe in this stuff, and -- which he does, oh, my gosh. We`ve got to go in there. You would know that fact.

Second of all, you wouldn`t be taking your private jet to work every day like he does.

MICHAELS: They have to know these facts.

BECK: Of course, they do.

MICHAELS: You know, it`s simple math. If any nation of the world that has obligations under Kyoto did this California thing, it would save four hundreds of a degree by 2050. You`d never measure it, but the cost would be phenomenal. So why educate people on this? Let`s leave them in the dark.

BECK: By the way, just want to point out that it came out over the weekend that Alaska is now facing the coldest summer on record.

MICHAELS: Yes. People are having a real hard time with the fact that the global surface temperature record, even measured by the United Nations, hasn`t shown any net warming for over ten years right now, and people think it`s not going to.

BECK: The thermometer is probably broken.

What does this kind of stuff -- I mean, because first of all, this is so great. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- "I don`t want it taught in schools" -- yet he -- I mean, he`ll -- he has a problem with it being mandated by the government in schools, but he`ll mandate the gas prices. He`ll mandate everything else, which is costing the state a low of money in business.

Any idea how much the crazy ideas in California are costing in business?

MICHAELS: Nobody knows, but the California law was the subject of the -- actually, the Supreme Court case on global warming, which ultimately ran through Massachusetts. But -- and another big court case in Vermont, because the auto companies, which -- some of which are very precarious, as you know, claimed that it would be so expensive that it would put them out of business.

And what`s really going on is, in fact, the only way to get people to stop using energy so much is to make it ridiculously expensive. Look, $4 a gallon, and we reduce our consumption by 4 percent.

BECK: Right.

MICHAELS: Big deal.

BECK: Here`s the thing: -- Patrick, thank you very much. California teachers, you don`t have to teach this, but I wonder how much trouble you get in if you teach that it`s no big deal. Just a question. Just wondering.

Back in a second with "The Real Story."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, welcome to "The Real Story."

Two more banks were taken over by the federal government last weekend. That`s great, isn`t it? Merrill Lynch is dumping about $30 billion of new crappy mortgages for 22 cents on the dollar. Hurry while the sale lasts.

And a leading housing index today showed that May had the steepest rate of price declines ever. Prices are now down nearly 16 percent from a year ago. That`s not good, right? Well, as I see it, that depends on who you listen to.

The real story is, if you don`t like the message, hire a new messenger. So if you`re in the market for good news, isn`t everybody hoping for change?

Let me give you some change here. Let me introduce you to the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. First up is a guy named David Lereah. He`s not with the National Association of Realtors anymore but oh what a magical ride it had been.

In 2005, just before the housing market was about to peak, Lereah wrote a book called "Are You Missing the Real Estate Boom? Why Real Estate Investments Will Climb through the End of the Decade and How to Profit from Them." Good advice and good timing there, Dave. No, seriously.

Unfortunately, things have been tough for Dave, but things are about to get much, much worse for him. You see, I have this entire staff of people with not a lot to do. They just sit upstairs waiting for me to tell them to do something. We`re not really in the fact business on this show.

Once in a while, I`d like, "Hey, why don`t we try some facts tonight? Let`s give that a whirl. See what happens." So I gave them a little project. I said, "Go find what this guy has been saying for the last few years, and then, just for fun, let`s plot it on a graph of housing prices and see what we got."

Well, here it is. We start in August 2005. When Lereah wasn`t buying any of the fear-mongering from people like me who were warning, "Run for your lives." We have taken all the dot-com money and just put it into real estate.

He said, quote, "All of the gloom and doom of the housing debacle are not only irresponsible. They`re downright wrong." I was thinking to myself, "Maybe."

Here`s April `06. Wheels are starting to come off of housing. But Dave`s not worried. He said, "This is going to be the strongest year on record." November 2006, quote, "The worst is behind us."

February `07, home prices weren`t rising but Lereah saw nothing but sunshine and lollipops. He says, "2007 promises to be the fourth best year on record." Now, here is March `07. Prices are starting to collapse, but don`t worry, quote, "A modest recovery is likely. Housing remains a great long-term investment."

Please, somebody buy my book. If he`s talking long, long, long, long, long, long term, maybe he`s right.

Now this is about the time where things were going to change because two big things happened. First, the National Association of Realtors ran this TV ad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you have a family, it`s always a great time to buy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s a great new market.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In this market, there`s a lot of options.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The interest rates are low.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the best market in years in times of trial.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Interest rates are historic lows. Home choices have increased and prices are favorable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Favorable. If you bought a house because of that ad, your wallet is probably not feeling the favorable part right now. Prices are down 14 percent since that ran. But remember, long, long, long, long, long term investment, still good.

Second big thing happened. And that was that David Lereah mercifully left the NAR, I guess he wasn`t optimistic enough. So he was replaced by Lawrence Yun, otherwise known as "Sunny Yunny." Just one of those facts that we found today, look it up it`s true.

Anyway, November 2007, Sunny Yunny kicks off his career with this quote, "I don`t anticipate any further major sales declines." Then, January 2008, as housing prices continue to plummet, "A meaningful recovery in existing home sales could occur as early as spring." Sunny, isn`t it summer right now?

Then February 2008, quote, "The market is scratching the bottom," and finally, just last week, "There are signs of pent-up demand. I think we`re very near the end of this housing downturn."

Wow, I feel so much better. I thought we were actually having tough times. And actually, given his track record, if Sunny Yunny is calling a market bottom, then still might be time to dump my house.

I guess it all goes to show that if you want honest advice about your home, don`t listen to the people who are trying to make a living selling them.

Now I`m going to do a follow-up on the story that I told you yesterday about how big businesses are modern-day slave owners if they`re hiring illegal aliens.

As the stories start to come out about the 389 illegal immigrants that were arrested in a raid in Iowa meat packing plant, I could not help but wonder, how many Americans know what the conditions are like for these people and why I say that illegal immigration is nothing but modern-day slavery. And it has got to stop in this country.

Today, I wanted to bring you some stories from a guy who has seen this slavery firsthand. His name is Bob Balfe, he`s the United States attorney for the Western District of Arkansas. Bob, how are you?

ROBERT BALFE, U.S. ATTORNEY, WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS: Glenn, glad to be here.

BECK: Good to be with your, sir. Last year in your state, you did a raid on a chain of Mexican restaurants, right?

BALFE: That`s correct.

BECK: Can you tell me what the situation was?

BALFE: Well, it was a chain of restaurants, the Tacoria Mexican (ph) where the owners of the restaurants would bring in illegal labor from Mexico. They would transport in the illegal immigrants, give them shelter, give them an apartment complex to live in. Pay them extremely low wages, no benefits whatsoever and profit from that.

BECK: And who is in jail now?

BALFE: Well, we prosecuted the two owners of the restaurant, Ms. Rivera-Selda (ph) and Mr. Pedrosa (ph); a husband and wife who ran the chain of restaurants. They were arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 15 months in prison a couple of months ago.

BECK: Ok, good for you. Goof for you for getting that done.

The story in Iowa, and I know you don`t have any of the facts on Iowa, but I would like to see if you have seen this in your own state.

One of the things was, I think it was a 16-year-old or 17-year-old kid; he was working 17 hours a day. He was gutting the cows. And he cut himself with a very sharp knife; had to go to the hospital. Got eight stitches. Went right back to work. They put him right back gutting the cows. His stitches popped.

He said, "Please don`t make me work today." His stitched popped. They gave him a band-aid or some bandages and said, "Get back to work now." Is this stuff more often than not happening?

BALFE: I think it`s all too common. And I really think it`s the untold story of the immigration debate, the part we don`t talk about.

One side of the debate wants to focus on whether we should ship back all the illegal immigrants. The other side wants to talk about they want to get a piece of the American dream.

But what we`re not talking about is the conditions under which the illegal immigrants are actually being forced to work all too often. The circumstances you just described, we have seen in Arkansas.

In fact, we had a 15-year-old girl, who was pregnant, working in a meat processing plant, doing some of the most horrific work anyone can imagine doing, and this was her piece of the American dream when she got to this country.

BECK: Here is the thing. I mean, I am so sick and tired of hearing people saying, "Well, these are jobs Americans just won`t do." They shouldn`t do these jobs.

Neither should illegal immigrants. No one should do these jobs. They`re working 12 to 17, 18 hours a day. They`re working sometimes 6, 7 days a week. They`re getting paid very little money.

I think this is all about these companies just wanting to make profit. They want to hire these people because they don`t have to worry about any benefits, any complaints, nothing.

BALFE: Well, we hear that a lot. That`s kind of the mantra that everyone talks about in the immigration debate. These are jobs Americans just won`t do. I don`t thing there`s any job that an American won`t do if they`re paid a decent wage.

But what we have found, more often than not, is many of the companies are intentionally hiring illegal workers. It`s not that they can`t attract American workers for the same rate of pay; they`re going out of their way to identify illegal workers.

And it`s not for the rate of pay. It`s all too often for the benefits. We had a raid in our state where we took 81 illegal immigrants out of a plant. A week later, the plant had filled the positions. All of the positions were filled by American citizens and they were paid the same wage that they are paid before.

The question is why do they come back to work for the same pay? Why didn`t the company hire American citizens to begin with?

Well, then they hire American citizens, they get workers comp benefits, they get unemployment, they get to take the free company health care. They can file a suit if they`re sexually harassed. They can file discrimination claims.

They have all sorts of rights that in this country, 100 years of laws have gone into effect to protect the American workers that don`t matter to illegal immigrants, so companies oftentimes choose to hire illegal immigrants.

BECK: Bob, tell me this, out of all these companies that you guys have found illegal immigrants working at, because I think the companies are the villains here in many of the cases, how many of them have we put out of business?

BALFE: Very few, very few. And these are very difficult prosecutions to take in. They encompass companies who have layers of protections. You have to show that the people who run these companies knowingly hired a specific person who was an illegal immigrant. Well, they`re going to insulate themselves from that.

They`re complex investigations. We aggressively want to prosecute them but they`re very difficult prosecutions.

BECK: Bob thanks a lot.

That`s "The Real Story" tonight.

Coming up, what happens when you take an ordinary man and you drop him off in the middle of the war on terror? You got a best selling author Jeff Abbott and his new thriller "Collision" next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: The Glenn Beck Summer Reading Club continues tonight with a great new book by an author who is huge overseas but America is just beginning to discover. His latest book is a thriller about how every American, including you sitting there at home in your underpants wondering, "Why the hell am I watching this show? How did this happen?" How you are fighting the war on terror.

But it is also about the line between patriotism and profit. The idea that some things that we try to make so simple and so black and white like torture or surveillance are anything but black and white and simple.

The book is called "Collision." It`s author is Jeff Abbott and he`s with us now.

Let`s start here, Jeff, with the idea of patriotism and profit. Where is the line there? Is there a line with -- should we be able to have people like Blackwater go in and fight the war with us for profit?

JEFF ABBOTT, AUTHOR, "COLLISION": Well, I think that any time that we have a gap between what we need to fight a war and what we have available to fight a war, you`re going to have government contractors fill that gap.

BECK: Right.

ABBOTT: I thing that concerns that have come out are that we have had a lot of contractors who have delivered exactly on what they promised to do, but we have had a lot of contractors who have not been able to deliver on their contracts, and so we have lost billions of dollars.

BECK: But you know -- see here is the problem. We had this discussion in the office today as we were talking about your book. And it kind of worked out into a little argument back and forth.

That is, okay, private companies have done that. Let me tell you about the $800 toilet seats we have purchased as well. You know what I mean?

ABBOTT: Right. Sure. There are lots of ways that money can be wasted. Actually what I did in "Collision" was create a villain who put profit so far ahead of patriotism that he`s willing to compromise national security to try to fatten his own wallet.

BECK: Ok, tell me about the Cellar; this concept in the book.

ABBOTT: The Cellar is actually a group of disgraced CIA agents who have been given a second chance. The main character in the Cellar is a guy named Pilgrim who was ten years ago leading the charge on a mission to fight terrorists. And he was basically ordered to back off due to diplomatic considerations, and he didn`t.

So he took out the terrorists, but he paid an extraordinary cost, personal cost, where he lost his family, his job, his identity, and now he`s been living and working under assumed identities for the past several years; kind of a Jack Bauer character doing the dirty work that`s necessary in fighting terrorism.

BECK: If anybody is reading the bottom of the screen, you have two movie projects out. This is one of them, just purchased by 20th Century Fox, which would immediately make me skeptical, which I shouldn`t be. If you`re going out to buy the book, you`re not somebody who is taking America apart. You do believe Jack Bauer plays a roll in our day.

ABBOTT: Sure, no, I mean the idea, I think, that has been appealing to Hollywood is that the other character aside from Pilgrim, who is kind a Jack Bauer kind of character, is a man named Ben Forestberg (ph), who is an ordinary businessman whose business card is found one day in the pocket of a dead terrorist. And he absolutely has no idea how it got there.

He has no idea why he has been targeted, but he suddenly finds himself on the front line of the war on terror, trying to stop -- working with Pilgrim, trying to stop an impending attack on American soil.

BECK: Jeff, thank you very much. And by the way, the name of the book is "Collision;" it`s out in bookstores right now. If you don`t know who Jeff is, if you don`t know any of his writings, this guy is Hitchcock. You will find yourself -- it`s an average person finding themselves right in the middle of an unbelievable situation. You`ll enjoy the book.

Let`s switch gears not and go to "The Real America" brought to you by CSX. A lot of things that scare me, like swimming with sharks, swimming, being, you know, in open water. I mean, being seen without my shirt on, also, is not -- but I digress.

For a group of young men at Walter Reed Hospital, being scared really isn`t even in their vocabulary. Failure is just not an option.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Shane always knew he liked scuba diving, but after he took a dive into the waters of Guantanamo Bay, he was hooked.

SHANE: It`s different. You almost felt like you were floating. It`s very, very peaceful.

BECK: Shane`s scuba teacher is John Thompson. He`s been diving since Shane was in diapers. And he`s seen it all; from coral reefs off the Florida Keys to sharks in the Caribbean. But the most incredible sight for John, that`s easy. Here in the waters of the therapy pool at Walter Reed Hospital.

JOHN THOMPSON, SCUBA TEACHER: I worked with a guy early this year, I say I`ve been working with him for about six months and had not seen him smile one time during that six months.

And then we took him on one of our trips down to the blue tropical water, and after his first dive, he was beaming ear to ear. First time I had seen him smile.

BECK: Thompson runs the Suds Program here at Walter Reed. It stands for "Soldiers Undertaking Disabled Scuba." But trust me the abilities of these guys overtake their disabilities the second they hit the water.

THOMPSON: We do have a few tricks but there`s a saying out there that water is the great equalizer and things are just much easier to do in the water than on land for a lot of these folks with serious injuries.

BECK: Each week, about ten injured soldiers take the class. John drives 14 hours from his home in North Carolina to instruct the guys. It`s just a few hours a week, just a few feet deep in the pool, but for amputee soldiers like Shane, it`s the only thing that makes him feel like his old self.

SHANE: You have gone through a life-changing event but that doesn`t mean that your life is over, your dreams are over, things you want to truly pursue don`t have to come to an end because of that. And it`s nice; it`s reassuring to know that we`re still normal.

BECK: These soldiers are learning to scuba dive, overcoming incredible obstacles and most amazingly, doing it all with a smile.

SHANE: You go out and show people, look at me, appreciate me for me. I can still do all these things. I`m still a normal human being. I just may be missing an arm or a leg.

BECK: For Shane and his friends, this experience may just be about wanting to feel normal. But I`ve got news for these guys. They`re not just normal, they`re heroes, they`re incredible, and they`re all a big part of "The Real America."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: You know what, we love doing shows like this and being able to bring you these stories.

If you would like to see more of them, go to cnn.com/glenn and look for "The Real America" section. That`s tonight`s "Real America, sponsored by CSX, it is how tomorrow moves.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, as you know, Conservatives like me have had their problems with John McCain. This week the Club for Growth, the anti-tax organization, is claiming McCain seems to be opening the door for tax increases. Even though he`s -- "I`ll never do that."

In 2007 he was asked by the National Review, here it is, quote, "If you could get the Democrats to agree or at least come to the table with some entitlements or on tax simplification, under those circumstances would you be willing to accept the tax increase?" Senator McCain: "No, no." National Review: "No circumstances?" Senator McCain: "No, none, none. Tax cuts starting with Kennedy as we all know, increased revenues.

So what`s the argument for increasing taxes if you get the opposite effect out of tax cuts? That`s what he said. Pretty clear, right?

Well here`s John McCain this weekend with George Stephanopoulos.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) PRESUMPTIVE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I`ve been in bipartisan negotiations before. I know how you reach a conclusion. We all have to sit down together with everything on the table.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So that means payroll tax increases are on the table as well?

MCCAIN: There`s nothing that`s off the table. I have my positions and I`ll articulate them, but nothing`s off the table. I don`t want tax increases. Of course I`d like to have young Americans have some of their money put into an account with their name on it, but that doesn`t mean that anything`s off the table.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: This is what happens. It`s all off the table until it`s all back on the table again. I mean, at least George Bush saved the reversal on the "Read my lips, no new taxes" until he was elected president. It was after he was elected.

The McCain campaign says, what are you talking about, no imaginable circumstances would he raise taxes. I don`t even know what you`re saying here. That`s the problem.

When you`re president, everything is unimaginable. That`s why you have to stick to your principles; believe in something. What`s McCain saying about alt this today? This is from a town hall meeting this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you were president, will you raise our taxes?

MCCAIN: No. I think the worst thing that could happen to America in these very tough economic times, very tough economic times is to raise someone`s taxes. I won`t do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Okay. If it`s that bad of an idea, maybe, I`m just saying, perhaps, you should take it off the table?

Remember, you can sign up for my free daily e-mail newsletter at glennbeck.com.

From New York; good night, America.

END