updated 10/18/2006 11:04:49 AM ET 2006-10-18T15:04:49

Guests: Ed Royce, Dan Stein, Ahmed Younis, Amanda Carpenter, A.B. Stoddard, Josiah Bunting

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Welcome to the show.  I‘m Tucker Carlson.

We have a lot to get to today, including the USA at 300 million—why it could be the beginning of the end of our way of life here in America—and the lawyer who got a slap on the wrist for helping terrorists, including suspected mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing. 

But first, our top story: Kim Jong-il‘s declaration of war. 

North Korea says sanctions imposed by the U.N. after its first nuclear test are part of an American plot to “destroy the socialist system.”  Now the White House says a second atomic blast could be in the works in North Korea.  Two weeks ago Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill said, “We are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea.  We are not going accept it.”

And yet, unfortunately we are living with it.  We have accepted it. 

What do we do now?  That‘s the question for Congressman Ed Royce.  He‘s chairman of the House Nonproliferation Committee.  He joins us from Anaheim, California.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for coming on. 

REP. ED ROYCE (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE NONPROLIFERATION COMMITTEE:  Tucker, good to be with you. 

CARLSON:  There was a compelling I thought very smart column today in “The Wall Street Journal” by Bret Stephens that essentially asked the question, what would we do exactly if North Korea passed on nuclear material to, say, al Qaeda?  What would we do?

ROYCE:  And I think, Tucker, he challenges a lot of our assumptions about how we would react, but I think the way we‘re beginning to react right now tells us something about what we intend to do about Kim Jong-il.  We are in the process now in the international community of checking every single ship that comes out of that harbor in order to stop any missiles from getting out of the country.  We have frozen all the bank accounts, so has China, and frankly we are now toying with the idea of imploding the regime by cutting off all foreign currency that he needs to pay his generals, to pay his army. 

I think the time has come to implode the regime.  And I think over the next few months...

CARLSON:  And you may be absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, but are we in charge of that?  For instance, South Korea, over which you would think we have some sway, considering we‘ve been there for 50 years, we prevented the country to be taken over by North Korea at the expense of many American lives, but that country, South Korea continues to do business with North Korea to prop it up, to send money, economic aid to North Korea, and there‘s nothing we can do about it. 

Why can‘t we force our ally to knock it off, stop supporting this Stalinist regime? 

ROYCE:  I chair the Interparliamentary Exchange with South Korea.  Right now people in South Korea have had it with the leftist government, with President Roh‘s government.  They want to stop and cease this policy of investment and foreign aid for North Korea. 

I think you‘re going to see that situation cut off because of the pressure from the street in South Korea.  They‘ve had it with the leftist government. 

CARLSON:  Wait, but the pressure from the street, why should we wait—with all due respect, why should we for the street...

ROYCE:  Good point.

CARLSON:  ... for ordinary South Koreans to be mad about it?  Why don‘t we say, look, we‘re pulling our, you know, 35,000 -- 37,000 troops out of South Korea.  Defend your own country, pal.  Why don‘t we do that like, say, this afternoon? 

ROYCE:  And that‘s what Secretary Rice is probably going to be hinting at this afternoon, because she‘s in east Asia applying exactly that kind of pressure there.  And as you know, in China as well, China has cooperated, has for now, at least, frozen all the bank accounts. 

She is there in the region in order to give this—this U.S. ultimatum, basically.  And that is, we expect cooperation with the U.N. Security Council, and what that calls for right now is cutting off the hard currency that formerly went into North Korea so they don‘t have the money to do this weapons program.  And that will implode this regime if we really turn off the spigot. 

And I agree with you.  We‘ve got to lean on South Korea.  We got to threaten and lean on China.  But so far, it‘s working with China.

CARLSON:  But wait.  What if—I mean, you can make the counter-argument that the more desperate the North Korea regime becomes, the more likely it would be to sell nuclear material to, say, Syria or al Qaeda directly.  What—and this—again, this piece raises the horror show question. 

What happens if the Kim regime in North Korea succeeds in doing that? 

Like, the materials is already in al Qaeda‘s hand?

You know as well as I we‘re going to do nothing.  We‘re not going to move militarily against North Korea.  We‘re going to sit there and take it like we‘re doing now, aren‘t we? 

ROYCE:  Bret Stephens raises that argument in “The Wall Street Journal” this morning, but here‘s the point made to me by the top defector from South Korea—from North Korea, their former minister of information.  His name is Yup (ph) -- Wang Jun-yup (ph).  And what he told me was, if you cut off the currency into that regime and you do some radio broadcasting into that regime, this—this Kim Jong-il is quite unpopular, unlike his father.  You can implode the regime because the only way they do the weapons program is with the money. 

If we are also stopping every ship that goes out, we can stop the proliferation of North Korea.  We know their fleet, we know their ships.  We‘re stopping those on the high seas and we‘re checking every one of them now.  And we‘ve got 60 other navies assisting us in this effort. 

This is the methodology we should have deployed years ago.  Instead, you know, we attempted with the ‘94 framework agreement—Clinton tried to buy them off with a reactor.  No.  It takes force, it takes pressure on the regime and pressure on our allies.  That‘s why our secretary of state is in the region today to apply that pressure.

CARLSON:  When you hear that Assistant Secretary of State Chris Hill say things like, “We are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea.  We are not going to accept it”—he said that two weeks ago—doesn‘t it make you sad because you know that that‘s empty posturing and it points up our fundamental weakness.  Because, in fact, as we speak, you and I, we are living with a nuclear North Korea and we‘re doing, like, nothing about it, basically. 

ROYCE:  And my point...

CARLSON:  We‘re not—we‘re not going in there militarily.  We‘re not going to. 

ROYCE:  Well, my point is that if we cut off the aid and if we check all the ships and cut off his flow of currency, of hard currency, we can implode the regime.  That‘s what we should have done. 

CARLSON:  OK.

ROYCE:  Yes, I‘ve heard Chris Hill on this, but I think we need tough measures in order to starve them out.  And when we do his generals will remove him. 

CARLSON:  OK.  Well, I hope you‘re right. 

Congressman Ed Royce, I sure appreciate you coming on.  Thank you.

ROYCE:  Thanks, Tucker.  Good to be with you.

CARLSON:  We now turn to the other top story of the day: the USA at 300 million -- 300 million people.  While displaying it‘s admirable commitment to precision, the Census Bureau says that we reached that milestone this morning at precisely 7:46 Eastern Time, but it‘s not exactly cause for celebration, according to some. 

My next guest says, “Americans have been blindsided by their government, a government-mandated mass immigration program that is fueling this nation‘s runaway population growth.  This growth was neither planned nor expected, but we feel the consequences every day.”

Joining me now from Washington, Dan Stein.  He‘s the president of FAIR. 

That‘s the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Dan, I appreciate your coming on.  Thank you.

Why—why wouldn‘t we be happy about our nation reaching 300 million? 

DAN STEIN, PRESIDENT, FAIR:  Holy cow, Tucker.  You go back 30, 40 years, nobody in this country projected this kind of population growth.  And we feel it every day in terms of inadequate planning for transportation—think about your commute every day—housing shortage, water tables, paving over prime farmland.  And virtually everything we‘re trying to do as a society is made more difficult and challenging by virtue of this kind of immigration-related population growth. 

And you think about it. 

CARLSON:  Is it—and that‘s my next question.  Is it—are we certain that this is in fact immigration related, that we‘re not just having more children than the western Europeans?  I mean, immigration is fueling this?

STEIN:  Absolutely.  Sure.  Seventy-five, 80 percent of our population growth is the result of post-1970 immigration.  None of that was ever predicted when Lyndon Johnson signed the law in 1965. 

And remember, the 300 million mark, we‘re going to zoom past that.  And if Congress to increase immigration levels, we could see half a billion of people or more by the middle of this century. 

We do not have in place anything like the kind of infrastructure, the environmental issues have never been resolved.  We embarked upon a path we have absolutely no idea why we‘re doing it as a society except that we know that wealthy people make some money off cheap labor and everybody else gets screwed. 

CARLSON:  I agree—I mean, I couldn‘t agree with you more.  On the other hand, this country has gotten richer as its gotten more populated.  I mean, as the population has gone up...

STEIN:  Well, but that‘s a false...

CARLSON:  ... so has our GDP.  So, I mean, why aren‘t the two related? 

STEIN:  Tucker, how a society prospers is by investing its educational resources to get people with the kind of education to compete in a cutting-edge post-industrial superpower.  It‘s not by importing millions and millions of low-skill, low-wage laborers from the third world.  And it‘s not by trying to hive off or skim off the cream from countries like India and China to make up for the deficiencies in our own public education system. 

We‘ve got to—we‘ve got to—what we are doing now is creating a two-tiered hourglass society in our country, with a lot of people who are getting richer on the top off immigration, and this huge swathe of people who are getting stuck at the bottom while the middle class is disappearing.  But the aggregate GDP is not appreciably increased by this population growth.  Instead, we‘re redistributing wealth while making everybody‘s life a heck of a lot more inconvenient. 

And, you know, we have an obligation to future generations to think about it.  We baby boomers inherited a society that was very livable, relatively low density, and we‘re going to pass on to our grandchildren a country that‘s crowded and congested as China or India?  Because that‘s where we‘re headed by the end of this century. 

CARLSON:  Well, what about the argument that—and let me just say that I

sadly, I agree with what you‘re saying and it bothers me. 

STEIN:  That‘s great.  Thanks.

CARLSON:  But for the sake of argument, let me throw this out.  You often hear people on the other side say, well, you know, someone has got to mow the lawn, someone‘s got to pick the apples, someone has got to, right, do the agriculture work that Americans won‘t do. 

What about that argument?  I mean, we don‘t have a lot of time, but sum up why that‘s not true.

STEIN:  We are losing the ability of getting young people to take the kind of jobs that used to develop character and responsibility.  No country ultimately prospers by relying on foreign workers to do the jobs that we ought to be doing ourselves.  And it‘s—what we‘re doing is sacrificing our future livability for short-term selfish greed.

A society that lives in the present will never think about the future.  And that‘s what we‘re doing today as a country.

CARLSON:  Boy is that depressing.  But also, I have to say, true.

Dan Stein, thank you very much for joining us.

STEIN:  Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  I appreciate it.

STEIN:  Sure.

CARLSON:  Still to come, a slap on the wrist for Lynne Stewart.  She was convicted of helping the suspected mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing.  We‘ll talk to a Muslim leader who defends her.

And John Kerry in ‘08?  Have we learned nothing in the past two years?  Why he think he deserves a second chance.  Amusing, but sad.

That story when we return.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Shocking news today out of a New York City courtroom, where left wing defense attorney Lynne Stewart got off virtually scot-free after being convicted of helping the suspected mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing.  Stewart, who could have wound up behind bars for 30 years, was sentenced instead to just 28 months.  And now she‘s free on bail pending an appeal. 

Here to discuss that, Ahmed Younis.  He‘s the national director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, joining us from Washington. 

Ahmed, welcome. 

AHMED YOUNIS, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL:  Thank you, sir.

CARLSON:  This strikes me as an—as an outrage, and Lynne Stewart as someone who deserves to be locked away for a long, long time. 

What‘s your take? 

YOUNIS:  Well, what‘s really interesting is I think law schools will be

teaching this case for a long time to come on the issue of ethics.  It‘s a

it‘s a very tight balance that we have to draw as lawyers. 

You know, the model rules of professional conduct say you have to be zealous, you have to be excited, you have to be able to offer an effective assistance of counsel.  And if you‘re unable to do that, then you need to either let go of the case and let another attorney come on board, or you need to let it be known that you‘re being barred from being able to offer that assistance.  And I think it‘s important for us to always be aware that in a war on terrorism in which the terrorists are trying to change the way we run things, change the way we do things, our justice system is dependent upon the ability of an accused terrorist to have a good lawyer. 

CARLSON:  To have a good lawyer and to have a fair trial.  And no—I mean, I think many would dispute whether or not Lynne Stewart was a good attorney.  But I think everyone would concede that Mr. Abdel Rahman had a fair trial. 

What has never been allowed before or after 9/11 is to break federal law by allowing a terrorist to communicate and to spread acts of treason and acts of violence, or inspire them among his followers.  That‘s what she did.  And she did it in violation of federal law, and she knew she was doing it in violation of federal law. 

So...

YOUNIS:  You‘re absolutely right.  You know, it‘s interesting.  I grew up at a mosque in southern California that in 1992 got a request from Omar Abdel Rahman to give a speech, to give a Friday sermon, and he was rejected by the board of directors...

CARLSON:  Good.

YOUNIS:  ... because, I mean, he was—he was known to be someone that was inciting violence and engaging in extremist rhetoric.  And we as a Muslim community, of course, are at the forefront of trying to make sure that these kind of people kind of get the justice that they deserve. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Oh, really?  I must say, I hadn‘t noticed that, with all due respect.  I hadn‘t noticed the Muslim community being, as you put it, at the forefront of helping these people get what they deserve.  In fact, I see the Muslim community in the United States, the organized Muslim community, anyway, being at the forefront of making excuses for acolytes like Lynne Stewart, who was...

YOUNIS:  I think—I think—I think that‘s absolutely not true, Tucker.  And you know well if you were to surf the Internet to the major institutions‘ Web pages, to the major scholars‘ opinions that are based in jurisprudence, you would know well that they are at the forefront of fighting terrorism. 

Listen, terrorism will not be fought by Muslims in the streets having a parade.  Terrorism will be fought when Muslims are in mosques preaching against extremism. 

CARLSON:  I agree with that. 

YOUNIS:  And the example that I just gave you...

CARLSON:  I think many Muslims, though...

YOUNIS:  The example that I just gave you shows exactly that.

CARLSON:  OK.  It shows that your—your mosque was sensible enough to tell this guy to buzz off.  And good for you.

He later to be found to be plotting to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel and the Holland Tunnel and the United Nations building.  And he was an awful man.  I think there are many Muslims—I would assume the majority in this country—who are repelled by people like him. 

YOUNIS:  Of course.

CARLSON:  But I think many of those decent Muslims, some of whom I know, are intimidated and afraid to speak out in public because prevailing wisdom and the prevailing view in international—in the international Islamic community is that, you know, Israel is evil, that the Jews are bad, that the United States is, you know, committed to killing Muslims just because they‘re Muslims.  You know, whack job conspiracy theories like that. 

YOUNIS:  Absolutely.  And I think the response to that kind of a reality is for us to be able to offer an analysis that‘s nuanced and that‘s based on facts.

Lynne Stewart violated the law.  She got what she deserved.  Some people think she should have gotten more. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  But wait.  Wait, slow down.  The guidelines—wait.  It‘s not some people think she should have gotten more.  It‘s the guidelines call for more, and by rights the judge should have given her many more years behind bars. 

Compare the sentence she got, less than two and a half years, to the sentence that, say, Bernie Ebbers got for a white collar crime.  Twenty-five years in jail.  Ken Lay was looking at 20 to 30 before he died.

YOUNIS:  Yes.  Look, I mean...

CARLSON:  We send our white collar criminals away for a long time.  This woman was abetting terror and she gets less than two and a half years.  And you‘re saying that‘s appropriate. 

YOUNIS:  No, no, no.

CARLSON:  I don‘t think it is.

YOUNIS:  I absolutely did not say that was appropriate.  I‘m saying that‘s a legal disagreement between you and the court. 

And my issue is ensuring that the integrity of our judicial system is maintained.  And when lawyers are afraid, are pushed back from offering assistance to people that are accused of terrorism charges, we are unable to wage a war on terrorism that articulates to the Muslim world we have a system that works that‘s based on fair principles.  And...

CARLSON:  Wait, but what are you saying?  What are you—are you saying that had Lynne Stewart gotten the sentence she deserved, had she gotten 15 years behind bars for abetting terror, that that would have somehow scared other lawyers out of representing Muslims?  I mean, is that what you‘re saying? 

YOUNIS:  Yes, absolutely.  I think as we see...

CARLSON:  But she broke the law. 

YOUNIS:  As we see—no, of course she broke the law.  And the average attorney is not breaking the law. 

You‘re making it seem like Omar Abdel Rahman is the only case that‘s happening in the country...

CARLSON:  No.

YOUNIS:  ... whereas there are—there are dozens of terrorism cases that have lawyers that are applying the law that are maintaining their ethical responsibility to their clients, et cetera.  So, to pretend like there‘s a generalization of this specific instance is, of course, incorrect, and you know that. 

CARLSON:  No, no, I believe that you‘re...

(CROSSTALK)

YOUNIS:  And what I am saying—what I am saying, Tucker, really...

CARLSON:  I believe you‘re the one who is doing that.  I‘m merely saying in this specific instance, here you have an attorney who hates the United States—that‘s kind of out there, that‘s not a crime, but it does offend me—and who has been caught, again, abetting terror. 

She should go to jail.  She should get a real jail sentence.  And instead, this judge says, well, you‘ve done a lot of good work over your life. 

I‘d like to see an example of one.

But this judge says, well, you‘re such a great person and you‘ve got breast cancer, that we‘re not going to send to you a real jail sentence.  And I just think that that‘s wrong and disturbing.  And I don‘t care if the judge is a judge.  It‘s still wrong. 

YOUNIS:  And I think that is a disagreement between you and the court that is based on opinions of law.  And what I am articulating to you has nothing to do with how long she‘s in jail, but has to do with the ability of our country to ensure that we have mechanisms...

CARLSON:  All right.

YOUNIS:  ... and individuals that can engage in the trying processes of these criminals, which is integral to the war on terror. 

CARLSON:  Well, we—we do.  And we give them, boy, every benefit of every doubt. 

Ahmed Younis, thanks.  I appreciate you coming on.

YOUNIS:  Thank you, sir.

CARLSON:  Coming up, a tale of two scandals.

The FBI raids the home of Republican Curt Weldon‘s daughter, while Democrat Harry Reid is in hot water over a Vegas land deal.  Wow. 

Plus, Nancy Grace armed and dangerous again.  So who is she threatening this time and how can she be stopped before she does it again? 

All that on “Beat the Press” next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  It‘s time to “Beat the Press”. 

Bill O‘Reilly is a highly-rated talk show host and a best-selling author, and yet he has never been invited on to Oprah Winfrey‘s show.  How do I know this?  Because O‘Reilly himself dedicated an entire segment of his show last night to this very pressing subject.  He seemed a little hurt. 

Watch. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL O‘REILLY, HOST, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR”:  Oprah has declined to interview me even though I‘ve had four number one best-selling books, including the current one, “Culture Warrior”. 

(INAUDIBLE) on that show? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  No, you should be on that show.  You have a best-seller.

O‘REILLY:  I‘m doing “The View” on Wednesday.  I guarantee they‘re going to get a big number.  Rosie and O‘Reilly? 

Come on!  How can you not watch?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  But seriously, you should be on that show.  You have best-selling books.  You have a top-rated show.  It‘s makes perfect sense.

O‘REILLY:  But it‘s not about me.  Please believe me. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Yes it is.

O‘REILLY:  No it isn‘t.  It is not about me. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Oh, my gosh.  OK. 

We‘ve redefined “chutzpah,” ladies and gentlemen.  Egomania on parade.  And that‘s OK.  Everyone in TV is a bit of a megalomaniac.  That‘s all right. 

But to then stare right into the cameras and say, “It‘s not about me,” the segment I just did on me—it‘s not about me?  It takes some major huevos (ph).  Good for him.

Next, our old pal Nancy Grace.  She brandishes yet another weapon live on television.  Last night she gave her viewers an unwelcome ballistics lesson while threatening them with a handgun. 

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY GRACE, HOST, “NANCY GRACE”:  I think the answer is going to be twofold.  Number one, fingerprints found in that car, that vehicle found just hours ago.

And two, can I have the—yes.  Thank you. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  A pleasure.

GRACE:  Right along here is where the bullet passes.  And when the bullet passes through this chamber, it is—yes, it is marked indelibly—indelibly by the permanent markings inside the chamber. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Pretty scary.  Not nearly as frightening, though, as some of Nancy‘s past displays of force. 

Prepare to be scared. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE:  This is a filet knife.  It‘s a nasty little peace of work.  The perpetrator‘s hand—and I‘ve seen this in several cases myself—goes down the sheath of the knife.  And the perp‘s hand actually gets cut on the murder weapon. 

The reason this .12 gauge shotgun will be imported into evidence is because to work it Mary Winkler had to go through so much to kill her husband.  She‘s about my height, 5‘2”.  To pull back, load and aim and pull, that takes quite a bit of effort. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  If you‘re watching this at home and you‘re a man, and you‘re asking yourself, “Does Nancy Grace want to castrate me?”  The answer, unfortunately, is yes.  Yes, she does want to castrate you.  Which is all the more reason that Nancy Grace should not have access to weapons, particularly not on live television. 

So someone at CNN, please disarm Nancy Grace before somebody gets hurt. 

It‘s up to you.

Still to come, remember John Kerry‘s 2004 campaign?  It didn‘t turn out so well for the Democrats, did it?  So what makes him think he deserves a second chance? 

That story when we come back. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still to come, does going to college make you dumber? That‘s the shocking conclusion of one new study.  Also ahead, Mike Tyson wants to get in the ring again.  You won‘t believe who he wants to fight.  Pretty appalling.  All that in just a moment.  But right now here‘s a look at your headlines. 

MARGARET BRENNAN, CNBC ANCHOR:  I‘m Margaret Brennan with your CNBC market wrap.  An unexpected jump in producer prices fueling inflation fears and putting downward pressure on stocks.  The Dow ending today‘s trading session down 30.5 points, the S&P 500 off by five.  The NASDAQ down by almost 19 points.  And a sell off in technology there.  The Core Price Index minus food and energy up unexpectedly in September by six tenths of a percent.  Analysts are concerned that the jump could be a sign of rising inflation.  Motorola is the first out with third quarter earnings, reporting a net loss of 45 percent as sales hit the $10 billion mark, in line with Wall Street predictions.  Motorola shares down in after hours trading.  More earnings news, IBM shares jumped almost a quarter on word that big blue‘s third quarter revenue was up more than two percent. And Intel beating expectations with a 9 percent jump in revenue.  And a new development in the Enron case.  Enron founder Ken Lay is now an innocent man.  As expected, a federal judge has thrown his conviction following his death before sentencing in July.  Now back to Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Time now for three on three where we welcome two of the sharpest people we know to discuss three of today‘s most interesting stories.  Joining us from Washington, D.C., A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of “The Hill” newspaper.  Also from Washington, Amanda B. Carpenter, author of “The Vast Right Ring Conspirator‘s Dossier on Hillary Clinton.”  She‘s also the Capitol Hill correspondent for human events.  Welcome to you both.  Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who lost the presidential race to George Bush in 2004, if you remember, says that, quote “Americans give people a second chance.”  At a Democratic Party fundraiser on Friday in New Hampshire, he received at least 10 standing ovations.  Kerry seemed poised for a second run for the White House.  His Democratic challengers most likely will include Hillary Clinton, possibly even Al Gore.  If Kerry decides to run he will be under pressure to relinquish his Senate seat, which is also up in 2008.  A.B. Stoddard, this comports with everything I‘ve been hearing over the past couple of weeks, from people who have spoken to Kerry, he is planning on running again.  Are Democrats behind this or do they think its crazy?

A.B. STODDARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, “THE HILL”:  Well it was so interesting last week when former Virginia Governor Mark Warner pulled out of the presidential race, said he wasn‘t going to run.  Everyone, you know all the political experts said oh, this is an opening for Edwards to be the anti-Hillary, this is an opening for (INAUDIBLE).  This is an opening for Gore. And no one said this was an opening for John Kerry which I thought was really telling.  John Kerry has been raising a lot of money, helping candidates that obviously is going to earn him some loyalty and he‘s very popular among sort of the left wing bloggers.  But the problem is, he‘s obviously got to win over the Democrats first.  And if Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton control now a certain part of the support and Howard Dean who runs the DNC is not behind Kerry, you‘re going to wonder where he‘s going to start.  And it‘s going to be tough.  

CARLSON:  Amanda, do you think Republicans look at this as Christmas comes early?

AMANDA B. CARPENTER, CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT, “HUMAN EVENTS”:  I

think it‘s a bad move on behalf of John Kerry.  He certainly sees a vacuum with Mark Warner ducking out of the race this early and as we can see already, he thinks there‘s going to be a base if he runs to the left of Hillary Clinton by trying to pick up, you know the anti-war hard left base.  Will this pay off in the long run? I‘m not sure.  He doesn‘t have any platform center pieces that he‘s compiled in the Senate, so, I think this is going to be a bad choice for him but of course we can see how it shakes out. 

CARLSON:  It‘s interesting, I mean just to stand up in defense of John Kerry briefly and for the first and last time.  I mean I don‘t know, he is almost by definition the frontrunner.  He is by definition the leader of his party.  He is the party‘s last nominee.  It seems to me he deserves some respect from Democrats.  He‘s getting none.  I do think you‘re both right that somebody has got to run to the left of Hillary.  No one will be able to run to the right of her.  But don‘t you think A.B. Democrats deserve to give this guy a shot? 

CARPENTER:  I disagree.  I think people are going to be tired of getting these recycled candidates.  I think John Kerry had his chance.  I think Hillary Clinton has already had her time in the White House.  And I think people are really going to want new blood on both sides.  

CARLSON:  I just realized that both of you have the first two initials A.B.  So let me say to A.B. Stoddard.  Do you see certain unfairness here?  Again, this is the last time I‘m ever going to say a kind word about John Kerry‘s political future. 

STODDARD:  It really is interesting.  He is sort of the incumbent next in line.  

CARLSON:  He is.  

STODDARD:  And it is sort of, you know, he did get more votes than, you know, I mean—you know, but for Ohio is what they say in his camp, he would be president.  But listen, the problem, Amanda is right, the problem for Democrats now is this is a very significant sort of crossroads that they are at.  They are either going to send themselves out to pasture for the next 20 years or they‘re going to get it together and capitalize on Republicans, you know, the hard times.  And so, I just doubt they are going to go with an incumbent like Gore or Kerry.  

CARLSON:  I would like to see them both run, it would be so thrilling, really.  So, scandal however, the topic of the moment here in Washington.  You had the Foley scandals of last week, now there are two others brewing.  First you have Senator Harry Reid, he announced that he‘s amending his ethics report to Congress regarding a Vegas land deal.  He also admitted using campaign donations to pay Christmas bonuses to the staff at his condominium at The Ritz.  Harry Reid lives at The Ritz. Who knew?  Meanwhile, the FBI raided the home of Republican Congressman Curt Weldon‘s daughter.  That‘s part of an investigation into whether Weldon used his influence to steer business to her consulting firm.  First, A.B. Stoddard, he lives at The Ritz and he‘s using campaign cash to give tips to the little guy? Does this matter? 

STODDARD:  You know, it‘s interesting. If I were Harry Reid and I was looking three weeks from the election, by possibly becoming Majority Leader of the Senate, I mean it is a now possibility.  It would be really—it‘s just unfortunate that if he is so—if he is innocent and he‘s done nothing wrong, it‘s unfortunate that he is going to get himself into this situation and put himself under the spotlight because he didn‘t properly, you know, complete his financial disclosure forms.   I mean you just never want to run into trouble because you didn‘t fill out the forms the right way. 

CARLSON:  But it does seem a little cheesy though to be giving campaign contributions as Christmas tips.  Why don‘t you pay them out of your own pocket Mr. Big Spender? 

STODDARD:  See, every time questions like this come up, I‘m hesitant to make a call on it because I don‘t know really what Senators and members of Congress who live in hotels, you know, deal with the Christmas fund for the workers there and whether or not they take it from - you never know what is actually sort of the practice.  So that—I just don‘t know about that detail of it.  That said I think the Weldon thing is probably just going to be more of a problem.   I mean that story is probably going to have more legs and be bigger because Curt Weldon has been safe his whole life, this is his first tough race.  It was already tough before this story was broken.   He is running in a Pennsylvania, is now what we call a purple state.”  These are really is rough times for Curt Weldon before this story broke.  

CARLSON:  Well when did the FBI get involved—let me read to you both and this is to you Amanda, specifically.  Curt Weldon‘s explanation, the implication is that he helped his daughter, 32-year-old Karen Weldon, 32, who has a public relations business, a lobbying business, helped her  get business.  He said, “My daughter doesn‘t need my help, she never has.  She‘s a very capable professional.   So he‘s honestly saying that his daughter would be getting million dollar contracts from Russian companies if her father wasn‘t a member of congress.  I mean that‘s just a crock. 

CARPENTER:  I think the House really has to look into this.   And whatever they turn up in this investigation will prove worthy of more scrutiny upon that.  But the history with the Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the fact that he would make a land transaction with his lawyer friend with no documentation is very interesting and I think, you know, the AP reporter John Solomon is very right for aggressively pursuing this story.  Right now the burden is on Harry Reid to come forth and explain it.  And I think that‘s going to be a hard burden to face.  But this is indicative of a larger problem, one that I bring up with Hillary Clinton and the dossier that I just authored, that I really would encourage reporters like A.B. to go after  is the foreign money that her husband Bill Clinton has been raising internationally in the form of speaking fees.  I mean there‘s all kinds of unsavory money transactions that are happening on Capitol Hill right now.  Hillary Clinton has a larger conflict of interest. That, you know, this is small potatoes compared here. 

CARLSON:  If that foreign money is going to campaigns, ok, that‘s a violation of federal law. 

STODDARD:  Actually it‘s not.

CARLSON:  Since when?

STODDARD:  I can explain it right here. It‘s that, Bill Clinton has gotten more than $20 million in foreign money.  You can look this up on the Senate Financial Disclosure forms that I include in the back of my book with Hillary Clinton‘s signature.  This comes from the People ‘s Republic of China.

CARLSON:  All right, I‘m sure he has.

STODDARD:  Other places like this, but he has a joint checking account here.  Here‘s how it could work out Tucker.

CARLSON:   Ok, give me the short version. 

STODDARD:  Here we go.  He has to have a joint checking account, I talked with campaign finance lawyer.  Hillary Clinton is entitled to half of it that can be rolled into her campaign.  It‘s a loophole, I talked to Senator Russ Feingold, it‘s something they never considered.  

CARLSON:  Interesting.  

STODDARD:  You read all about it in “The Dossier.” 

CARLSON:  I‘m lucky if it turns out that money from Red China as they used to call it and probably still should call it, is going into Hillary Clinton‘s presidential campaign.  You know, there‘s the story. 

CARLSON:  Well I asked Senator Clinton if she could use any of her personal money, she won‘t deny it, so right now it‘s up to her to declare that.  That would be a (INAUDIBLE). 

I want to get quickly to a story that we know is true and that I think says a lot and it has to do  with donations.   We mentioned earlier radical training Lynn Stewart, she was convicted of helping a jailed terrorist Sheik Abu Ramin, communicate with his followers.  He received a prison sentence of only 28 months.  We just talked about that.  Prosecutors are looking for 30 years.  What‘s interesting though, Billionaire financier George Soros who has opposed President Bush from the beginning.  In fact I believe Spent, more money than any individual ever as a private individual in a presidential race to defeat Bush.  Turns out he is a donor, he donated at least 20 grand to the Lynn Stewart Defense Committee.  Now here‘s a guy A.B. Stoddard who I believe is the single biggest contributor to the Democratic Party.  I mean he‘s a big deal in the Democratic Party.  The biggest deal, and he‘s contributing to the Lynn Stewart defense committee?  That strikes me as of hard to defend.  

STODDARD:  It‘s a free country and—

CARLSON:  Yes.  

CARPENTER:  Can George Soros pay for her legal defense? 

CARLSON:  Well you can support Namibia too, but I mean people look and sconce at it, don‘t they?  

CARPENTER:  I mean I don‘t think that—I think that the decision that the judge made is surprising, as sentencing decisions often are.  I know that you find it shocking.  I think Lynn Stewart found it  shocking as well because she came to court with a little baggie with her sweat pants ready  to go to prison.  But the bottom line is, we expect them to be neutral at decisions and they are really subjective and he was moved by a lot of letters he received.  And he made his decision, whether George Soros contributed towards her defense or not. 

CARLSON:  I think that‘s absolutely right.  I guess the point I‘m

making Adam is, that if your Richard Mellon escape, a person about whom

we‘ve heard an awful lot and still do to some extent from the left, as this

financier of the vast right ring conspiracy.  If he was giving money to the

Tim McVeigh legal defense fund, people would look at that and say, you know

CARPENTER:  You‘re right Tucker.  It would be a huge story and you know we can‘t comment on what the judge decided and made a controversial decision.  But, what Democrats should do is disavow any money that George Soros has given to them, they should return it, give it back.   We saw this happen with the Foley scandal.  Immediately Republicans started giving  money back to him.  This is a sex scandal.  Here we have somebody funding money essentially to terrorists and the Democrats are going to keep that money?  They should give it back.

CARLSON:  You know you‘re very sweet Amanda but I believe George Soros gave somewhere around $27 million in the last cycle.  I don‘t think anybody is returning any of it, but you know, we can hope.  Thank you both very much.  I appreciate it. 

CARPENTER:  Thank you.  

STODDARD:  Thanks.

CARLSON:  A new study reveals that college actually makes you dumber and a worst citizen.  So much for higher education, we‘ll explain in just a moment.  Plus, Mike Tyson once told an opponent he wanted to eat his children.  Wait until you hear his latest shocking declaration.  It‘s weirder.  We‘re coming right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Here‘s a question.  Why aren‘t our so-called schools of higher learning making the grade?

A lesson for parents about why your child‘s college fund might be going to waste.  A new study shows that college graduates have little understanding of American history, government and the economy.  That finding was drawn from a nationwide multiple choice test.  On the average, students were only able to answer about half the questions correctly.  More surprising than that though, from state universities in many cases faired better on the tests than kids from Harvard and Stanford Universities.  Joining me now, a long time and very accomplished educator, Josiah Bunting, he‘s on the board of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the group that commissioned the study.  He joins me from New York to encourage everyone to drop out of college.  I know that‘s not why you‘re here Mr. Bunting.  But is it fair to say that going to college diminishes your knowledge? How does that work? 

JOSIAH BUNTING, CHAIRMAN, LITERACY COUNCIL:  Yeah, it doesn‘t make you dumber to quote what you said earlier but it may make you more ignorant about the things that colleges say are really important.  You pick up any college catalog, it talks about an overwhelming mission to produce good citizens, study history, politics, government, philosophy and so on.  Most of these colleges are not requiring that and as a consequence, the kids who took our tests, many of them did much worse as seniors than they did as freshmen.  

CARLSON:  So what are colleges teaching?  I mean they‘re enormously expensive, they‘re doing something.  When is it? 

BUNTING:  Well I‘ll tell you what they‘re doing, they are acting basically as credentialing agencies for kids who want to be doctors, lawyers, architects, executives, all those kinds of things and they do that fairly well.  But the kinds of things that they talk about that all of us have in common, they tend to ignore.  And basically you‘re talking about U.S. history, Americas‘ role in the world, political philosophy, free market economics, those are things that are no longer required and the kids stay away from them.  And you mention the high prestige places they are the most guilty of all.  We looked hard at 50 colleges and universities.  The bottom 16 bristle with the names of the most desirable schools in the country, if you look at “U.S. News and World Report.” 

CARLSON:  What are the schools that do the best jobs of teaching kids about their government? 

BUNTING:  We were surprised.  Our top five schools include one big state university, Colorado State, Rhodes College in Memphis Tennessee, which was our top school.  Another small school called Calvin College, University of Colorado.  These tend to be schools that take their mission, their civic mission pretty seriously and they require kids to study those subjects as freshmen and as sophomores.  

CARLSON:  Is there an ideological point of view responsible for this shift in emphasis? Why aren‘t schools teaching these things?  

BUNTING:  You know I think that may be part of it, it‘s hard to measure.  What we‘re talking about here really is apple pie American history.  You know, Tucker, the days of the old, as you would say liberal seem to have ended.  That is to say, American liberals who are devoted to the study of history and American political institutions who tend to be quite conservative in their views of curriculum, those people as presidents and professors have pretty well passed from the scene.  What this test tried to measure was the functional knowledge that anybody who wants to be a good citizen in our democracy ought to have.  I think that‘s the problem and you had the little clip earlier from Mr. Blutorski and Dean Wormer in “Animal House.”  The last sentence of that admonition of Den Wormer was, “I just called your draft board.”  In those days you had to get good grades in those subjects or you went to Vietnam.  

CARLSON:  It‘s just kind of depressing because you know parents spend so much money, worry for decades about how they are going to pay for all of this. And then—

BUNTING:  You know, parents are enablers.  Parents want that orange and black bumper sticker on the back of their German automobile and if Melissa gets into Princeton that‘s great, she can study whatever she wants.  

CARLSON:  So, parents and alumni aren‘t requiring colleges and universities to teach basic subjects?

BUNTING:  You know, unfortunately alumni tend to be pretty remote from the academic curriculum.  They worry about football, they worry about budgets, those kinds of things.  When there‘s some kind of a hassle on the campus, but they stay fairly remote.  The people who are most culpable I think are trustees of these schools, so many of whom are people of means, intelligent people who come down for weekends, go to the football game, have a drink with the president and then go home.  They are the people who are charged with the oversight of these curriculums and I think they‘re the most responsible. 

CARLSON:  Yeah.  It‘s depressing.  They give a lot of money, they all seem like sheep to me.  Josiah Bunting, we‘re honored to have you here.  Thank you. 

BUNTING:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  For the last time a religious cartoon was in the news there were riots and death threats around the world.  So how are people reacting to a new Pope cartoon?  There is one, we‘ll tell you when we come right back.

But before we go to break it‘s today‘s installment of the good, the bad and ugly.  The good comes from Cheboygan(ph), Wisconsin where a pet dog is being hailed a hero after he rescued his owner from a burning house.  Jamie Hanson suffered severe burns in the fire but says she would be dead if it weren‘t for her dog Jessie, who fetched her the phone to call 911.  Sadly Jessie did not make it out of that fire alive.  Ironically the bad also hails from Cheboygan, Wisconsin.  That title goes to Jamie Hanson‘s cat, the one who knocked the candle over that started the fire.  And the ugly is another potential low blow in the career of boxer Mike Tyson.  He‘s getting ready to kick off his world tour this Friday and he‘s promising ticket holders a real knock out of a show.   The 40 year old heavy weight champion says he is seriously considering fighting women.  That‘s right, fighting women.  He‘d particularly like to go a few rounds with pro boxer Ann Wolfe.  Wolfe‘s promoter says that will never happen.  In a programming note, Scarborough Country will have an interview with Tyson tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern time.  That‘s today‘s edition of the good, the bad and the ugly.  We‘ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  When you‘re down and troubled and you need a helping hand, there‘s Willie Geist.  Ladies and gentlemen here he is.  

WILLIE GEIST:  Thank you Tucker.  Speaking of down and trouble.  A quick note, Wesley Snipes, the national treasure, the actor indicted today on eight counts of tax fraud.  He owes $12 million in back taxes.  Didn‘t pay for six years, so, sorry Wesley, you got to pay the taxes.  You are a national treasure, “White Men Can‘t Jump” was a classic, but we can‘t let $12 million slide, sorry.  In other news Tucker, you only told us part of the story on Mike Tyson in that segment just a minute ago.  Yes he wants to fight women but in an interview with an “L.A. Times” blogger, famed Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss confessed she has spoken to Tyson about becoming the number one stud at her planned stud ranch in Nevada.  Fleiss hopes to open her luxury brothel for female customers soon and says Tyson called her about working there.  Tyson reportedly told her, quote “It‘s every man‘s dream to please every woman and especially to get paid for it.”  Tucker, this very well, I‘m not sure I completely believe this but this very well may be the end of the road.  He bit the ear, he told Lenox Lewis he wanted to eat his children, he got a tattoo on his face, I think this is the last chapter in a four act play.  

CARLSON:  Some how I have the feeling the planned stud ranch brothel is not for women.  That‘s just my guess.

GEIST:  You don‘t think so? 

CARLSON:  I don‘t think so. 

GEIST:  Oh, maybe Mike doesn‘t want to work there, he might want to think that one through a little.  Tucker, Madonna finally broke her silence today and said she acted quote, according to the law like anyone else who adopts a child when she swept a 1-year-old out of Malawi and into her home in London yesterday.  Human rights groups have said Madonna used her fame and money to get around rules for adoption in Africa.  Madonna says she wanted to quote, “help one child escape an extreme life of hardship.”  Tucker, Madonna says she wants to give this kid a life like any other child.  And I really think that bleeds with bodyguards whisking you away in a private jet and landing you in London to a throng of waiting paparazzi.  I think that‘s just a normal child‘s life and this youngster is off to a good start.  Don‘t you think? 

CARLSON:  It‘s better than living in a cow dung hut.  And I have to say, I‘m going to—prepare yourself Willie, I‘m going to utter a sentence I never thought would pass my lips.  I‘m on Madonna‘s side.  

GEIST:  Is that right?  Good for you, why not. 

CARLSON:  I am.  I can‘t help it.  I kind of like what she‘s doing. 

GEIST:  I don‘t particularly see the problem either.  So, good for Madonna.  Finally Tucker, you hear the words religious cartoon these days and you brace yourself for worldwide rioting.  Well so far so peaceful for the new cartoon about the life of Pope John Paul II.  The animated show is called John Paul II, friend of humanity.  It will be released in seven languages later this week.  It‘s narrated by a couple of doves who tell the life story of the late pontiff.  And I don‘t know if the cartoon is the right forum.  I always think Tom and Jerry with cartoons.  Like, does the Pope solve crimes with his whacky dog?  You know what I mean.  I don‘t know if that‘s the right forum to get the message across.

CARLSON:  Does anybody get pushed off a cliff? Are there giant rubber bands made by the acme corporation? 

GEIST:  Yeah.  Exactly, does he travel around in the van with the other guys.  I don‘t know.  It just doesn‘t seem right.  It‘s a good message but maybe the wrong vehicle. 

CARLSON:  Willie Geist, thank you.

GEIST:  All right Tucker, see you tomorrow.

CARLSON:  That‘s our show for today.  Thank for watching.  Up next, “HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS,” we‘ll see you back here tomorrow.

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

END   

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

Transcripts

Watch Tucker each weeknight at 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,