Rush Limbaugh Program - June 6, 2005, Monday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 6, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:34

June 6, 2005, Monday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, when we were last together, ladies and gentlemen, I was sharing with you a confounding computer problem.
	And I just wanted to let you all know I solved it over the weekend.
	Because when I want something done, I stick to it and find out how to get it done.
	I found out how to take a PDF image document that is an image of text and get the text out of it.
	Here you do it with optical character recognition software.
	Found this thing called Iris 9, Mr. Sterdley.
	And it works like a dream.
	Greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
	Great to have you with us.
	This is the award-winning and thrill-packed ever exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	The email address, if you would want to communicate that way, rush at EIBnet.com.
	Our telephone number is 800-282-2882.
	And this is day two of our podcasting.
	What went without a hitch on Thursday and Friday, actually, was our first day of podcasting.
	And I spent some time over the weekend, actually a lot of time, reading all of the emails.
	I mean, thousands of emails from people who either renewed their subscriptions or signed up just to get this.
	They used the software, Rush 24-7 Media Center.
	I mean, there were some bugs.
	Some people didn't quite have it work right for them, but we straightened them out with 24-7 customer service over the weekend.
	And, you know, it worked right for me.
	I'm downloading my own show on both my computers.
	Now, of course, I have a member ID and password.
	I don't actually subscribe to my own website and pay for it since it is mine.
	I pay for it in other ways.
	But it's cool.
	And the response, we're going to set up on the website a testimonial side or a link eventually where you'll be able to read some of the just overwhelmingly happy people.
	I don't think people have been this happy in years if you listen to them describe their exalted status over the weekend and being able to download the program on MP3 files.
	So it's up and running now, podcasting.
	And if you're just joining us, you don't know what this is about.
	We inaugurated the service on Friday.
	It is to subscribers at rushlimbaugh.com.
	It's free to subscribers.
	And basically, there's two elements to it.
	You download the software, the Rush 24-7 Media Center.
	It works for both Windows and Mac.
	It's easy to install.
	You use your own member name and password, user ID and password for this that you do to log on to the website.
	And whenever these MP3s are available, starting about an hour after the program each day, as long as your software is running, bamo, it'll download it automatically.
	It'll tell you when it's finished.
	You know, I have a broadband connection.
	Took about maybe three minutes, four minutes to get all three hours of Friday's program.
	Comes in three separate files, each file an hour of the program.
	And the second podcast will happen today, about an hour after the program is when it'll start.
	Thanks to all of you for your overwhelmingly satisfied and happy emails.
	And we are thrilled to be able to provide this service to you.
	It is definitely a wave of the future.
	We're happy to be, as always, on the cutting edge.
	I mean, I can't believe the media about this.
	The media about this a bit.
	The business media understands this program, apparently.
	LA Times had a story yesterday.
	CBS MarketWatch Reuters has had stories.
	Media Week magazine has been an incredible amount of press about this.
	I knew podcasting is going to be big, but I had no idea it was going to rock the business community as it has.
	But there you go.
	So here we are once again on the what, Mr. Sterdley?
	What?
	I think they understand the impact, but they also understand the whole point of podcasting and what the ramifications are down the road in a number of ways.
	It was actually kind of exciting to read informed media about something for a change regarding this program.
	The business media obviously gets it.
	You wonder where the rest of the political and cultural media is in getting up speed on this program.
	But the, well, I mean, they'll have, no, I'm talking when they write about the political cultural impact of this show, they totally blow it.
	They don't understand it.
	I mean, the other day on Fox, they had their stupid analysis, their media analysis show, and they did a segment on Al Sharpton being the, you know, limbo of the left.
	And a couple of panelists said the reason why this show is better than liberals is that we follow the Republican talking points better than the Democrats follow their talk.
	They totally misunderstand what this program is about.
	These are media critics on the Fox News channel.
	These are people supposed to understand the media.
	That's the kind of thing the business community, based on this podcasting venture, totally up to speed on the impact of this program and what it means.
	The cultural and political media just remain after 16 years remains in the dark.
	No, no subliminal messages over the pot, although somebody probably will suggest that that's what we'll be doing.
	I wouldn't be surprised.
	Then there was a piece over the weekend, I guess yesterday, the op-ed section of the New York Times by a guy named Matt Miller.
	I guess he's one of the guys filling in while Maureen Dowd is on book leave.
	And he's lamenting the fact that it's impossible to persuade anybody of anything anymore.
	That both sides, liberal and conservative, are so set in their ways and so convinced you can't persuade anybody anymore.
	And I reject that.
	What does this program do?
	This program has been persuading people for 16 years.
	Tom Dashell, no less, was one of the most prominent Democrats to acknowledge begrudgingly that fact.
	So, I mean, I think there's a total disconnect.
	This program and the media, which covers programs like this, but the business media on the podcast side got it right.
	Let's move on to the news.
	Ladies and gentlemen, federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders.
	The Supreme Court ruled that today.
	They concluded that state medical marijuana laws do not protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
	The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.
	Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the 6-3 decision, said that Congress should change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
	Now, this was a closely watched case.
	It was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in 2003.
	And at issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the Federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
	Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves interstate commerce.
	And that's what's interesting about this because there arguably is no interstate commerce in this.
	There's no, I don't know where the interstate comes.
	If you are sick in California, forget that this is marijuana.
	I want to talk about this on the constitutional side.
	When I saw this ruling, you know, I kind of chuckled.
	I wonder what the Libs are going to do with this, how the Libs are going to react to this.
	Let's say that you are sick.
	You've got cancer, and your doctors prescribe medical marijuana for you in California or whatever state that made it legal.
	So the doctor's in California, you're in California, you go get the marijuana, however it's delivered to you, and you use it to alleviate your pain or whatever it is you're suffering, your nausea, whatever it works for.
	I'm not sure.
	I don't see where the interstate commerce is there.
	Just don't see where the interstate commerce.
	In fact, I think folks, it's hilarious to read justice John Paul Stevens lecturing about democracy, because justice Stevens I mean he, he's.
	He's the leading judicial supremist on the Supreme Court and he routinely leads the effort to rewrite federal law, even if it involves using foreign law.
	And in this case he basically said, federal government uh trumps state law and if Congress wants to change it, they can go back and write.
	He refused to write a law in this case.
	It's sort of hilarious.
	But I want to look at this from the constitutional viewpoint because uh, that that's I.
	I look, I don't want to talk whether it's legal or not marijuana.
	That's not the point I want to get into here, and i'm saying this because I don't want phone calls all day from a legalized marijuana crowd.
	I understand you're out there, but uh, I just I don't want to deal with it.
	I mean, I understand you're you, you have you believe what you believe.
	That's not the point of this ruling to me, not in the constitutional sense.
	Take a break, we'll come back.
	I'll explain what I mean in a way that might even be persuasive.
	Mr Miller, the NEW YORK Times right after this.
	Don't go away.
	Hi, we are back serving humanity.
	Rush Limbo, America's Anchorman, truth detector, Doctor Of Democracy general, all-around good guy persuading millions uh combined, here is one harmless, lovable little fuzzbull.
	All right, federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke marijuana on doctors orders.
	Supreme Court ruling today.
	Let's just look at this uh, a moment from from a constitutional viewpoint.
	Uh I, i've had just the, the barest amount of time to read the opinion, but based on the news story here, the Associated Press story, the majority's decision it was six to three, by the way the majority's decision was based on the federal commerce clause.
	Now now, for interstate commerce to occur, there needs to be a transaction between someone in one, a legal transaction between someone in one state and someone in another state.
	In this case, the product is homegrown, it's used within the state and it's used under state authorization.
	I'm not commenting on whether I like the idea or not, it's not the point, but the people of these teen, of these 10 states voted for this.
	You know this is once again states rights have just been squished here by the, by the Federal Supreme Court.
	You have Supreme Court, so you know take, take the issue out of the argument here for just a second question.
	Is this?
	What does this have to do with interstate commerce?
	And the answer, legally answer, is nothing.
	This this this, this uh opinion does not deal with the possibility that patient a in a state gets a, a legal dose of marijuana, then sends it to a buddy who's not sick in another state, doesn't deal with that, and that that's not what is being adjudicated here.
	I'll tell you where this case goes back to.
	This all goes back to the New Deal, folks.
	That is where the Supreme Court had to come up with a way to uphold all the programs that Congress was passing, even though they had no power to do so under the Constitution.
	Remember, the Constitution gives the federal government limited enumerated powers.
	And after Roosevelt tried to pack the court, the court became far more political and supportive of his agenda.
	Now, there was a 1942 case, Wickard versus Philburn.
	And in that case, the Supreme Court issued what is a ridiculous decision holding that a farmer who had grown wheat on his own farm for his own use and consumption, and which was never sold or traded out of the state, was nonetheless involved in interstate commerce because the fact that he did not sell his wheat out of state or purchase wheat out of state for his own use somehow affected interstate commerce.
	This is what they ruled.
	In other words, there would no longer be any limits to the federal government's power to regulate state and private economic activity.
	Now, this is not what the framers intended or what the Constitution provides, but this is what the 1942 Wickard versus Philburn Supreme Court case resulted in.
	So what we have here, we have people who went to the polls in several states.
	They voted to allow the state regulation of medical marijuana.
	Now, you put the politics of this aside and which political forces are on one side or the other.
	Put even the policy aside.
	This is a constitutional issue for the court.
	So, you know, I will be interested in knowing more about the case, and I will reserve ultimate judgment until we read the arguments in full.
	But based on this news story, this Associated Press story, you know, this is how I see it.
	Now, the court did in fact, we know this much, the court did, in fact, rely heavily on Wickard versus Philburn in making this ruling.
	That's the case which brought us the New Deal.
	That is the case which made the New Deal constitutional, if you will.
	1942.
	Commerce Clause includes commerce solely within a state.
	The Interstate Commerce Clause deals with the commerce among the several states.
	But the 1942 Wickard versus Philburn case said, no, no, no, no.
	Interstate commerce can be that commerce within a state.
	So I just, I find it's hilarious to read Justice Stevens lecturing about democracy because he's the guy that wants to look at foreign law law.
	He's the one who writes his own law from the bench.
	He did say in this case, if Congress wants to change this, they can write a law specific to it.
	The only reason Congress has to write a law specific to it is because the U.S. Supreme Court in 1942, in order to authorize the New Deal and make it constitutional, went ahead and changed the Constitution without there being such a law in the books.
	So Congress now has to go back and correct what the 1942 Supreme Court did if they want to limit interstate commerce to one state or prohibit interstate commerce from including one state.
	Congress, it's now up to Congress by this decision to go back and say, no, no, no, no, Wickard versus Philburn, that's not what we meant.
	If a state passes a law on medical marijuana and the people there vote for it, the representatives vote for it, that's not interstate commerce.
	That's how convoluted things have become, folks.
	This is, well, the court might say the law is unconstitutional if Congress did try to go.
	Yeah, just because Justice Stevens says Congress will have to write a new law doesn't mean that this court would find a new law constitutional if it contradicts one of its own decisions.
	And this is where you get into this whole argument.
	Do we have any recourse to deal with the courts, even with our elected officials?
	I mean, in this case, Justice Stevens in his majority opinion clearly says Congress needs to go back.
	They want to make this legal and rewrite it.
	But it's convoluted because without the previous Supreme Court case, I hope I'm making this understandable.
	It's so crazy.
	You might think, Rush, there's something you're missing here.
	How can they do this?
	How can they say interstate commerce is state commerce in trustate commerce?
	How can they say that?
	They did.
	And it was crucial, folks, in establishing the New Deal.
	And the New Deal needed constitution.
	By the way, making the New Deal constitutional was part of institutionalizing the New Deal and its ideological underpinnings, which are liberalism.
	So it's a convoluted case.
	Now, again, I don't want to spend any time today, Mr. Winterbull, on legal marijuana, illegal marijuana.
	It's happened before in this program.
	And when it starts, I mean, these calls last for a week.
	And so I just, I just don't want to get it.
	By the way, one of the reasons Janice Rogers Brown, by the way, her vote comes up this week.
	Her vote could come as early as Wednesday with William Pryor perhaps on Friday.
	Janice Rogers Brown, in that famous speech that we posted on our website, and I read excerpts from on this program about three weeks ago, she questioned the whole constitutional underpinning via Supreme Court decisions of the New Deal.
	And that's why Ted Kennedy and others just threw up their arms in opposition.
	How could she dare do this?
	She says when the Constitution was altered by the U.S. Supreme Court in this case and others in order to legalize the New Deal and make it constitutional by twisting and bending the Constitution, that's when she said that an aura of, I think she usually worshipped socialism, was sanctioned as a means of governing the country.
	And boy, that's why she has been under such vicious assault.
	Now, there was another Supreme Court decision today, and it is this.
	Supreme Court expanded the scope of a landmark federal disabilities law, ruling today that foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must provide better access for passengers in wheelchairs.
	Now, this was a 5-4 decision said to be a victory for disabled rights advocates who said inadequate ship facilities inhibited their right to participate fully in society.
	Here's the majority.
	Kennedy, who wrote John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
	The dissent was written by Justice Scalia.
	He argued that extending the federal law to foreign ships will create international discord and is wrong because Congress does not explicitly call for it.
	The ruling should leave no opening for ships to be required to change their amenities to fit the laws of each country they visit, he said.
	This is sort of the international law argument in reverse, if you will, because Scalia said not only should we not import foreign law into our decisions, we shouldn't impose our law on other nations.
	Now, it seems to me that Scalia is being quite consistent here.
	The others are not.
	Now, I know many of you disappear.
	Rice is harmless.
	So what?
	They should have to modify this.
	It's all a matter of law and the Constitution, folks.
	Take your feelings out of these things and take each issue out of it and examine what the court's doing.
	You have a better understanding of why so many people are concerned and why so many people say the judiciary is out of control, needs to be reined in.
	Quick timeout.
	We'll be back after this.
	Don't go away.
	I need to make one correction.
	I was talking about Justice Stevens saying if Congress wants to change the Supreme Court ruling today, they need to go write a new law.
	I was in error.
	He was not suggesting write a law that would conflict with a previous Supreme Court decision.
	What he was saying was, if Congress doesn't like this, they can write a law legalizing marijuana use for medical purposes.
	So that's his suggested remedy.
	Congress can write a law legalizing marijuana use if they don't like this ruling.
	So anyway, that's that.
	Senator Joe Biden.
	Joe Biden, according to the AP, a leading Senate Democrat, said Sunday the United States needs to move towards shutting down the military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.
	He was on Sundays this week with George Stephanopoulos and said this.
	Not with that kind of rhetoric.
	He doesn't speak for me with that kind of rhetoric.
	And I don't think he speaks for the majority Democrats.
	Wait, I gave you the wrong.
	I want to start with seven.
	We'll get to six.
	That's about Howard Dean.
	We'll get to Howard Dean later if I have the time to even worry about Howard Dean.
	Grab cut seven.
	This is my mistake.
	This is Biden on Stephanopoulos' show yesterday.
	I think that should be.
	I want a commission to make a recommendation so everybody is saying that it's not just me or others just espousing a point of view, but there's a rationale for it.
	But the end result is I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners.
	Those that we have reason to keep, keep, and those we don't, let go.
	But the bottom line is I think more Americans are in jeopardy as a consequence of the perception that exists worldwide with its existence than if there were no Gitmo.
	Yeah, this is unbelievable.
	You know who started this?
	Thomas Friedman, New York Times, just shut it down, Mr. President.
	Just shut down Gitmos.
	Well, Biden picks up.
	You know, talk about following talking points.
	Here's Biden picking up on Friedman, and the New York Times dutifully weighed in over the weekend by agreeing with Amnesty International that Gitmo is a gulag.
	Meanwhile, Amnesty International is backtracking.
	Well, we may not know that to be true.
	They're backing off.
	But the New York Times is hell-bent now.
	Yes, Gitmo is a gulag.
	It's got to be shut down.
	The New York Times, Friedman, the editorial board, and Biden all agree with this.
	He says the bottom line is I think more Americans are in jeopardy as a consequence of this perception that exists.
	Why is this?
	I'll tell you why, Mr. Biden, Senator Biden, because the U.S. military, for whatever reason, I guess, well, I can't explain it other than to say they're under such feverish assault, that the U.S. military and the U.S. government's now going out of its way to try to appease a bunch of critics rather than fight a war.
	So here we got all these critics about Gitmo and all these critics about Abu Ghrab and all these critics about how we're conducting our prisoner locations, prison locations and so forth, rather than going out and fighting a war.
	I mean, you may as well let Al Jazeera in the country and start dictating our POW policy where it involves terrorists that are being held in these prisons.
	I mean, it's clear as a bell that we've got political considerations going on.
	Anything to embarrass the administration, anything to embarrass the president, anything to stifle the president's ability to get anything done regardless what we're talking about, be it domestic policy or the war on terror.
	Just shut down Gitmo.
	It's great propaganda against the United States.
	Right.
	And he's helping it.
	He's using it.
	Joe Biden is turning it into anti-American propaganda himself.
	There's a story in the Washington Times today that is not widespread.
	And Even after the Washington Times has published this, I'm not expecting a whole lot of coverage of this, which is why I want to spend some time on it with you.
	Army block guards were making their daily walk through the stifling heat of the cell blocks inside the barbed wire camp at Gitmo in late May.
	But after a guard discovered a dangerously sharp object hidden in the empty cell of a detainee, a violent confrontation ensued, illustrating military officials' contention that criticisms from human rights groups only tell part of the story.
	According to two Army prison guards, one 22 years old, the other 28, the prisoner was temporarily in another part of the prison for a bath when the jagged rectangular piece of metal three to four inches long was found and removed.
	The two guards who spoke at a rare interview with the Washington Times on the condition of anonymity said an altercation then followed in which the detainee tried to gouge out one of the guards' eyes.
	After first allowing the detainee to return from his shower to the cell, a five-man team of guards then began a carefully choreographed cell extraction to move him to another cell where he wouldn't be able to do further damage.
	He was extremely aggressive from the moment we went in, said the 28-year-old guard whose job it was to push the detainee back as another guard quickly handcuffed the prisoner.
	But before the cuffs could go on, things went wrong.
	The detainee forced his hands up under the first guard's plexiglass face mask, began digging for the eyeball.
	He tried to insert one finger into my eye socket.
	Then he transitioned into a fish hook maneuver.
	He got his finger into my mouth, was trying to rip my cheek off.
	After another moment, the detainees' hands were forced down and into the cuffs.
	Colonel Michael Bumgarner, the senior officer working inside the prison camp, said, it's an extreme slap in the face to me, frankly, that the American public is being led to believe that we're abusing or mistreating detainees.
	And it is a one-sided story.
	It's a one-sided story because the people doing the criticizing have an agenda.
	And it's not human rights.
	And it's not the welfare of prisoners.
	It is the criticism and the defeat of the United States.
	And for Americans, particularly United States senators, to come up and spread this propaganda that there is all this Koran abuse and prison abuse and detainee abuse is just unconscionable.
	Now, my brother, who has the syndicated column, wrote a piece on weapons of mass destruction and a number of things, and he got a response to it.
	And he sent me the email response.
	And I want to share this with you because it dovetails with this subject.
	Oh, I'm sorry, not weapons of massacres.
	The column was on WorldNet Daily.
	And that's where my brother's column was published.
	And that's where the reader, the emailer whose note I'm going to read to you, saw it.
	He said, I saw your op-ed on WorldNet Daily, and I want to thank you for writing a bit of common sense.
	I'm an interrogator.
	And actually, the Wall Street Journal did a piece on me in April of 2002 when we were peaking on being able to wrap up Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
	A couple of things I really find appalling about the whole Gitmo-Bagram Abu Ghrab thing, besides the left's continuous flogging of the dead horse, is that between 1991 through Haiti, Somalia, and Kosovo, our tactics, techniques, and procedures were essentially the same.
	I'm not talking about the frat boy annex of some bored and frustrated reservists at Abu Ghrab, though.
	But through Haiti, Somalia, and Kosovo, our tactics and procedures, techniques were essentially the same, which leads me to think that the only reason for this uproar is because of the left's hatred for Bush, and that they'll do anything, even at the expense of soldiers' lives over here, to embarrass him.
	Point is that during the Clinton administration, these same techniques, same tactics and procedures were used every day, and nobody cared, and nobody criticized them at all.
	Nobody even brought it to anybody's attention.
	He continues, though, I think even worse has been the Department of Defense reaction to the whole matter.
	They've hamstrung interrogation and counterintelligence to the point now where no interrogation is done and interrogators wait meekly inside the gates of forward operating bases, hoping some Iraqi will trundle through the gate and give up information on local insurgents for a piddling $20.
	They've even gone as far as rewriting the interrogation manual, citing addendums to Geneva that the U.S. never ratified, took out approaches that seemed harsh, and made the legal portions to read like the manifesto for Amnesty International.
	It just seems like everybody thinks that appeasing the press, the left, and organizations like Amnesty International is more important than saving soldiers' lives, taking down the bad guys and ending the war in a timely manner.
	I'm glad I'm retiring in a year.
	This is a guy who is interrogating prisoners, and it sounds like he's doing it in Iraq.
	But nevertheless, he's fed up.
	How about this?
	It just seems like everybody thinks that appeasing the press, the left, and organizations like Amnesty International is more important than saving soldiers' lives, taking down the bad guys and ending the war.
	And it does seem that way.
	It does seem like we're obsessed with this.
	I know the media is obsessed with this.
	And of course, they're causing some kind of reaction among government, which must respond to them, or thinks they must respond to them.
	But when you hear stories like this from people on the front lines who are affected by this, and then when you learn it was no different than what was going on throughout the 90s, in fact, this whole business of rendition, have you heard people being criticized for rendition?
	Bush, basically rendition is, oh, and how about this?
	Last week, the CIA or the New York Times ran this story blowing the cover of a CIA charter flight operation.
	You know, they wouldn't have, they wouldn't have run that story under Bill Clinton, and they wouldn't run that story under FDR during World War II.
	But the CIA has a charter company that nobody knew about, and its basic intent was to fly prisoners to various countries for interrogation under the rendition program.
	And the rendition program was started under Bill Clinton.
	And yet we only hear about it within the context of it's an evil Bush idea.
	But this was a Clinton idea from the get-go, and the New York Times relished blowing the cover of this operation.
	And here we are in the midst of a war.
	People seem to have forgotten that 9-11 happened and all the previous terrorist attacks.
	And so everybody seems to be focused on is how mean the Americans are in treating these prisoners.
	It's just, it is maddeningly frustrating.
	And I totally understand the sentiments of the man who wrote the email expressing them.
	A quick timeout.
	We'll be back and continue in just a moment.
	Stay with us.
	You know, the New York Times is hilarious.
	I'm getting to the point.
	I can only laugh at the news these days.
	I mean, I don't even get mad at it anymore, folks.
	I know some of you do, but it's frankly a waste of energy.
	I just laugh at it.
	For example, New York Times, upset.
	On the one hand, the New York Times is outraged about the supposed mistreatment of the Koran.
	And of course, not by the detainees, by supposedly a couple of our guys.
	They're just outraged.
	They're so outraged.
	The latest story is that somebody urinated on a Koran.
	And of course, that's not what happened.
	Somebody was urinating outside, got an air duck.
	It ended up on there was not intentionally done.
	It's just the opposite.
	Who gives them these Qurans?
	Who gives them Quran?
	Who lets them pray five times a day?
	Who lets them take all these showers?
	This is just absurd.
	But anyway, New York Times, we got to shut down Gitmo for this.
	New York Times so upset about the supposed mistreatment of the Koran and yet they are outraged.
	They are outraged over this story making good on a Republican campaign call to celebrate with Christian friends.
	Governor Rick Perry traveled to an evangelical school on Sunday in Fort Worth to put his signature on measures to restrict abortion and prohibit same-sex marriage.
	About 100 protesters lined the street outside the school, Calvary Christian Academy, denouncing the unusual signing as breaching the constitutional separation between church and state.
	It's basically a parental notification bill for abortion, and he signed it at a school.
	Of course, New York Times, outraged over it, is outraged, outrage.
	Boy, we better respect the Koran.
	We better respect the Quran and we better respect Islam and we better respect their religious beliefs and we better let those terrorist prisoners practice those religious beliefs.
	And if we don't, shut down the prison and let them all go.
	But let an American governor go to a Christian school, sign a piece of legislation, and all hell breaks loose.
	Country can't hold together this way.
	I just wonder if they truly understand how irrelevant they seem to people.
	It's like I asked last week during this Watergate fiasco, this deep throat fiasco.
	I just wonder if they actually realize how laughable and self-absorbed they all appear to everybody.
	Everett in Elk Grove, California.
	We go back to the phones.
	Welcome, sir.
	Nice to have you with us.
	Ditto's Rush.
	Thank you, sir.
	I am disabled, but I think that law or the court's judgment isn't exporting our law because I think any ship or airplane that comes into our waters or on our land needs to obey our laws.
	I want to take away, let's say it's not the Disability Act.
	I woke up the second Friday in May 69 totally blind, so I have a sensitivity to disabled people.
	But let's take that law out.
	And let's say if the boat was licensed in a country where it's legal to have sex with 12-year-olds, we wouldn't be able to, and it came into New York Harbor, we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
	So I think they should apply.
	And I don't really think it's exporting anymore.
	That's not.
	I don't think that's the point.
	I don't think anybody would be drawing that conclusion.
	I don't know that any country has sex with 12-year-olds legal, particularly on their cruise ships.
	I mean, if somebody does, I know a bunch of people are going to be signing up.
	Well, I don't know them personally, but I mean, you just know that if that's legal, you have some people signing up for this.
	It doesn't happen.
	The Americans with disability.
	See, this is the problem.
	This is the problems.
	We've got somebody who's disabled, and that trumps everything.
	And I said, forget the issue, not only in this, but on the medical marijuana.
	This is an exercise.
	It was an attempted exercise in explaining why some people are upset about what some think is an out-of-control judiciary that needs to be reined in.
	On the one hand, we have a Supreme Court which says, yep, it's totally fine to incorporate foreign law into U.S. constitutional law as we decide cases here.
	It's totally fine to consult foreign thinking if we can't find any.
	And by the way, this is all about the personal policy preference of the justices.
	So we can't find anything in American law that backs up what I want to do.
	Go find it in international law.
	And then they import it, say, Bamo, we can do it because we're the Supreme Court.
	Scalia says, no, you shouldn't do that.
	By the same token, if we're going to say that the Americans for Disabilities Act applies to ships that are made and registered in foreign countries, then we ought to be able to say that every other one of our laws applies to any business that does business in the United States or with Americans and so forth.
	And it's, look, I'm in the majority on this.
	It was a 6-3 case.
	And even my buddy Clarence Thomas was in the majority on this case.
	Scalia was the only one dissenting in this.
	But, you know, it is just a, it may not even be the best example because nobody here is against helping out disabled people.
	That's why this is such a tough thing to argue on this side of it because it's such an emotional case or situation, disability.
	But, you know, the Americans Disability Act has a lot more to it than just wheelchair access or access for blind people.
	The Americans Disability Act has been used to say alcoholism is a disease.
	You can't fire anybody for it.
	So technically, a cruise line could have a drunk waiter and not, they couldn't get rid of him when he's working in U.S. waters if they're going to go this way.
	It's up to you folks, your country.
	You know, I got mine.
	I got to go, Mr. Snurdley.
	I'm going to develop this more as the program unfolds.
	But you know why they're attacking gitmo interrogators and Abu Ghrab interrogators, don't you?
	I'll tell you why.
	It's because the war in Iraq has and is succeeding, and they need to change the subject from their past criticisms to new ones.
	We'll be back after this.

▲