Rush Limbaugh Program - July 21, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 21, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:16

July 21, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic second-hand cigar smoke.
	Deal with it, liberals.
	Rush Limbaugh, The Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	And we are back two hours left to go.
	DittoCamazon at RushLimbaugh.com.
	Be on for the remainder of the program.
	Off next week, starting tomorrow.
	I'll tell you about that and who will be sitting in a little later.
	Up next, folks, a little departure here from the normal programming format.
	We very seldom have guests here and very seldom have authors.
	But I want to make an exception today with Bernard Goldberg.
	We've had him on before to talk about previous books.
	Hi, Bernie.
	Welcome back.
	Rush, thanks for having me.
	You bet.
	I want to tell you why, not just because I really do admire your work and have for a long time, and plus you seem to suffer Bryant Gumbel very well.
	But I've watched you on these shows.
	I've watched on the Revolving Door of Cable shows, and I've been frustrated by some of the questions you've not been asked.
	And the last draw was when you got set up by that guy over on CNBC.
	Oh, that was incredible.
	I want you to tell people about that.
	But first, the title of the book is 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.
	This is essentially, I guess, you're exploring the cultural decline and naming some people that might be responsible for, correct?
	That's exactly correct.
	And when you explore the cultural decline, the one thing liberals cannot be, it just they cannot be judgmental.
	And it's, you know, so they watch television during the family hour with their kids, and it's one, you know, cheap sex joke after another, or their kids listen to gangster rap, you know, which is a vile, nasty music.
	And they won't complain about it the way conservatives will, because then they'll be judgmental.
	And I'm saying, when did becoming judgmental of trash in the culture become a bad thing?
	You know, I don't think that's a bad thing.
	But what happened last night was an all-time low.
	It was a totally unimportant show.
	Most of your listeners, Rush, probably never even heard of Donny Deutsch or the big idea.
	Well, I got to tell you, I never heard of it.
	What did he used to do?
	He's an advertising guy, and he was a successful advertising guy, but he knows nothing about broadcasting.
	I only mention the show to make a bigger point about what's happened on the left, if I may do that.
	Sure, go ahead.
	They invite me on to have a debate about the book.
	Fine.
	And just you and Deutsch?
	Well, the first segment was me and Deutsch, but then they say they're going to have four other people on, and they tell me that some will be on agreeing with me and some will be not agreeing with me.
	And I think fine.
	I don't usually like these food fights, but fine.
	So I said, okay.
	I come on, and after the segment with Deutsch, they have four, not liberals, leftists, and Donny Deutsch making five.
	It was a total sandbag.
	It was a total ambush.
	They lied to me to get me on, and then it's okay if you don't read the book and want to ask me questions.
	All five, Rush, admitted they never read the book, but that didn't stop them from a non-stop attack.
	Well, that's because you're being judgmental in your book.
	But they haven't read it.
	They haven't read it.
	They're attacking.
	It doesn't matter.
	And they stacked the deck in the panel, five against one, right?
	Well, who was on the panel?
	I have not been in the middle of the day.
	These are people you've never heard of.
	The only one you might have heard of is Linda Stasi, who's the resident liberal at the New York Post.
	She's like the gossip columnist.
	So here's the worst part.
	It was taped, and it ran last night.
	But what they did, I mean, this is as unethical as it gets.
	What they did is they took out all the parts where Donny Deutsch, the host, was made to look foolish.
	You know, at one point I said to him, I said, you need five people?
	You need five people to try to argue against me, Donnie?
	I said, you're throwing spitballs at a battleship.
	Well, that didn't see the light of day.
	They took a lot of stuff out that embarrassed their host.
	So number one, they ambush you.
	Number two, all five people don't read the book and are bragging that they haven't read it while they're attacking, and they then edit the tape to make their guy look good at my expense.
	But you know what?
	It's a totally unimportant show.
	The big point is, the big point is that this is what the cultural elite liberals do these days.
	They can stab you in the back, no problem, because they know what's best.
	That's the problem.
	This time they did it to me.
	Big deal.
	Big deal.
	An insignificant show, big deal.
	They did the exact same thing, Rush, to Judge Bork.
	They did the exact same thing to Judge Pickering, the judge from Mississippi who they made out to be soft on crossburners.
	And they're going to do it again, Rush, with Judge Roberts.
	And that's why Ralph Nies, the head of People for the American Way, is number 10 on the list in this book.
	Good.
	I was going to get some of the names in the book here in just a second.
	But one more thing about this show.
	CNBC is where it was?
	It's on CNBC, but I'm telling you, Rush, trust me, if there were 15 people on the whole planet watching the show, I think I'd be surprised.
	Well, I know.
	I mean, I could ask you why you bothered to go there, but the number one observation that I have, this is, to me, it may be the first time it's happened to you, but it's not new.
	It happened to me the first time I went on Crossfire in 91 or 92, and it was with Novak, Novak and Kinsley.
	And they asked me and some other talk show host from Chicago to come on to talk about some issue of the day, and it wasn't.
	It was a sandbag show in which talk radio was attacked as the medium that was going to kill America culturally and so forth.
	And I've, you know, you go through the pre-interview and the pre-book, and the pre-interview is not to determine what you can contribute to the program.
	The pre-interview is to determine what will upset you and irritate you so they make sure they do it.
	I don't go on these shows anymore because you cannot trust the people that book them.
	You cannot trust the people that host them.
	And it always, and you look at one of you versus five of them, and that's what they call balance.
	Yeah, but you know what the good that came out of this?
	The American people, I think, they basically have a sense of fairness.
	They see something like this, and this is why the left in this country, this is why the left is losing the country.
	This is why the left is losing all the elections they're losing, because this doesn't bother them.
	I'd go a step further and say they don't even think what they do is wrong when they do stuff like this.
	No, they're too elitist to believe that.
	Well, you know, can I make a point on that?
	I say in the book, I say in the book, even when I agree with liberals on this issue or that issue from time to time, I no longer want to be seen as part of that group because of precisely what you said.
	They are elitist.
	They are snobby.
	They look down at people, the kind of people who are listening to us now, if they like to eat at Red Lobster, God forbid, or go bowling, or if they go to church on a regular basis, or if they fly the American flag on the 4th of July, they find these people pathetically hopeless.
	And it's the elitist elitism and the snobbiness that gets me as much as almost anything else about the left these days.
	And also, you made a point just yesterday or the day before that, forgive me for stating the obvious, that was right on the money.
	The crazy left, this is a crucial point you made.
	The crazy left has become the mainstream left.
	That's the real problem.
	It's great.
	Yeah, it's pretty good.
	They are imploding, and it offers boundless opportunities for you to detail it in your book.
	But the thing that strikes me, you worked with these people in one of their enclaves, the media.
	And arguably you still do when you do some of the stuff you do for HBO.
	But you were at CBS.
	I mean, you were surrounded by it.
	Was this a slow evolution, the realization you had of what these people were?
	But did it hit you upside of the head one day as a surprise?
	It was a slow evolution, but I can tell you the time it hit me.
	I was based in California for CBS, and they got a new anchorman in 1981, Dan Rather, and they brought me to New York to become a national correspondent on the brand new CBS Evening News with Dan Rather.
	Now, I'm going to work, and I'm seeing homeless people that look like, you know, they're talking to spaceships in the sky.
	And then at 6.30 at night, I'm watching the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, and the homeless people look like blonde-haired, blue-eyed, you know, people out of central casting.
	I'm looking at the AIDS story, and I'm looking every day on the news that AIDS is a heterosexual, it's going to be a heterosexual plague in about 10 minutes.
	And I'm saying, that's a terrible thing.
	Let me do a little research.
	And it just isn't true.
	So when I got to New York, I realized that the things I was seeing with my own two eyes, they just didn't jibe with the stuff that I was seeing on the news that night.
	And that's when I started to say, you know what?
	This isn't about you want to have liberal values.
	I think you're misguided, but be my guest.
	But don't put them on your newscast.
	Leave it out.
	We're not that stupid out here in middle America.
	We could make up our own minds about what we see.
	But they started championing causes.
	They didn't just report stuff.
	This is right when Ronald Reagan took office.
	It was right after he was sworn in.
	And I think liberals correctly felt as if they were on the outside looking in.
	So they stopped reporting about stuff and they started championing stuff.
	But only certain stuff, only the stuff they agreed with.
	And then when I wrote about it, I became, as you well know, I became a pariah.
	But you know what?
	My life could not have been better since I wrote about it.
	Every now and then, maybe even not every now and then, maybe just once in your life.
	You have to do something you really believe in and take the consequences.
	I did.
	And here I am talking to you about a book about the American culture.
	And they're still doing their little minute and a half stories on a program that fewer and few people are watching every day.
	And you're still reporting on sports-related stories for HBO, which is not anybody would confuse with a conservative outlook.
	It may be the best show on television, Real Sports.
	It's a serious, it's a serious show about the American culture with a sports angle to it.
	And it's a very serious show.
	I'm very proud of the stuff I do there.
	You should be.
	Bernard Goldberg's our guest.
	We're talking about his latest book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.
	We'll get some names when we come back.
	Stay with us.
	Welcome back.
	Happy you could join us today, folks.
	We're talking with Bernard Goldberg and his new book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.
	It's number three, nonfiction Amazon, number four, first week of the Wall Street Journal list.
	It opened at number six in the New York Times.
	This Sunday, it'll be number five the next week in the New York Times list.
	One of the things that's been somewhat frustrating, and I know you have to reserve some things to be read when people buy the book, but can you give me some names in this book?
	100 people who are screwing up America.
	I mean, that's enticing.
	Are there any conservatives on this?
	Am I in this book?
	Rush.
	Rush, please.
	Please.
	But I'll tell you, they wondered that on that show last night on CNBC.
	No, of course you're not on this list because I live in Miami and it's a liberal town and a lot of my friends are liberals and they're good decent people.
	But when you hear people saying, oh, I hate Brush Limbaugh, or they say just something nasty like that.
	I say, and you do listen to them, and they say no.
	And it's the same thing with the book.
	I hate what the book stands for, but they haven't read the book.
	What is it with the left these days where they jump to these conclusions?
	They know exactly what they like and what they don't like, but they don't.
	It's fear.
	Bernie, it's fear that their worldview is going to be upset by the truth.
	They have this shield, this boundary that surrounds them, and anything that's factually true gets bounced off of it.
	Nothing gets into shape, the template or the prism through which they're looking at things, and that's what your book does.
	I think you're absolutely right about that.
	And, you know, their fear, that's their problem, because that's why they're losing elections.
	That's why they're losing the country, because they don't want to confront what so many Americans are confronting.
	And in a sentence, I'd say is that the culture is getting meaner and angrier, and they don't want to be judgmental about things like that at their own peril.
	It keeps them on defense, too.
	If nobody wants to spend their lives on defense, you want to be on offense, but fear keeps you on defense.
	Well, you want to put your names on the list?
	Yeah, give me ⁇ yeah, but give me some conservatives first, if there are any in this book.
	Well, there's one, and this is the one I've taken the most heat for, but even when I take heat from the right, it's civil and intelligent heat.
	And that's Judge Roy Moore of Alabama.
	The point I make about Judge Roy, he's the judge, the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court involved in the Ten Commandments case.
	And a federal judge told him to move the Ten Commandments.
	And he said, no, I'm not moving it.
	I make absolutely clear in the book, this is not about whether the Ten Commandments should or shouldn't be at the courthouse.
	Even the Supreme Court can't make up their mind about that.
	So it is not about that.
	But the point I'm making is that if conservatives rightly complain about liberal judicial activism, rightly, you know, liberals not interpreting the law, but legislating from the bench, then I don't know.
	I've got a problem with a conservative judicial activist who refuses to obey a higher court ruling.
	Now, listen, Rush, you or I, or anybody listening to us, can go out and commit civil disobedience if we feel strongly enough about a subject and pay the consequences.
	But when judges start to do that, I'm afraid it leads to anarchy.
	Hey, this was my point when it happened, interestingly enough, and I did catch some grief for it.
	I think we were right about that, and I think conservatives should really, really understand that.
	one more conservative, a couple more, then I get some libs.
	Well, there's a Feel free!
	Feel free to launch.
	It doesn't matter who it is.
	Well, no, but the person's in your line of work.
	That's why I'm hesitating.
	No, go ahead.
	All right.
	There's a conservative radio talk show host that's on late at night or at night named Michael Savage.
	It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with this issue or that issue.
	You know, I may agree with him on taxes or immigration or whatever.
	And I know this is bad radio to compliment the host, but you're going to have to put up with it for 10 seconds, Rush.
	You are immensely civil to people you disagree with.
	I mean, immensely civil.
	You don't have to agree with their argument.
	You can debate their argument, but you are very polite and very decent.
	And I'm a listener on a regular basis.
	I know what I'm talking about.
	Well, thank you.
	He isn't.
	I've never heard this guy.
	I've only heard people tell you.
	He sounds insane from what people tell me about it, but I've never heard of it.
	I've never heard him.
	And I'm going to yell about liberal anger and meanness.
	I just can't overlook that.
	But let's make no mistake about this.
	There are way, way more liberals on the list.
	Okay, you mentioned the reason is simple.
	I think they're screwing up America a lot more than conservatives are.
	Well, we agree again.
	You mentioned Ralph Nees.
	I'm not going to ask you who number one is.
	But give me, we've got a couple of half minutes left here.
	Just some liberal names.
	You don't have to elaborate why.
	People can read the book for you.
	Well, I'll tell you what.
	Let me give you number three and four.
	Okay.
	Number four is Jesse Jackson.
	And I was asked by Time magazine, are you afraid you'll be called a racist because you wrote about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?
	And I said, wait a second.
	Wait a second.
	I grew up during the civil rights movement.
	It was the most important and moral movement of my lifetime.
	And then Martin Luther King gets assassinated, and guys like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson take over and turn it into nothing more than a cheap, partisan political movement.
	And I have to worry if I'm going to be called a racist?
	I said, I'm not buying that.
	You can try that with somebody else.
	But I am not going to run away and hide because I'm writing about people who I think have cheapened a very important and very moral movement.
	Sorry.
	So that's number four.
	Number three is Teddy Kennedy.
	He is, as you know, Rush, a man of conscience.
	He is the unofficial conscience of the Democratic Party.
	And he's not here because he's a liberal Democrat.
	He's here because as the unofficial conscience of the Democratic Party, he was willing to wreck a man's reputation, Judge Bork, for cheap political gain.
	And we don't have to go through what he did with Judge Bork, but I think William F. Buckley nailed it.
	He said, when Kennedy is on the attack, he is a distillery of meanness.
	By the way, number two on the list is the publisher of your favorite newspaper, the New York Times.
	Oh, great.
	That little pinch is number two.
	He's number two.
	Well, hey, look, I have to thank you for making time.
	We only got hold of him this morning, folks, because I didn't see this Deutsch Show last night, but I heard about it.
	And I've it just, it makes me mad when these people do this.
	And I wanted to give you a chance to speak without being interrupted and set up and sandbagged by these people.
	And then because your book deserves that, your work deserves it.
	And you're not a mean guy either.
	I mean, you were totally out of place on a cast of characters like that last night.
	And they're trying to, by virtue of their own behavior, make you look the same to people who watch.
	But I appreciate your making time.
	I wish you all the best with the book and stay in touch and keep writing because they just keep getting better.
	Rush, I don't mean this as a cliché, but I can't thank you enough.
	You're the cavalry that's writing to my defense, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate that.
	Oh, you're more than welcome.
	Bernard Goldberg, formerly of CBS News, now with HBO's Real Sports, the book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.
	And we will be back after this.
	Not only do you get the truth here, ladies and gentlemen, you get it in an understandable way.
	The left calls that simplistic because you're a bunch of buffoons.
	We just make the complex understandable, and we do the best job of translating liberalism that is done in the American media today.
	Great to have you back.
	Thanks again, Bernard Goldberg.
	And a reminder, we will be talking to Senator Rick Santorum at the top of the next hour.
	Same circumstance.
	This guy's getting piled on.
	He's getting piled on on television and also by Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy.
	And he is exhibiting an uncommon courage and not backing down in this onslaught.
	Local papers in Pennsylvania also dumping on Senator Santorum.
	And I know him, and I know him to be a fine guy.
	And he's a, in terms of his character and his decency, there's none better.
	And I want to find out from his mouth what this is all about because I don't trust what I read about it in the media.
	I don't trust what I watch about it.
	I just don't.
	I'm sorry.
	No, I'm not sorry.
	I'm proud to say I don't trust it because it's the truth.
	So we'll ask him about it and try to get the gist of this kerfuffle.
	I love it when the left gets all kerfuffled because it means somebody's told the truth about them.
	And we'll find out just what that is.
	Get this.
	I didn't predict this, but I could have.
	I didn't predict this, but I should have.
	More than half of Americans.
	This is an AP story.
	More than half of Americans say Supreme Court Judge nominee John Roberts should be required to state his position on abortion before being confirmed with women more likely than men to want such a declaration.
	Mr. Snerdley has come up.
	Now, I claim these polls are just media editorials.
	What's your new name for these?
	Mr. Snerdley has coined a term for these, pollatorials, as opposed to editorials.
	These are politorials.
	Now, I guarantee you, if I didn't know better, I'd say AP called Senator Schumer, says, Senator Schumer, we're doing a poll out there on this nominee.
	What should our question be?
	And of course, the Democrats have said, he's not getting out of that hearing.
	He's not getting out there until he tells us what he's going to do with Roe versus Wade.
	If he doesn't tell us that, he's dead meat.
	And of course, they're going to invoke the Ginsburg rule.
	Well, you didn't make Justice Ginsburg answer any specifics in terms of questions about cases that might come before her as a justice on the court.
	That was then.
	That was then.
	This is now.
	You're going to answer this or you are dead meat.
	And so here comes this pollatorial, which says that more than half of Americans say the Supreme Court nominee should be required to state his position on abortion.
	The media is claiming to be all concerned about the politicization of the confirmation process, yet they stoked the flames with these idiotic polls as if it's even relevant to the qualifications of a Supreme Court justice.
	It's completely irresponsible, but it illustrates just what's important to the left.
	This is about government by judiciary, government by at least five or six lawyers wearing black robes sitting in a stone building, marble building in Washington.
	That's what's important.
	And the sacrament to their religious belief, if you will, is abortion.
	And one thing I agree with Ann Coulter about in her column yesterday, it was more than one, but one thing that really stood out.
	She said that the only way a conservative nominee will ever be confirmed without any fight whatsoever is to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearings, preferably a partial birth abortion.
	If a nominee went before Kennedy and Schumer and Leahy and said, I'm going to do an abortion for you.
	I went to school.
	I'm just a judge, but I know how important.
	And here we're going to abort a baby right here in the confirmation hearing room.
	Will that get me on the court?
	And that's about the only thing that would without a fight.
	And then there's this.
	This is from Newsday, which is in New York, the headline, coincidence or conflict.
	Last Friday, on the day he met with President George W. Bush of the White House to seek elevation of the Supreme Court, Judge Roberts also lent Bush some support from the bench, his vote in a key war on terror decision.
	Roberts signed a three-to-zip U.S. Court of Appeals decision issued that same day, approving Bush's plan to use military tribunals to try some prisoners at Club Gitmo.
	The ruling over Tom Day overturned a district court, and it was lauded by the Justice Department.
	Now, of course, you cannot count.
	Oh, the next line.
	Judges are supposed to recuse themselves in situations where their impartiality can reasonably be called into question.
	Was Roberts' role just an interesting coincidence or a conflict?
	Well, considering it was three to nothing and considering that the lower court judge was behaving extra-constitutionally, it's an irrelevant story and it's an irrelevant question.
	Now they're trying to go after the guy because he ruled.
	The president does having to say about the timeline of these rulings before courts.
	Roberts was on the list long before this ruling came out.
	The ruling was the right ruling.
	The lower court judge, a Clinton appointee, said that the president cannot determine how detainees are going to be tried, that they have to be given constitutional rights the same as if they were American citizens.
	Well, we've been using military tribunals since World War II.
	These are prisoners of war.
	The military has its own code of justice.
	But because the left is trying to hamstring this president, they're trying to take away powers that he has because they want to weaken him and whether they weaken the country in the process is of no concern to him, apparently.
	So the D.C. Court of Appeals, three to nothing, overruled the judge on the basis of the Constitution.
	The president is the commander-in-chief, not a Clinton-appointed federal judge.
	The federal judiciary does not get to just by fiat tell the president how he can conduct a war.
	And yet the left attempted to usurp that.
	Here comes a sycophantic, slavish newspaper like Newsday with its own huge circulation problems.
	Fewer and fewer people reading it now, trying to mislead everybody else about what went on, trying to portray some kind of conflict here.
	They're just upset because they got a judge who did the right thing, and lo and behold, he's been nominated for the Supreme Court.
	And that frightens them and scares them.
	We're back to the same old business about them being scared to death.
	Mike in Clarkston, Michigan, as we go back to the phones, welcome, sir.
	Nice to have you with us.
	Thanks, Rox.
	Megan Dittos from Spartan Country.
	Thank you, sir.
	I just wanted to talk to you about the fact that, you know, if anybody has read the Al-Qaeda Handbook, it talks in there about, you know, eliciting the media in their country.
	Can I ask you a question?
	Sure.
	I assume by saying the Al-Qaeda Handbook, you mean the New York Times?
	Well, yeah, well, that's the only thing that's going to be a good idea.
	Where does one go to get the Al-Qaeda Handbook?
	I know the New York Times does have its Al Jazeera domestic section.
	They don't call it that.
	That's what it is.
	Where do you go to get the Al-Qaeda playbook?
	You can get it at the Department of Justice.
	They have it printed from a raid that...
	Oh, okay.
	But it talks in there, you know, about instances like Club Gitmo where you just, they want you to cry foul to get the attention of the media.
	Yeah.
	And the media plays along.
	Well, of course, they're totally willing to be used when it's against their own country if they're Republicans in the White House.
	Sure.
	And, you know, playing the soundbite you did today with John Major, which I agree would be great to be president for a day.
	The info, babe, you know, she talks about, she asked if he thought that his policies were responsible.
	Well, you know, does she realize that if he were to instill adopt the al-Qaeda's policies, that she wouldn't be a reporter.
	She wouldn't have a job.
	No reporter would have a job.
	No, They don't think that far ahead.
	They have a prism, a template.
	I hate to overuse the word, but you got a war.
	Okay, the guiding principle is the war is unjust and ignoble, and anybody who supports it is also unjust and perhaps criminal and therefore responsible.
	I mean, if you look at the Democrats are out there saying all this terrorism is Bush's fault.
	That's why John Howard's statement earlier today was so grand.
	Hey, all these things happened before we went into Iraq, these acts of terrorism.
	But the template is it's Bush's fault.
	It's Blair's fault because they started the war, and that's it.
	That's as far as it goes.
	They're not concerned at all that they may be facilitating an al-Qaeda PR objective with their actions at Club Gitmo.
	It's like yesterday at Club Gitmo.
	We got misled on this.
	The media reported this all wrong.
	We had a story that some Afghan guests at Club Gitmo finished their stay, paid with credit card and left.
	And then when they got out, they started spreading lies about the fact that the food in there was so bad that some 150 of them were on a hunger strike.
	Well, we checked into this.
	There's no hunger strike going on at Club Gitmo.
	Club Gitmo has added a new option in the spa, and that is the euphoria of starvation.
	They learned a lot from the Shibo case, from the medical community and the legal community.
	So they've simply instituted a new spa program down there called Euphoria by Starvation.
	And so they're just trying to discredit, once again, the United States.
	Thanks for the call.
	This is Kip in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
	Welcome to the program, sir.
	Hello, Rush.
	Thank you very much for taking my call.
	Yes, sir.
	Rush, I called a couple of days ago to talk about this, but unfortunately, it's become a more timely issue today.
	What I'm concerned about is our strategy in Iraq has been stated at this point to be that if we can give them the opportunity to create their version of a free society, we won't have terrorism coming from Iraq.
	As you've stated, free people don't go to war.
	They don't attack people.
	However, the bombers in Britain from the first incident were at least homegrown.
	Perhaps I think some of them were even born there.
	One of the gentlemen even had children, I think one as young as eight months old.
	And yet the fruits of freedom were not sufficient to dissuade these people from killing themselves and others.
	Now, I support our policy in Iraq.
	I think it's the best thing that we can do at this time.
	But as a good little mind-numb robot, it causes me to reflect as to whether or not our strategy is going to be effective.
	And it makes me ask some questions.
	And I wanted to bounce this off of you because, of course, you're the expert, not me.
	Well, yes, I am.
	And let me try my hand at this.
	These young kids may have been natively born, but their parents weren't.
	Their parents immigrated.
	And that's a factor.
	You had militants immigrating.
	These are people, by the way, that were sent packing to Pakistan for training and came back.
	But yeah, they were gotten hold of by parents and relatives who arrived in Great Britain with a chip on their shoulder and probably with a strategic purpose.
	And so what you have here are children of immigrants who are natural born citizens.
	In that case, nothing is ever flawless and foolproof.
	But to take these four kids, these four young men, and to you know and say, well, the whole process of democratizing and creating a free society isn't going to work.
	You've got to look at the Brits have had way too open a border policy, and all kinds of poisonous mullahs are in the country that can get hold of these young kids.
	And it's part of the territory.
	Now, the alternative is what?
	Okay, I guess free people really is not the way to go.
	Saddam, you're out of jail.
	You got your country back.
	We are out of here.
	I don't think that's the way to go either.
	You know, there's some principles involved here.
	And people talk about human rights and civil rights.
	Let me tell you, the essential human right, if there is, is freedom.
	It's how we're created.
	And while there are exceptions to everything, in a free society, you've got criminals.
	In a free society, you have the insane.
	In a free society, you have liberals.
	But you have violence at the same time.
	But you don't have cultures that are based on suppression and tyranny that raise these kinds of people.
	They end up becoming the exception, not the society, not the culture.
	And that's the effort here.
	I got to run because I'm a little long.
	We'll have a brief timeout.
	Be back right after this.
	And we are back.
	All right.
	Erwin Chemerinsky, who's where is he?
	He's a lawyer somewhere, law professor somewhere.
	He was big during the OJ trial.
	He's got a column that ran somewhere.
	I don't even know where it ran.
	Says, be prepared to filibuster Roberts.
	He's trying to encourage these law professors and these elitist lawyers trying to encourage the Senate's Democrats to filibuster this guy.
	And if the truth be known, it is a bunch of, like that, I forget the guy's name, the lawyer from Yale Law, Bruce Atkinson, I think it is.
	I'm not sure if it's close, but a lot of these guys are actually responsible for creating this whole judicial filibuster concept.
	And these are the people convening these meetings to redo the Constitution that we have talked about.
	Then we have an AP story, Democratic filibuster of Roberts.
	Unlikely.
	But I'm telling you, these radical law professors will push for it anyway.
	They think they own the country.
	Then in the Washington Post today, Peter Baker and Charles Babington, Democrats say nominee will be hard to defeat.
	Yeah, that doesn't matter.
	They're going to try.
	Just mark my words.
	They'll go to the Mat over he didn't produce enough papers from the Solicitor's General's office.
	We asked for documents and they're hiding something from us.
	He didn't answer questions the way we wanted.
	Didn't answer questions fully.
	They can't go with the guy's substance.
	In fact, the left's out there complaining that they don't know enough about the guy to oppose him.
	You know, they're actually acting like it's not fair.
	It's not fair.
	Bush nominated somebody that we don't know anything about.
	And if you listen to some of these people on television talk about it, it's laughable.
	It isn't fair.
	We don't know anything.
	We don't have enough to oppose this guy.
	How are we supposed to oppose him?
	Hey, we don't know anything about him.
	Blah, I mean, and again, then they just continue to be amazed.
	Bush is doing what he said he was going to do.
	Nobody does that in this town.
	Howard Feynman writing about it again.
	I'll have that for you later.
	Stacey in Boulder, Colorado.
	Hi, welcome to the program.
	Hi, Rush.
	17-year listening dittos from the People's Republic of Boulder.
	Thank you so much.
	My point, I had two quick points, but one of them was the Katarina van der Hoovel.
	Sound by you, they're using very disturbing talking points about the balance of power and the checks and balances as if it applies to parties and not as the branches of government, what the founders said.
	They say, well, Republicans basically are in control of too many branches, so we need to check and balance them as a minority party.
	And that's just not the way it was intended.
	Hey, I know this is nothing new.
	That's why the left created this new definition of losing.
	The definition of losing is winning.
	All this attention on minority rights.
	When the Republicans in the minority, there's no such thing as minority rights.
	When the Democrats are in the minority, well, a minority has rights, you know, this is a democracy.
	And the translation is, we should have won.
	So we're going to act like we won.
	No, founders never intended.
	You're right.
	Van den Hoovel did say this, but it's just spin.
	Founders never intended this to be a one-party country.
	Why?
	Nothing ever intended this.
	And that's why we've got to make sure the court stays on our side.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	It's pure panic, folks.
	It's abject fear.
	But the thing is, you have to realize this like Stacey here, she picked up on it.
	A lot of people are picking up on it.
	The Libs do not know just how sophisticated and wise the audience in America is today.
	They do not know how little they are succeeding in getting away with the plays in their 30- and 40-year-old playbook.
	As I say, it's off-tackle left, off-tackle left, off-tackle left.
	We're stacking the linebackers and we're pushing them back, pushing them back, pushing them back.
	And they're losing ground.
	They still don't know it.
	They still think it's first down.
	Back after this.
	Stay with us.
	We have a caller I don't have time to get to right now.
	Cliff, stay on the phone.
	We'll get to you.
	But he's right.
	The media now profiling Judge Roberts' wife because she is part of a pro-life group.
	Oh, yes.

▲