Rush Limbaugh Program - July 22, 2005, Friday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 22, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:25

July 22, 2005, Friday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	And welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program here at the EIB Network.
	I'm on the left coast out here today at KOGO Radio in San Diego.
	And of course, this is on the Rush Limbaugh program Open Line Friday.
	You betcha, 1-800-282-2882.
	Have we missed something this week here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies?
	If we have, it's your turn.
	Bring up the topic, let fly, and have at it.
	1-800-282-2882.
	Yeah, out here in San Diego, we're experiencing something that we don't normally get.
	Very rarely.
	In fact, in the normal weather patterns, obviously it's not either very cold or very, very warm out here.
	It's just pleasant and nice and paradise all the time.
	It's warm all the time, but not hot.
	And we rarely get humidity.
	Today it's hot and humid.
	I know.
	I should be whining.
	The rest of the country is much worse.
	But I guess I'm whining for a particular reason.
	The air today appears to be coming in a non-normal weather pattern up from Mexico.
	In other words, this is illegal humidity, basically.
	And it's doing a job that American humidity will not do.
	I understand that, but it's still here illegally.
	And we wish it would go back.
	I don't mean to profile this humidity.
	I don't mean to be harsh and unfair and a vigilante about it.
	But please, you know, without, with great risk to my personal political reputation, please, Mexico, take your humidity back.
	Would you just please, just this once?
	Anyway, that's kind of my plea for today.
	We're going to get into the London shooting today.
	I'm stunned, basically, by this news.
	Have you heard it?
	London police have killed a man at a subway station.
	They suspected he was wearing a winter coat, which the immediate first indication of suspicion.
	And apparently a rucksack, as they call it over there, a backpack of some kind as similar to the bombers.
	They called on him to halt.
	He would not, started running away from the security officers involved.
	The police fired five shots, all five of which entered his head, immediately dead on the spot.
	Now, I got to tell you, that's the stunning part, by the way, of this whole thing.
	To me, I mean, living out here on the West Coast, the last shooting incident in Los Angeles, for example, of the cops stopping a suspect, about 9,000 rounds were fired, and they hit every bystander and left the suspect completely unscathed.
	He was on the telephone calling his agent for a, you know, a movie made for TV based on the incident right away.
	This is the way we handle it out here.
	So to hear that cops can actually hit five shots out of five at the suspect's head in a country that doesn't have guns.
	Didn't they, until very recently, not even have guns?
	Cops didn't have guns?
	Where did they learn to shoot like this?
	I mean, as an American, I'm feeling like offended almost.
	So you may have something to say about this today.
	I'm just stunned.
	The bombers who tried to hit London, of course, yesterday were a complete failure.
	Some very funny descriptions in the press today and Good Friday fodder to peruse the internet on the British press today because they're getting eyewitness accounts of these poor fellows in their rucksacks trying to detonate the bombs on these and they're not apparently they're not made very well See, they need to stop with the Middle Eastern sources or the North Korean sources for these things.
	They've got to go right to China.
	This is where they make things that work.
	But I'm amazed because the eyewitness accounts indicate that, well, here was the poor guy, the bomber, down on the ground trying to detonate his bomb, laying on top of the rucksack.
	And somebody else in the car comes up to him and says, anything wrong, mate?
	And this poor fellow, you know, there's a popping sound while the detonator goes off, but nothing else.
	He gets up, the bomber gets up, the would-be bomber gets up kind of bewildered look on his face.
	You mean I'm not in paradise?
	There's no 72 virgins.
	What happened here?
	And wanders off at the next break.
	There's some very funny accounts.
	And of course, not so funny, because this, of course, is another attempt to blow up and kill people in this version of Islam that many are denouncing in the world of the Muslim world, but many more are not.
	In fact, good grief, this group with claiming that they do have links to al-Qaeda, claiming success, even though, of course, they had a failure yesterday, are following the teachings of a number of militant sheiks and imams and the like who are in London preaching killing of British citizens even while we speak here.
	In fact, this is Friday, Wednesday, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed predicted another terrorist attack would hit London.
	Why is this thug, this murderous thug, to use the English vernacular, still in Britain?
	Why is he A still alive?
	Why is he B still in Britain if alive?
	Why is he C not back in his madrasas in Pakistan where he belongs or wherever if you're going to keep him alive?
	Because you see, ladies and gentlemen, allowing these people to be alive, allowing them to speak up, allowing them to use our freedoms against us, allowing them to preach the hatred that, for instance, we have long ago banned in our own polite society.
	You cannot preach hatred against black people because they're black, for example, as maybe you could in this country, what, 50, 60, 70 years ago.
	Can't do it today.
	We have decided that that kind of thing just is too disruptive, too anti-American, too whatever.
	It doesn't work.
	We won't put up with it.
	When are we going to decide the same thing about these Muslim thugs and their hate speech and their psychological warfare and their deliberate terrorism, their deliberate attempt to make it a risky act to get on a subway to go to work?
	So in New York, of course, they're now searching the commuters.
	But, but, but, don't, don't be, don't be concerned.
	Don't be concerned.
	Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly there in New York assuring that there'll be no racial profiling.
	Why the hell not?
	I don't know.
	I didn't see a lot of diversity in the bombers in London.
	I was looking for that.
	I was looking for that.
	I didn't think it was fair to leave out Filipino women or grandmothers from Finland or wherever, because these terrorists obviously are not the kind of diversity-loving people we are.
	They seem to be focused solely on 20- to 30-year-old Muslim young men who've recently been to Pakistan to attend graduate school.
	Good grief.
	No profiling.
	Anyway, in New York, there are t-shirts being handed out by local activists, including local immigration rights activist Tony Liu.
	He's designed t-shirts which say, I do not consent to be searched.
	Oh, my, my, my, Tony, really.
	So anyway, if you do not consent to be searched, then don't get on the subway.
	You can walk in the heat and the humidity.
	But you don't get on the, you know, you don't get on the subway because all the rest of us like to get on the subway and feel like there's a modicum of safety.
	Somebody's watching out for these crazies.
	Because if you think New York is immune from this, it doesn't sound likely.
	We'll get into politics, too, in a while.
	The Roberts, and I'm just, I've got to tell you, Russia's so right about this.
	I mean, the damns are in their last gasp.
	The radical left is in its last gasp on this stuff.
	The stuff on Roberts today is absolutely laughable.
	Wait to hear the toad story.
	We'll get into this a little bit later.
	Rove, of course, got brought up again.
	They can't leave that alone.
	Oh, my gosh, don't tell me we've lost on the Rove thing, too.
	No, they're after the White House again on that.
	We'll get into recent examples of liberal art.
	And China as well is occupying the news, and we'll get into that as well today.
	So Open Line Friday, I got a lot of topics I want to bring up.
	Let's find out what you want to bring up at 1-800-282-2882.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush.
	Let's talk to Mario in New York.
	Mario, welcome to the Rush program.
	Yes, it's nice to talk to you.
	Thanks.
	The reason why I'm calling is I got a theory on why we haven't been hit here in the United States.
	What is that theory?
	And that theory is that the left is already convincing that they're turning the American people around against the war.
	And the way I feel is that if we get hit again, we're only going to get the spirit of America up again, like after 7-11, and it's only going to defeat their purpose.
	So let them continue.
	The way they look at it is the liberal, the right, the liberal.
	7-11.
	Did you say 7-11?
	No, 9-11.
	9-11.
	9-11.
	I wasn't following you there.
	I was in getting a slurpee for a minute there.
	I don't know what you were doing, Mario.
	No, all I'm saying is that that's the reason why we haven't been hit, because they're afraid they'll turn the American country, the American people around against them again.
	It is an interesting point, Mario, that when they hit Spain, there was a complete change of government.
	By the way, Spanish news today, has Spain gotten better?
	News out of Spain today, an Argentine lesbian wed her lover in Madrid in the first of the homosexual marriages that have been approved by the new socialist government of Spain.
	Oh, yeah, that country's on a positive trend.
	They're on an arc of success and victory.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Anyway, I think that's the right point.
	The last time they hit the United States figuring it would destroy the economy and drive the government out of office and disintegrate our society because we are weak and degenerate, it turned out the exact opposite happened.
	And Mario may have a point.
	But don't count on it.
	American Spectator, spectator.org, for example, see no evil.
	Again, in the UK, there are significant portions of public opinion blaming Britain and its involvement in the war against terror for the attacks in the London subway.
	If we only hadn't done that, we wouldn't have had this.
	Huh?
	You know, I follow that logic only so far.
	Okay, we did invade Iraq, and things have happened since then because we're in a war.
	The other side fights back.
	I'm trying to go through the basics here.
	We're in a war.
	We fight that was started by them.
	We attack them, then they try to attack us back.
	This would be the normal thing in a war.
	Now, however, unraveling that back to the point where they attacked us the first time, what in the world did we do?
	Let's see.
	Let me go back and think for a minute.
	What was the normal reaction of, for instance, what were they reacting against when they bombed the USS Cole in Yemen?
	Let's see now.
	I think it was when we intervened to save the Kosovars in the Clinton administration in the former Yugoslavia.
	The Kosovars who were, the Kosovars who were Muslims, by the way.
	Muslims.
	We were saving Muslims from being slaughtered by Serbs, and the reaction was they bombed the USS Cole.
	Huh?
	Maybe it was a reaction to the tax cuts.
	I'm not quite sure.
	I'm getting confused as I try to roll this back to the logic.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Taking a Break.
	Back with your call after this.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh today as Rush takes some time off here in the middle of this heat wave throughout the country.
	And CNN bringing us the news today in case you didn't yet realize the connections in these London bombings.
	CNN bringing us the news that the father of Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers who did the first plane into the World Trade Center in 9-11, the father lives in Cairo in an apartment in the upper middle-class Cairo suburb of Giza, out by the pyramids there.
	And he praised the terror attacks in London and said that many more would follow and that he would like to see them and that many more people should die.
	It brings to mind the question that, of course, it isn't just these independently acting young men who are involved here.
	It is, in this tribal world of the Middle East, their families as well.
	I think that's the point that wanted to be made by Ralph here in Yonkers, New York.
	Ralph, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Yeah, how are you?
	Hey, Ralph.
	Hi, you're on.
	Good.
	Yeah, I have a suggestion.
	Why not the government, if we catch a terrorist, naturally we kill him and his whole family, cousins, relatives, anybody related, we deport them.
	And maybe that'll be a deterrent of these Muslims to say, whoa, wait a minute, I don't want to go back to that country.
	Well, I think, Ralph, it has to be done.
	And I'll tell you what, there's an old story, and it dates back to the 80s when in Lebanon, and you remember in the 80s in Lebanon, the PLO was ruining that country, and Syria had moved in and Hamas and all the rest of that stuff.
	And Lebanon was being torn apart.
	Our diplomats, including our CIA chief, station chief there, was kidnapped, tortured, and killed.
	The Russians lost a diplomat to a kidnapping in Lebanon.
	The Russian secret police came down into Lebanon and they didn't try to find their guy.
	What they did was they found out who the kidnappers were and then went to their families.
	And they sent back, I think it was the finger or something, some body part of a family member of one of the kidnappers and said, all of your family members will be hacked up and sent to you in bags if you don't release our guy, or something to that effect.
	I may mistranslate the Russian there slightly.
	And, well, not surprisingly, the Russian diplomat was released unharmed with an apology, and the kidnappers disappeared.
	So, you know, at the time on the liberal left in the West, oh my, the Russians, they're so barbaric, oh my, trying to descend to the level of this barbarity, matching the kidnappers in ferociousness and barbarity.
	That's just not the way we do things.
	We would have had an investigation and a grand jury inquiry, and then we would have had, you know, of course, the ACLU providing attorneys for everyone, and then we would have had extended hearings on the subject.
	The Russians got their diplomat back.
	Our CIA station chief was killed and tortured before he was killed.
	No word on what Amnesty International had to say about that torture.
	Funny pictures, by the way, Rush has the club Gitmost up and encouraging people to send pictures to his website.
	Go to the website today at RushLimbaugh.com and check out the pictures.
	They're terrific.
	George in Florida, next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Hi, George.
	Hi, how are you doing today?
	Good, good.
	It's a pleasure to talk to you.
	Thanks for calling.
	I have a little bit of a problem with what you said earlier about American law enforcement officers not being able to do what the British did.
	I said L.A.
	Well, even in L.A., you're not comparing apples to oranges here.
	The people that are involved in Britain are all special operators.
	They're all highly trained, just like SWAT members are.
	And they're the ones that are out there with the submachine guns.
	They're the ones that are fully trained in special tactics like that.
	And if every American law enforcement officer was equipped the same way, being out on the street with those kind of weapons, you would probably get better results.
	Unfortunately, I doubt it, George.
	I'll tell you why.
	I doubt it, George, and I'll tell you why.
	Because in L.A., when the SWAT team was on the site of this particular incident in which a man had refused to stop, a car kidnapping, whatever it was, I forget the exact details.
	This is just a couple of weeks ago.
	And something like, I said 9,000, but actually something like 900 rounds were fired by police officers, including SWAT, including these trained officers, and they were fired in a way that was just all over the neighborhood.
	I mean, it was an absolute scandal.
	Now, George, I know the reflex in your project.
	Are you in law enforcement?
	Yes, I am.
	Okay.
	The reflex of people in law enforcement in this country is never to accept criticism, to always demand more money, to always demand more training.
	If only we got you taxpayers to give us more dollars, we too could be as good as that.
	And I'm fed up with it.
	I'm fed up to here with it.
	The fact of the matter is, those cops were ordinary cops in that tube.
	They had their handguns and hit this guy at a number of feet away in the head five times out of five.
	I don't think there's a police officer in this country that could do it.
	George, that's my point.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh, and I'll tell you what I'm going to do.
	At 1-800-282-2882, I'm going to challenge you to tell me I'm wrong when we come back, because I think I'm absolutely right about this, and everybody knows about it.
	Everybody in every community in this country knows this to be true.
	Back after this.
	Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh today on Open Line Friday and whatever you want to talk about.
	Don't let me dominate.
	I want to hear what we've left out at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies this week and what you think ought to be emphasized.
	I hear from people, you know, privately, I hear from people saying, Rush didn't cover this.
	He only has three hours a day.
	Good grief.
	So if there's something that hasn't been covered, let us know.
	1-800-282-2882.
	I've got to tell you about this because I've been laughing out loud reading this stuff about the nomination of Judge John Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court by President Bush.
	Okay, here's Exhibit A. Here's one I laughed out loud about.
	West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, Sheets Byrd, after Bush nominated federal Judge Roberts this week, issued a statement.
	And the statement, I mean, included this.
	I met with Judge Roberts.
	I said to him, quote, I'm shouting your name from the steepletops for reaching out, reaching across the aisle.
	I thank President Bush for reaching out to senators.
	He's endorsing Roberts.
	He's endorsing him in the strongest possible terms.
	In fact, he's put out a book.
	It's a memoir, Child of the Appalachian Coal Fields is the title.
	And in the book, he repeatedly blames, quote, liberal judges, unquote, and, quote, activist judges, unquote, for many of the nation's problems.
	In fact, being Sheets Byrd, he makes a, well, he makes a reference to Africa.
	He says, quote, one's life is probably, this is in the book now, quote, one's life is probably in no greater danger in the jungles of deepest Africa than in the jungles of America's large cities, unquote.
	Sheets doesn't fall too far from the Burning Cross.
	But in this case, he is now moving to support Judge Roberts.
	Why?
	Well, ladies and gentlemen, let me whisper to you the EIB Network Research Facility answer.
	Recent polling shows Senator Byrd below 50% and in a dead heat against a candidate, Congresswoman, let's see, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican who has not yet announced that she's running against the senator, but in a hypothetical matchup, he loses.
	Oops.
	It's finally dawned on Sheets Byrd that the president won last year in West Virginia by 13 points.
	It's finally dawned on him that the Republicans won the election, and his very seat is actually endangered.
	I better move pretty quickly.
	I better get over on his side.
	Here's Jay in Delaware.
	Jay, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
	Hi there, Mr. Hedgecock.
	I'm listening to you out of Philadelphia on WPHT.
	Ralph, was it?
	Your last next-to-last color reported bottom of the hour.
	You and he are, you're daft.
	Man, what are you taking?
	Daft about what?
	Daft, sir, about what?
	About deporting family members of, and I would presume you'd bother to convict terrorists who commit crimes here.
	But you support their family members.
	And we'd get them an attorney in the hearing, and of course we'd have a proper trial.
	We'd do all of that because that's the right thing to do while they're killing us.
	There's a little feature in the Bill of Rights called a Bill of Attainder, a detested thing that the British used to do where they would punish the family.
	No, yes.
	We have no provision for a Bill of Attainder.
	You could take it before the U.S. Supreme Court as it stands now without Judge Roberts, and you'd probably get a unanimous decision that it's unconstitutional.
	Certainly.
	Come on, if we're going to think things, let's think them through that are intelligent.
	That certainly isn't.
	Jay, are you a fan of FDR?
	Hell no.
	He was a disaster for this country.
	Okay, well, I'm kind of a fan of the way he reacted to the war because one of the things he did, as with President Lincoln, and are you a fan of Lincoln?
	So-so.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Which president of the United States is your model?
	My model?
	The present one is just Graham.
	Okay.
	And Harry Truman.
	I like Terry Truman.
	All right.
	Wonderful.
	Let me just remind you, sir, that during wartime, I'm trying to distinguish between peacetime and wartime.
	In peacetime, the Bill of Attainder, all that stuff, the Bill of Rights, all of that is very good, very proper, very right.
	We stand.
	It's our bulwark against government.
	It is what we depend upon for our freedom and liberty.
	We are at war.
	The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
	Lincoln suspended the entire thing in order to save the Union, win the war.
	Suspended the red habeas corpus.
	And restore.
	Is that not important, Jay?
	Yes, it is.
	Okay, Jay, let me just tell you, before you foam at the mouth on the subject of deportation of killers and their families, I'd just as soon be safe.
	I'd just as soon tell people you can emigrate to the United States if you want to become an American.
	If you're coming here to be a little jihadist and wait in Lodi or what was the other place up in New York State, upper New York State, in all these little sleeper cells and all your family connections and all your tribes and all your fellows sitting there supporting you, and that happened here in San Diego.
	Two of the 19 people were here taking flight training.
	And you want to have all, I think all those people who supported them, I think all those people who gave them money, I think all those people who sent them to the graduate school, Madras in Pakistan, all of that are support systems that need to be rooted out and sent home.
	It is exactly the same as Karl Rove.
	Let's get a guilty conviction before you go deporting families who may not have had any part in this.
	Who may not have had any part in this problem with punishing or deporting people who foment terrorism in this country?
	No objection with it whatsoever.
	But what you're talking about is punishing innocents.
	And there are, that's the equivalent of saying all Muslims are bad.
	No, sir.
	No, Jay, no, no, no, man, you're going so far off the beam here.
	Look, I just quoted from Mohammed Atta's father, living in Cairo today, who praised the bomb.
	There is no such thing as these young men going with these rucksacks.
	They didn't make those bombs.
	They didn't have the support to go in there.
	They didn't have the money to go back to Pakistan, to go to these schools, to learn how to be terrorists.
	There's a support system, and the support system has to be rooted out and sent home, rooted out and put in jail, or we will simply have an inexhaustible supply of duped young men, fanatics, coming into our subway systems all over the world until we're all dead.
	And then we will say, but we played by the rules.
	You're using Muhammad Atta's father to justify this whole thing.
	For every Muhammad Atta's father or person who thinks that way, there's got to be 1,000 to 10,000 young people.
	I can't penetrate your ignorance, so I'm just going to try one more time.
	In the Muslim world, the family, the tribe is everything.
	Is everything.
	Next to their religion, the family and the tribe is everything.
	There is no such thing as delinquency.
	We think, see, they exploit our expectations.
	They exploit our expectation that a young man could just go wrong, and that has nothing to do with the family.
	That's just that young man going wrong.
	We think that, because that happens all the time in our own families.
	In those families, it does not.
	Those young men do not marry anybody.
	The father doesn't tell them to marry.
	The women are the same way.
	They do what they are told to do.
	There is no such thing as acting independently on their religious convictions to blow up people in the tube.
	They are a part of a tightly woven, knitted family and tribe that makes this happen.
	And Jay, if you haven't realized that yet, you need to do some research before you come on a national radio program and display your ignorance.
	Now, please work at this because there is truth to be found.
	1-800-282-2882.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Let's try a break.
	We'll come back much more.
	Oh, this is fun.
	Open Line Friday.
	Can we take a break right now?
	Or should we take a call?
	We'll take a call.
	Matt on a cell phone in Shreveport, you're on.
	Hi, Matt.
	I'm in Shreveport.
	Oh, hey.
	Hi, Roger.
	I'm Matt.
	I'm in Shreveport, Louisiana.
	I'm going to throw a couple ideas out here.
	Agree with them, shoot them down, tear them apart, whatever.
	First and foremost, with the police officers, they don't practice enough.
	It's simple as that.
	It's true in Shreveport.
	It's true everywhere else.
	As far as the shooting incident you're talking about, I believe it was the suburban.
	They don't teach cops ambush, so they don't always know you don't shoot from both sides of a target, especially opposing sides.
	Secondly, the last caller, Truman was a coward.
	That's why we had the area and that's why we're talking about China.
	Okay, hold on.
	Truman was a coward.
	What is that all about?
	Well, think about it.
	MacArthur basically had North Korea backed up to the Chinese border, and he was ready to go into China.
	Yeah.
	We wouldn't have communism today if it wasn't for him.
	Were you ready to go into China?
	A billion people on the U.S. Army, mostly decommissioned by that point in time.
	Okay.
	I mean, we can debate that, Matt, but go ahead.
	Okay, back to the substance of it.
	Well, the Patriot Act is going to be reauthorized very shortly for the substance of it.
	God bless us.
	How about something with substance, like, say, a national concealed carry weapons permit?
	Something where we can actually protect ourselves.
	Yeah, I came up against this.
	You know, this is a very good point.
	I think there should be a national concealed weapons permit.
	It's done now state by state.
	It should be continued.
	But even if the feds, I'll tell you, we ran into this at our local county fair in San Diego, where the feds had passed a law saying that off-duty police officers could carry their weapons as part of a backup for response to terrorist or any other criminal activity.
	And the county fair on public land decided that they would ban off-duty law enforcement officers from carrying their weapons on the fair because we'd be safer if off-duty law enforcement officers didn't have weapons.
	That was their stated theory.
	We were in danger if law enforcement officers took their guns.
	Well, maybe if they were in L.A., we would be in danger.
	Let me rethink this.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock.
	We'll take a break on the Rush Limbaugh program to be back right after this.
	Well, Judge Roberts news continues.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh today.
	And Rush, of course, off on a great break, a well-deserved break.
	But we continue because, of course, we are commanded to continue this relentless pursuit of the truth.
	You've got to know your enemy, and I hope this last caller helped everybody.
	You got to know your enemy.
	They are not a delinquent U.S. youth just off on a lark.
	You know, they haven't been converted to the moonies and they're out doing something crazy.
	No, This is a whole different thing.
	This Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court continues to just draw some very, very funny stuff.
	I mean, I think that the left is just in tatters on this one.
	Here is, this is a serious writing now.
	Associated Press, Tallahassee, Florida.
	Lead paragraph.
	During the tumultuous presidential recount in 2000, John Roberts flew to Florida and volunteered advice to Governor Jeb Bush, whose brother was trying to clinch the elections.
	Democrats now saying that trip should disqualify Roberts from the Supreme Court.
	Congressman Robert Wexler, Democrat of Florida, saying, quote, the Senate should reject him on the basis of this alone.
	Now he's being rewarded for that partisan service, unquote.
	The laughable, laughability, the measure of laughability of this is just comes in every direction.
	Partisan service?
	Every judge in the country is nominated and appointed on the basis of their partisan service, and everybody knows it.
	Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not a partisan Democrat prior to her appointment.
	Huh?
	Plus, which, wait a minute.
	Well, let me see if I understand this.
	John Roberts flew to Florida and volunteered advice to Governor Jeb Bush.
	I don't think Jeb Bush was getting elected president, was he?
	What is that all about?
	And then this, this gets better.
	Everybody knows, this is in the Washington, they're even making fun of the opponents of Roberts in the Washington Post.
	Federalist affiliation misstated.
	Washington Post this morning.
	Everyone knows that like all good Republican lawyers, John G. Roberts Jr. is a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative law and public policy organization where right-of-center types meet to denounce liberalism and angle for jobs in the Bush administration.
	So right away you know the writer is a liberal.
	You know, the disdain, the irony, the sarcasm, etc.
	Fine.
	Second paragraph.
	And practically everyone, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Legal Times, the Washington Post itself, has reported Roberts' membership in the Federalist Society as a fact.
	The Alliance for Justice, opposed to Roberts' nomination, has noted it on its website.
	Just one problem, they're wrong.
	Roberts is not a member of the Federalist Society.
	Did anyone bother just asking him?
	Or do they just assume?
	Yikes.
	And then, of course, Democrats, Schumer, et cetera, after the written opinions, memorandums written by Roberts while he was a government lawyer, we want every one of them to go over them and blame him for everything.
	I'll tell you what, I think this guy Roberts has got a sense of humor.
	I was reading, and this is in the Wall Street Journal, a little bit of his dissent in a rancho, in the case Rancho Viejo, in which the majority allowed Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency, to order a land developer to move a fence on his own property here in California in order to accommodate an endangered toad.
	The basis of the toad being federalized here, the subject of federal action, was interstate commerce.
	Interstate commerce.
	Judge Roberts in his dissent wrote, quote, the hapless toad, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California and is not affected by interstate commerce.
	This guy has a sense of humor because, you know, again, making fun of the pretensions, let's expand the commerce clause to cover toads in California.
	This guy we need desperately on the Supreme Court.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Russia Limbaugh taking your calls on an open line Friday at 1-800-282-2882 coming up after this.
	Thank you to our Australian ally, John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia.
	What a staunch guy talking about Our friend down under talking about the latest bomb attacks and urging America and Britain to hold firm, a very, very interesting guy, and I appreciate him being in the country.
	He was in London as well today.
	The Congress reacting to the need for the government to stand up to terrorism and to how open our borders are by passing the renewal of the Patriot Act 257 to 171 in the House goes to the Senate now.
	I don't know what people like Hillary Clinton are going to do in the Senate because she's trying to be obviously she's a moderate and she's a conservative even on some cases and she's very concerned and etc.
	But then of course she has a base who are crazy wacko Howard Dean type people and so when she gets to the Senate what is she going to do on the on the Patriot Act?
	Because President Hillary Clinton should be voting yes candidate Hillary Clinton's got to be voting no or the crazies will be all over.
	So I suggest a new category of vote in the United States Senate.
	I think that for senators so conflicted like this, there ought to be the ability to vote yes and no because you got to be on all sides of these because that's why, well, that's the way I have to be.
	Yes and no.

▲