Rush Limbaugh Program - August 5, 2005, Friday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 5, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

35:14

August 5, 2005, Friday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And greetings to your thrill seekers, music lovers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
	It's the most listened to radio talk show in America, the most eagerly anticipated, the program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
	It's Friday, so let's hit it.
	And you know the rules for open line Friday, Monday through Thursday.
	We talk about the things that interest me.
	On Friday, we expand that and you can bring up things that don't interest me if they do interest you.
	The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
	And if you would rather go the uh email route, the email address is rush at EIB net.com.
	Before we get back to the phone calls, I am uh I'm happy to uh be able to welcome to the program today uh former Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee.
	Uh well known to uh people who watch television and movies.
	Senator, it's uh it's great to have you with us.
	Um I know that the White House has uh asked you to be the liaison, so to speak, uh the sort of shepherds, if I can use that term, the nomination of John Roberts uh through the confirmation process.
	What is that entail for you?
	Well, I told somebody the other day they they they came up with the name Sherpa, said I was going to be Judge Robert Sherpa.
	I told somebody I think that's French for stay out of the way.
	And I've been trying to do that as much as I I could.
	But I've uh I've gone on the hill with him and uh introduced him to the Senators and uh set in on most of the conversations that they've had and uh talked to him a little bit about the process and the folks that he'll be meeting with and what the various interests are and uh and so forth, and we'll be working on uh preparing for the hearings uh here in the next couple of weeks.
	How are the Democrats treating him uh when they meet him personally?
	I've seen video, I haven't been able to listen to it, but I've seen video of Senator Kennedy meeting him and uh Senator Schumer.
	Are they uh are they engaging and polite?
	I would think that they're treating him very well.
	Uh and uh I wouldn't expect anything differently.
	I really don't think that uh is an indicator of uh necessarily of what lies ahead.
	I hope it is, but uh uh he's a very uh engaging fellow.
	He's a nice guy, he's a modest uh uh fella, and uh totally you know inconsistent with his with his brilliant uh academic and professional uh background, some might say, but uh he he's just that kind of a guy.
	He's a comfortable fella and and he gets along with everybody, and uh they've had some good conversations.
	Several Democrats have said uh, you know, I don't necessarily agree with you on a lot of things, but uh I you know I think you're very well qualified, and the president uh deserves the benefit of the doubt, etc.
	etc.
	So I I think we're gonna get some support.
	Well, uh that's what it seems like now, but you know, a lot of us are in the we'll believe it when we see it mode.
	Uh because you know, Clarence Thomas was doing fine until somebody in the middle of all that decided it was time to bring up Anita Hill.
	Yeah, they're they're working over time uh out among the groups and and so forth, and uh we can't be naive about what we're picking up there.
	Uh and uh it will depend on what they're able to shake out of the bushes, which I don't think is gonna be much of anything.
	They've they've uh you know had a little dose of uh his uh writings when he was back when he was twenty-six, twenty-seven years old and part of the Reagan administration and giving sound legal advice, and uh a lot of these groups and the media don't like what they see there,
	but uh it it's unassailable because uh he's just uh being a good lawyer and he's solid uh in his reasoning, and uh uh so they're looking for other things now, and uh, you know, they've they've done a little job on the wife, and now they're in uh apparently and uh trying to get into the sealed adoption records of the children,
	and you know, uh once again uh some in the media are making themselves the story and instead of the story, and uh, you know, it that doesn't do anything but hurt them.
	I don't expect you to comment on this, but I you remind me of something I have to share with the audience.
	Uh I've been roaming the blogosphere.
	What's was floating around the blogosphere is that the reason the New York Times is interested in his adoption records is that they are curious about how he ended up with with two kids from Latin America who are so light-skinned, so light colored.
	And yeah, and I I uh it's it's uh we haven't seen that story yet, but that that's and I can't confirm that, but that's just what's floating around among the people.
	Well, I haven't heard that, but you know, nothing surprises me.
	Well, keep a sharp eye out for it because it's uh look at you Senator, you know the value of the court to the American left.
	I mean, to them, it's the legislative body that they want to control because they can institutionalize what they believe there and take it out of the arena of public debate and public ideas.
	It's become exalted and much, much more and more powerful than it was ever intended to be as part of our problem.
	Well uh you talk about shaking the bushes to see what falls out.
	There was uh there was an I think an attempt by the Los Angeles Times yesterday to shake the bushes and cause a rift among Republicans over Judge Roberts regarding his pro bono work for uh gay activists in the uh in the Colorado case.
	And uh we've learned today that uh one of the sources for that story happens to be a man who used to work with Judge Roberts' name is Walter Smith.
	Goes back ten years ago, who now heads up DC Appleseed, which works with people for the American way.
	Now it seems that the the point of the story yesterday was that it tried to make it out that Judge Roberts purposely sought out this pro bono work and that he has a an unknown and he didn't submit the uh responses uh didn't answer this in uh the questionnaire on his pro bono work that he may be some that the LA Times trying to portray him as a stealth supporter of gay rights and trying to raise red flags in the Republican Party about this, and I've gauged reaction the past couple of days, and I don't think that's working.
	In fact, it seems to me uh that that move yesterday by the LA Times is was uh perhaps indicative of the fact that they don't think they can stop him on their side and they want to try to cause a rift on the Republican side.
	Yeah, and it and and it's kind of obvious.
	And uh um I I you know, th this is as a lawyer, I I was especially interested in this little story because it's uh it shows uh it shows Judge Roberts as a lawyer.
	And I've been there and I know what the deal is and and how it works.
	And the story basically is this, these especially these large law firms, uh his law firm, I think had over a a thousand uh people in the firm, they have these pro bono divisions, pro bono committees, and these committees decide for whatever reason what pro bono cases they take over a period of years, you know, there'd be hundreds and hundreds of cases.
	And they go around and uh to the various specialists in their firm to uh to ask for assistance and in uh appropriate areas that that come up and you're expected to do that as a lawyer.
	And uh and uh Judge Roberts, the entire time he was there at the firm never refused for ideological reasons or any other reason, uh to assist and give advice as to the best way to proceed with regard to a particular uh legal situation.
	If it was a plausible legal case and it was ethical, he was you know playing his role as a lawyer.
	He handled many pro bono cases, you know, he he handled uh a lot of cases in his practice for uh uh wealthy people, he handled pro bono cases for uh for indigent people.
	He was a lawyer's lawyer, and he was uh on a lot of different sides of a lot of different issues.
	Uh you know, kind of the pinnacle that that most lawyers really uh uh aspire to.
	And uh I I think the point here is that um, you know, we got a system here where lawyers play their role, judges and juries play their role.
	And this is no indication of uh a judicial philosophy.
	This is an indication of a lawyer philosophy that has a long and illustrious history, starting with John Adams, who defended the Redcoats at the Boston Massacre.
	And uh Abe Lincoln, you know, was not adverse to representing the railroads uh against the the little guy uh on occasion.
	It it's uh it's uh it's a lawyer's role not to be not to be the judge, but to be an advocate for a case that's plausible if it comes into uh to to his office.
	And uh that's the role that he was playing.
	But it has nothing to do, one way or the other, with uh judicial philosophy.
	Well, I'm glad you say that, because the one thing about it that concerned me was not his uh the the role on the behalf of gay activists, it was he w appeared to be based on the way the story was written, he was assisting in overturning uh a duly passed uh ballot initiative by the people of uh of Colorado.
	Well, you could say that uh Judge Roberts secretary assisted in overturning that case.
	I mean, if you want to I mean, you got a lot of lawyers doing a lot of things, Judge R Roberts did a little bit.
	Um, you know, unapologetically.
	Uh Again, and he's not trying to beg off on on that basis.
	But the fact is that uh he he was a very, very peripheral player, and to the extent that you want to say that, you know, one percent makes up the hole, and the hole caused uh uh a uh a judicial decision, I guess you can say that, but it it's really stretching the point.
	How uh how certain are you or or how convinced are you that uh the Judge Roberts is in the mold of uh uh Anton and Scalia and Justice Thomas.
	And I only ask this because I don't hear a lot of Washington Republicans engaging the Schumers and the Durbins, the Ted Kennedys on philosophical grounds uh uh the Democrats run around and they make all these uh uh wild claims that are that are largely untrue.
	Uh and and uh I just I I wonder how how certain you are that that Judge Roberts is as he appears to be uh to all of us.
	Well, if this uh in terms of the numbers, I mean that unfortunately that may come later, you know, joining issue on some of these things.
	Uh you you know, we'd we try to try not to squeal before you're stuck, and uh they they really haven't stuck him.
	And uh I expect it'll get um a little rough before it's over with, but you know, we'll deal with that when the time comes, but but not before.
	In answer to your question, Rush, here's what I can say about that.
	It's not for me to speak about his uh uh philosophy and so forth in uh too much detail.
	I don't guess he'll do that for himself.
	But in his entire record, through his public service, uh through his uh years on the bench as a judge and through the conversations that uh I have witnessed, uh, where he's consistently said the same thing to both Democrat and Republican senators.
	He has supported the the limited role for the judiciary.
	And a word that he uses a lot is the word modesty, that a judge ought to approach his job and his problem, uh his case before him, uh, with a sense of modesty, with a respect for precedent, with uh with with a uh uh respect for the limited role that the judiciary has in the process.
	A very important role, but a limited role.
	Um these these judgeships have always been important, but they've become a much, much more elevated and important, I think, in my opinion, than the founding fathers uh had in mind.
	So limited role for the judiciary, important, but with a modest approach.
	Secondly, uh that a judge uh is not supposed to get up in the morning and and put down an opinion based upon the uh lead opinion of the day or a narrow set of preconceived notions.
	They decide the case uh based on the Constitution, the statutes, and the facts before him.
	Judge judges don't decide uh ideological issues.
	Judges decide cases.
	Well, they do.
	They shouldn't be able to do that.
	I mean, that's that's what they're supposed to do.
	That's what that's what we we uh in my opinion, we need to get back more to.
	Everything that he has said publicly and privately is consistent with that.
	He never, uh in any of uh his endeavors, as uh certainly as a judge or as an advocate inside the government, has ever uh been inconsistent with uh with that in in any way.
	I I just think the guy is uh is gonna be uh an exceptional judge.
	Well, I appreciate your calling and I appreciate your time, and it's good to uh good to speak with you.
	It's been years since I've had a chance to talk to you we hear.
	I know, I know, and uh and uh and I missed that.
	And I I appreciate what you're doing, and uh and I especially appreciate you uh you give me a little time here today.
	Uh any time, Senator.
	Senator Fred Thompson, who is uh uh acting as the liaison between the White House and the uh and the Judiciary Committee with the uh Judge Roberts nomination.
	We've got to take a brief time out.
	We'll be back and continue here in mere moments, folks.
	Sit tight.
	Okay, just to expand on a couple things that uh that I mentioned to uh Senator Fred Thompson in our uh wide-ranging interview of uh mere moments ago, ladies and gentlemen.
	Oh, and by the way, we um we are gonna we've made a PDF file out of the uh Limbaugh letter interview with Robert Novak.
	It was February 2001.
	And we're gonna post that at Rush Limbaugh.com because it does have the question I asked him about the abuse he takes on the Capitol Gang, a show which, by the way, he was the producer of.
	It was his show.
	Uh and uh you'll get his answer to that because it dovetails with this uh this incident yesterday where he clipped turned off the mic and walked off of the uh CNN set.
	But the LA Times story yesterday, remember it it it had this, and it wasn't even hidden.
	It wasn't even veiled.
	It was that story was written with with a uh uh a supposition.
	And the supposition is is that Republicans hate gays.
	Republicans just despise gay people.
	And so they write this story that uh Judge Roberts had uh assisted gay activists in overcoming a ballot initiative in uh in Colorado.
	Well, we have learned here that the chief source of the story in this story, a guy named Walter Smith, who worked uh at Roberts Law Firm ten years ago, and he headed up the pro bono division.
	He's now with uh an activist group, a Lib activist group called DC Appeased.
	Uh and uh uh DC appeased works together with people for the American way and and other, you know, the leadership conference on civil rights.
	It's it's a pretty far-left group.
	And it turns out this guy is the source.
	What this tells me, folks, is that the left is having trouble defeating Judge Roberts on their own.
	They just don't have the goods to defeat the guy.
	So they're trying, as I thought yesterday, to drive a wedge between Republicans with this intimation that he's pro-gay rights uh and so forth.
	Uh and it is it's uh it's just obvious to me now what what the purpose of that story was, and I think it's ultimately when you take it all away, strip it all away a positive, because the left is admitting that they've got some problems, because the LA Times story today is a 180.
	The headline of the LA Times story today is with Star, Roberts pushed Reagan agenda.
	So yesterday Roberts pushed the gay agenda, and now he's pushing the right wing Reagan agenda.
	Uh which is it?
	Together, Starr and Roberts pressed a strongly conservative legal agenda for three and a half years.
	They argued for limiting the scope of civil rights laws, ending race-based affirmative action, restoring some prayers to public schools, and overturning Roe vs.
	Way the case that established a woman's right to abortion.
	Uh Christopher Wright, a lawyer who worked under them at the Solicitor General's office, said Ken Starr and John Roberts are genuine conservatives.
	They're highly professional and excellent lawyers, but I'm a Democrat, and I can't say I always agreed with them.
	So today, uh Roberts is one of these far-right extremist guys.
	He's full-fledged Reaganite.
	Yesterday he was a gay rights activist.
	So it seems at the uh the Los Angeles Times, and yes, I do associate a an agenda with mainstream journalism, folks.
	You'd be silly not to.
	They're not just out there reporting the facts and not just telling us what we didn't see.
	There's an agenda behind all this.
	Uh and it is apparent they're trying to stoke the fires on both sides.
	They're trying to get both sides upset with this guy.
	Uh, but this is pretty weak.
	Uh the left is going to be opposed to him on this basis, whether it's true or not.
	Bush appointed him, they're going to assume he's a conservative, and they don't need any proof.
	He's just a conservative.
	We're going to oppose him on that basis.
	I still suggest to you that the reason for all of this is that they're having trouble and they're got some problems.
	Some Democrat senators have come out and said they like the guy, and they're going to have a tough time voting against him.
	Now, also want to warn you about this as exactly as I mentioned to Senator Thompson.
	It wasn't until it looked like uh Justice Thomas was going to sail through that they dragged out Anita Hill.
	And you know where that came from.
	Paul Simon, the late Paul Simon Senator from Illinois, his wife was instrumental in dredging up this story.
	Anita Hill at first wasn't even game for it.
	And uh this was a late arriving scene.
	Now the Bork, the Bork business of Ted Kennedy happened the day that that Bork was nominated, or the next day.
	Um but the you know, you it appears to be smooth sailing right now, but I'm just telling you the libs, they've got they're gonna have some things.
	You know they always do, and they're holding their fire right now, and it's uh it's it's gonna it'll manifest itself in the hearings.
	You know they're gonna take their shots.
	They're not gonna sit back idly and let this happen.
	As to the New York Times, the blogosphere is uh is reporting that the New York Times interest in his adoption papers is that some people on the left are curious how Judge Roberts and his wife were able to adopt such light-skinned babies from uh Central America.
	And the adoption of records are sealed, and that makes them want them even more.
	Uh we haven't yet seen the story, but that and I uh I'm just telling you what's going around, and there are some sources in the blogosphere that are that are that are close to the uh the New York Times on this uh that are suggesting, yeah, this is this doesn't look right.
	You you start adopting uh Latinos or Latin American kids and they ought to look like that, not look like they're white.
	So what's up here?
	Yeah, that's uh said to be curiosity factor of the New York Times.
	Get any lower than that, folks?
	America's anchor man, America's truth detector and doctor of democracy, sitting firmly ensconced in the prestigious at Till of the Hun chair behind the golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Uh latest opinion audit, by the way, from the Sullivan Group shows me documented to be almost always right, 98.5% of the time.
	Here's Elizabeth in uh Farmington, New Mexico as we proceed with open line Friday.
	Hi, Elizabeth.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	We are on the air.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay, uh, I want to talk to you about gas prices.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I'm mad, apparently.
	Like they here, gas prices have risen twelve cents in the past couple of days, and it's making me so mad because it's getting really hard to afford to fill up my tank.
	I've got an 18 gallon tank.
	And it's 18 gallon tank.
	What kind of uh vehicle are you driving?
	An Oldsmobile.
	An Oldsmobile.
	Yeah.
	You know they don't they're not gonna make those anymore.
	Well you need to switch to a Pontiac.
	No, no.
	I want to switch to a hybrid car, but they're too expensive because I'm spending all my money on gas.
	Uh well, but the hybrid's supposed to help you save money.
	Exactly.
	But I'm I'm putting so much money and gasoline into my car that I can't afford to do anything else.
	Well, what's what what's gasoline cost where you are?
	For me, it's two thirty-nine for regular unleaded and for I'll tell you, you know, I I I can relate, Elizabeth.
	Do you know what the price of jet fuel is these days?
	I wouldn't know because I don't have a jet.
	Well, uh let me just tell you, I've had to order the pilots to throttle back to four hundred miles an hour to try to save some.
	Because it's just it's outrageous.
	It's it's like six bucks, seven bucks a gallon out there in certain places, depending on where you buy it.
	So I hear you.
	Yeah.
	Well, I'm just it's hard to live on a budget and try to pay for gasoline, and there's no bus system, so it's even harder to get around.
	Well, what where are you cutting back?
	I mean, uh you you're actually not buying uh as much gas and you're not driving as much, and that's how you're coming back, or you're cutting back in other areas.
	I'm cutting back by not driving as much.
	I don't use my air conditioner to conserve a little bit, and I barely use my car as it is, so I can save money.
	Well, um, you know, I I I think these these gasoline prices are are um they're pretty much they they're they're they're where they're gonna be.
	They're not gonna come down significantly from from uh from this point.
	Well, I don't expect that, but from what I hear, they're gonna increase to five dollars a gallon, and I may be wrong, but that's the last thing I heard.
	Well, I don't know about that.
	It may happen sometime way, way, way down the road, but I I don't I don't think that's gonna happen now.
	What I find interesting about this is uh for the longest time the left they should be happy at rising gas price, because the left has been moaning and whining and complaining about how unfair it is that we only pay what we pay for gasoline yet our poor European friends.
	And by the way, I was just over there.
	You ought to see the lawnmowers those people are driving.
	Have you there's this thing called a bubble car.
	Have you seen a bubble car?
	It's by Smart.
	It says it's related to Mercedes.
	I mean, you're really sitting, it looks like an inverted eggshell.
	I can't figure out where the engine is in the thing.
	All I know is I wouldn't even want to run into a parking meter in it.
	And it's called the smart car, and it's not selling very well, but there are some of them around there, and uh and it's just uh it's but they're all driving these tiny, tiny little things that are really nothing more than a lawnmower with a couple seats on them.
	Uh and the left is it's just unfair.
	We'll look at what they're paying for gas leaders.
	We ought to be paying more.
	So now the prices go up, and what do they say?
	Bush is mismanaging the economy.
	Well, they ought to be all ecstatic and happy because they think this is going to lead to fuel economy, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
	And uh obviously it you you can you can conserve you know we have a great conservation program, but that's not gonna solve our problem.
	We need production.
	Another thing I find amazing about this, here's the left all concerned about oil prices, but oh no, no, no, no.
	You're not gonna go get any oil out there in Alaska.
	Not at Ann Ward.
	You're not gonna drill off the coast of California.
	You're gonna put any more uh oil rigs in the Gulf and make, oh no, no, no, no.
	We're not gonna, we're not gonna spoil our environment.
	We're gonna get Bush, though, for not being able to do anything about rising gas prices.
	Bunch of hypocrites out there, if you uh if you ask me.
	Thanks for the phone call out there, Elizabeth.
	Uh I appreciate it.
	The New Jersey governor's race, as uh Deborah Orin writes in the New York Post today, exploded into a fire storm yesterday with the revelation that the super wealthy Senator John Corzine gave 470,000 to a former Flame who runs one of the biggest New Jersey state employee unions.
	The value of the donation ballooned to as much as six hundred and fifteen thousand six hundred dollars because Corzine paid the gift tax.
	He gave this babe four hundred and seventy thousand dollars in a loan, then he forgave the loan, and that makes it a gift, and so he has to pay the gift tax on that.
	She doesn't.
	The giver does.
	The gift tax was uh in the neighborhood of a hundred, uh, what was a hundred and sixty a hundred and forty-five thousand six hundred dollars is the gift tax on a gift of four hundred and seventy.
	So uh she ends up basically with four hundred and seventy grand.
	It's the equivalent to uh her earning six hundred and fifteen thousand six hundred and having to pay income tax on it, uh, with some variation in rates.
	Uh uh, Senator Corzine stonewalled questions about whether he gave any other money to uh Carla Katz, who uh represents 9,000 New Jersey State employees as head of local 1034 of the communications workers of America.
	The uh rival in the race, Doug Forrester, backed by some watchdog groups, charged that the gift represents a conflict of interest because cats and other unions have vowed to seek billions in taxpayer funds for pay hikes from the uh from the next governor.
	Uh Forrester said, I I believe if somebody is responsible for representing the public interest in a negotiating process of any form, the nature of the financial relationship that existed uh or continues to exist should be known.
	Now, Corzine refused to say if he made any other presence to Katz and her family.
	He said, I'm a public official, but I also have a private life.
	Oh a little sensitivity there.
	I'm a public official, but I also have a private life.
	Uh New Jersey Republican chairman Tom Wilson says, This is deja vu all over again, and evoked memories of the sleas that led former Governor Jim McGreevy to resign after putting a man with whom he'd had an affair into a sensitive job.
	So can you imagine if Corzine were a the New York Times is barely interested in this, by the way.
	Couldn't care less about this story.
	And to the extent that they are, it says no, that's no big deal.
	Private matter.
	You imagine if a Republican governor had done this, if a Republican governor had given a $415,000 loan to some sweetheart, and then ended up forgiving the loan and then ended up paying the gift tax on it, total of $615.
	And this sweetheart happened to head up a union you're gonna be dealing with if you end up being governor.
	Oh and you're gonna need this union and its support if you want to be governor.
	Uh no, it it well he's he's uh very much against any of us getting tax cuts, and he's fully willing to uh examine our private tax matters to determine we don't deserve tax cuts, but when it comes to his own private life, doesn't want to go there as a private life.
	Here's Steven in Bloomington, Indiana.
	Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
	Hello.
	Hello, Rash.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Yeah, I'm I'm calling about uh I heard you mention this yesterday, and I'm glad you brought it up again today.
	I I'm I'm just really upset at hearing this news that the issue of adoptive parent um I I happen to be an adoptive parent of three kids.
	I've adopted from overseas.
	This issue of of of uh the records being sealed.
	This is for the sake of the child.
	So so what the new whatever this newspaper Los Angeles newspaper is doing is potentially you're you look you gotta have to understand something here.
	The New York Times is pro-abortion, so you can get an idea what they think of the sake of the children.
	Well, yeah, you may have a point there, but be that as it may, the liberals, and I'm a former liberal myself, so I kind of know what the mindset used to be, are supposedly all for the best interest of the oppressed.
	Now, you gotta make a choice here.
	And the choice is one or the other.
	And what Lilith is of so saying to me is like, my God, this is like the most wonderful thing.
	A supreme for for us adoptive parents for for adoptive children for the sense of belonging.
	There's so many good things.
	Two things here.
	Somebody said yesterday, and I and I had to chuckle, at least the New York Times is finally discovered adoption exists.
	Uh at least that's happened.
	Uh but you have to understand something.
	You're you're talking about the issue of adoptionists.
	To the New York Times, the issue is the Supreme Court.
	And the issue is what's going to happen if the Liberals lose control of it.
	That will override everything.
	The Supreme Court has become the final arbiter in our society, and that is where, and the Supreme Court, by the way, has gone way beyond its original intentions and is now deciding social and cultural issues.
	Issues on the liberal side of things, which cannot win at the ballot box.
	So as I I keep saying, uh it's all about institutionalizing liberalism because liberals know they can't win with it in the arena of ideas.
	But you get the courts to proclaim liberalism as the law of the land.
	What are we going to do about it?
	And so here comes Judge Roberts, and the uh the uh original uh first glance says, uh oh, this guy is a problem.
	He is a Reaganite.
	Uh oh, we got problems with this guy.
	And they know Bush probably get two more nominations before his term is up.
	And if he gets uh if he gets three and he puts the right three on the court and they all get confirmed, Libs can say goodbye to um institutionalizing liberalism.
	That's what concerns them, and it doesn't matter what they have to do to try to destroy Judge Roberts' adoption records of his kids, Adita Hill and Clarence Thomas, Ted Kennedy and Robert Borg.
	It doesn't matter.
	They'll do whatever they will destroy somebody's life, reputation, doesn't matter because the courts are the only things that really matter to quick time out.
	Back with more on Open Line Friday in a moment.
	Making more sense than anything anybody else has to say out there.
	Rush Limbaugh here, the EIB network.
	Loving to hear myself say it.
	As is DJ of Westerville, Ohio.
	Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
	Hello.
	Mr. Limbaugh, it is a great honor.
	Thank you, sir.
	Mega male manditoes for here for Westerville.
	Uh I'll I was wanting to get your um opinion and give you mine, I guess, on the uh getting club getmo guys getting released back to Afghanistan and you tell me what you think of this first.
	Well, I think that they probably aren't real happy right now, and they're probably wishing somebody did just flush their Koran.
	And uh because they're probably gonna be shot when they get over there, you know, because their system's a lot uh strict or you th what do you think of our strategy in doing it though?
	I think it I think it uh I think the liberals really don't have an argument anymore saying, well, we're getting rid of them like you asked us to.
	We're sending them back to their country, and now you know, now what can you say?
	We're doing what we're you know, we're getting rid of them.
	Well, yeah, uh it's a it's it's distressing to me.
	I I I have to admit this, folks.
	We have invested uh hundreds of thousands of dollars in the Club Gitmo logo, the Club Gitmo uh uh uh clothing line, all the the Club Gitmo gift shop, and now and now they're just gonna close it down.
	They're they're just gonna close it down, they're gonna transfer 70% of the people there to some hellhole in Afghanistan.
	You know, and uh I I just I just know this.
	I know that it won't be long before they start shouting abuse, abuse, abuse, and Dick Durbin will go back to the Senate floor talking about what the hell's happening to these poor people in this prison in Afghanistan because it's standard operating procedure.
	But I just want you people to know, despite this, Club Gitmo will always be open in our hearts and minds, and it will always stand for something more than just a physical place.
	And so uh Club Gitmo not going out of business in any way, shape, manner, or form.
	In fact, this is even gonna make it bigger because it's gonna be even tougher to get into Club Gitmo now.
	Uh so yeah, but I I I I don't know if it's a capitulation, uh, Joe, to the uh criticism, or if there's some other reason uh that they want to get them out of there and take them back to uh uh to Afghanistan.
	I uh I'm gonna find out though.
	I I I want to find out if it's because of the meddling of the judiciary.
	I want to find out if it's the meddling of the federal judiciary trying to take over the uh the role of commander in chief here in determining how these people can be uh tried, interrogated, uh uh whether they have to meet you.
	It's gonna be very tough to grant these people access to the U.S. Constitution when they're in a hellhole prison in Afghanistan.
	But when they're on U.S. quote unquote territory down in Cuba, uh it it might provide uh more fodder and more opportunity for civil interest, civil rights leftist groups to claim that these terrorists uh have civil rights according to the U.S. Constitution.
	Uh I'm gonna find out about that.
	But regardless, regardless, folks, Club Gitmo is a state of mind.
	And wherever Club Gitmo is, it will always be uh Club Gitmo.
	Uh Joe, here is uh your next cell call from Ramsey, New Jersey.
	Hello.
	How are you doing, Rush?
	Uh I own five gas stations.
	I wanted to make a comment on the stabilization of gas prices.
	Everybody thinks that we don't have enough refineries.
	All right.
	Can you hear me?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	All right.
	And uh a lot of it is to do with like Exxon, I own Exxon stations.
	And they make 40 different types of fuel across the country.
	Yep.
	All right.
	If they if they this is where interstate commerce and everything came.
	They could stabilize prices tomorrow if they made one type of fuel.
	Yep.
	All right, because a couple of years ago, I don't know if you remember when it first when California first hit three dollars a gallon because of a refinery explosion.
	Yep.
	They couldn't get gas from Oregon and Nevada.
	They had to truck it in from Arizona because of the standards of gasoline that's right, and there was a pipeline problem in Arizona.
	I remember this now.
	That's right.
	And they had to bring it in from three states away because of the EPA regulations on the fuel.
	Yeah.
	All right, like in Pennsylvania, if Pennsylvania has a problem, they can't get gas from New Jersey.
	Same thing in Illinois.
	Illinois's got all kinds of restrictions.
	Chicago had a gas shortage some some years ago because a pipeline broke down somewhere.
	Yeah, each state is completely independent of itself when it comes to EPA standards.
	There's no federal standard for for gasoline.
	All right.
	Look, you know, I'm I'm glad you called Joe.
	I I won't, folks, I have to admit, I I was I was a bit too flippant with Elizabeth from uh Farmington, New Mexico on the gas price.
	Because I I I there are some some things that can be done here.
	And he's he's nailed one of them right here.
	These outrageous number of formulas that have to be blended to match EPA rules based on these environmentalist wackos.
	But when you also look at the amount of taxes in a gallon of gas, there's any number of ways.
	If Washington really cares that you're paying too much for gas, they can lower the price of gas without importing any more oil or doing all they got to do is relax some of these restrictions or lower some taxes.
	Back here in just a second.
	I learned something after the program yesterday said by Amon Al-Zawahiri, this coward thug that doesn't have the guts to face his own people, but gets propagandized all over the world thanks to American media and Al Jazeah, or whatever the Jazeera.
	He said something yesterday, it's right out of the Democratic talking points, folks.

▲