Rush Limbaugh Program - November 18, 2005, Friday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 18, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:28

November 18, 2005, Friday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	That is absolutely right, Johnny Donovana as Walter Williams filling in for Rush.
	This hour, folks, we have a great treat.
	We have Tony Blankly on with us, and he is the editorial page editor of the Washington Times, and he's going to talk to us about his new book, and it's called The West's Last Chance, Will We Win, subtitled, Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations.
	Welcome to the show, Tony.
	Thank you very much.
	Delighted to be on.
	You've written a dynamite book.
	And I think it's something that needs to be said.
	But let me just start out with something and a question.
	Now, President Bush assures us that Islam is a peaceful religion.
	Is that right?
	Well, I don't get into that question.
	As I say in the book, this is a secular book by a guy who's been in politics, secular politics.
	I'm concerned with our national security.
	And what I want to figure out is what are people, large groups of people, thinking and doing.
	Now, it happens to be the case that a growing percentage of Muslims believe that their religion tells them to do things which are inimicable to our security.
	Whether they interpret correctly or incorrectly their sacred books, I'll leave to the scholars.
	It's beyond, you know, the truth is that there's not a religion around in which people have a dispute as to what its true meaning is, and they all believe they're correct in their interpretation.
	But it's a non-secretary.
	Whether the religion in the abstract is a religion of peace or not, what matters in this world is what people do, what people think, and if people are killing on behalf of their understanding of their religion, that is a political fact we have to deal with.
	Yes.
	And how should we deal with it?
	I mean, you give, in your last chapter, you give some proposals how to deal with it.
	We have to strengthen our alliance with Europe.
	These are only first starts.
	Look, I think everybody who's looked seriously at this danger recognizes this is a decades, if not generations, long struggle.
	Probably something at least as long in time and as challenging as the Cold War, half a century.
	I wouldn't purport to be able to say, how are we going to solve and win the problem?
	All I can start off with is a few first steps.
	And my last chapter, I try to lay out a few first steps.
	Okay, why don't you tell us some of this?
	The first step is I believe we need to have a congressional declaration of war against radical Islam.
	I believe that, one, because I'm a constitutionalist and I believe in following the law.
	But as well, both I think we need a congressional declaration of war in order to give war powers to the president.
	This one, the next one, the one after him.
	Now, by the way, I do argue that because this is going to go on so long and because there is a risk of infringement of civil liberties, as always is in wartime, and I have a chapter on how we fought World War II, not because I think that operationally the wars are the same.
	Obviously, that was a vastly different one, millions of men under arms.
	This is more a struggle of information and episodically physical fighting.
	But because the danger of infringement of liberties is so great, I think they should be sunset every two years so that each new Congress would have to revote the war powers, assuming the public just was satisfied that the president had not abused his wartime powers.
	Now, you can argue with that, but my basic point is My basic point is that this is one of the problems I I do a few few pages on this.
	People say, well, Tony, you know, we declared war on Germany and Japan or Italy, but there's no one to declare war on.
	And I agree that there is no nation-state to declare war on in the way that it was in World War II or World War I.
	But the problem is that we have never faced a danger as great as this from anything other than a nation-state.
	Until now, for it to be a real national security threat, you had to have danger from a fairly substantial country, a Germany, a Japan.
	Today, because of by a coincidence of history, that for the first time in human history, a handful of people can get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, we are in fact in a situation as dangerous as war, but not exactly like it in the traditional sense of the word.
	And therefore, our history of the law and our Constitution doesn't provide specifically for how to deal with it.
	But we need to have those powers to protect ourselves.
	And as Supreme Court Justice Jackson once observed, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
	I believe we have to let the law be a little creative and declare war on Islamist Jihad.
	Now, the other part of that is we need to name the name of the enemy.
	And President Bush, and I understand why, said, well, it's a war on terror, which is a concept, a tactic, a technology, perhaps.
	It is not an entity you can declare war on in any practical sense.
	And he didn't want to name it, not only out of political correctness, but out of some concern that it was reasonable in 2001, that we didn't want to induce more people in the Muslim world.
	A fifth of mankind are Muslims, over a billion human souls.
	Not all of them are radical.
	Most of them probably still are not.
	And he doesn't want to, and there's a reason why we need to shrink the number of radicals in that group, not expand them.
	Well, such a vision reduces some of the effectiveness of the policy, I would guess.
	Yeah, well, but so originally they didn't want to use the word Islam in any way to say that that's the enemy, even if it's a limited part of it, because they were afraid that everybody would think it was against all of Islam, which it's not.
	However, now after two invasions and occupations of two Muslim countries, I think we've probably offended about everybody we're capable of offending.
	And now there's a real advantage, there's two advantages in naming the enemy as radical Islamists.
	One is that we narrow the focus of who our enemy is, and over time, the world will become aware that we're focused on a narrow segment.
	I hope it will be a relatively narrow segment.
	That is the radical Islamists, not the rest.
	And the other advantage is that the president, any president, has got to be able to explain his war-fighting policies to his people.
	And it's not a question of eloquence.
	He doesn't have to be a Churchill or a Roosevelt.
	But he has to be able to speak straightforwardly so we can understand what this is about and have those regular conversations that wartime presidents have with their people and explain it's working here, it's not working here, the reason we're going here is for this.
	He can't do that when he can't even name the name of the enemy.
	And it's been one of President Bush's communication problems, if you will, in these last four years.
	So my first proposal is that we declare constitutional war on radical Islamist jihad.
	A number of elements flow from that.
	I believe that ethnic profiling is fully justified looking at the Supreme Court opinions during World War II that were used for interning enemy aliens.
	I'm not calling for that now.
	But the logic of the Supreme Court during World War II when they upheld the right to put Italian and German nationals and Japanese nationals and even Japanese American citizens into internment camps was precisely that in time of war, we are allowed to assume that there's an increased chance of disloyalty from people who are ethnically connected to the enemy.
	And therefore, with that small increased risk, during World War II, the Supreme Court said you could actually lock people up.
	They couldn't have any access to our court system.
	And it would be in for the duration.
	And I think, Tony, that makes a very, very important point.
	You mentioned this ethnic profiling, and where you have a secretary, Norman Minetta, saying that, well, gee, we can't do that.
	That is, as you said in your book, a white woman is viewed as just as subject to inspection as a Muslim person or as Islamists.
	Yeah, I mean, right now we have, and it's a national joke, and even liberals will giggle with you off the air on the idea that it's rational to search 23-year-old Arab males, foreigners, at the airport at the same rate as you search two-year-old toddlers or 85-year-old grandmothers.
	It's obviously ludicrous, and we should, and the law does not expect us to be ludicrous.
	So this is not a cure-all.
	Some people are going to fall through any crack, and it's not just at airports.
	It's going to be in sensitive jobs, people looking for work at docks and chemical plants and nuclear plants, any sensitive positions.
	We have a right to scrutinize more closely.
	I was born in England, became an American citizen many decades ago.
	If we unlikely got into a war with Britain, I would expect, as a loyal American citizen, that I would be slightly more suspect of having loyalties to my motherland.
	And it would not disappoint me, and I would, in fact, be disappointed if they didn't check me out more closely.
	Being a loyal American, it wouldn't bother me at all.
	So the second step is ethnic profiling.
	Third, I think we need to secure the borders.
	And it's doable, by the way.
	The idea that it's not doable, I don't believe even inside Homeland Security.
	And in fact, I know they've done a study of what it would take to secure the Mexican border.
	That's right, and it would take, this is not yet their policy, but they've done a study.
	It would take between 20 and 50,000 more security border guards plus technology sensors.
	And while those are big numbers compared to the number of border security we currently have, they're relatively small numbers compared to the amount of money we spend as a country, the number of people we have working for the federal government overall, the amount of money we're going to spend on rebuilding New Orleans.
	It's a relatively, it's a very doable number.
	That's right.
	I have to go make some money.
	And we'll come back, and I want to ask you the question about your proposal for a national identification card.
	Folks, we'll be back after this.
	You're listening to Rush Limbaugh, Only Excellence in Podcasting Network.
	Folks, we're on with Tony Blankly talking about his new book, fabulous new book, The West's Last Chance.
	And Tony Blankley, he is the editorial page editor for the Washington Times.
	And for seven years, he also served as press secretary for Newt Gingrich when he was in the House of Representatives, when he was the Speaker in the House of Representatives.
	Tony.
	Getting back, one of your recommendations is to adopt a national identification card.
	Do you think that is a danger?
	I do, absolutely.
	A biometric national ID card.
	For me personally, as a conservative, it's the most controversial proposal I make.
	I came to Washington in 1981 with Reagan.
	I was part of the Southern California libertarian wing of the Reagan Revolution.
	I was a prosecutor for eight years in Los Angeles before that.
	And believe me, I understand the ability of the federal government or the state government or the local government to abuse law enforcement power.
	I experience that capacity, although I didn't do it when I was a prosecutor.
	So I hate the idea of a national ID card.
	But one of my points in this book is that I put my preconceptions, all my philosophies and ideologies to the side and try to look a fresh objective look at the facts and what we need to do.
	And what I determined, and others can make different balances of interest, and these are all questions that citizens have to make.
	They should be thinking about them and making them rationally and thoughtfully and with all the information.
	And whatever the American public decides, it's fine with me.
	But for me, I decided that we cannot really either secure our borders or provide the kind of anti-terrorism law enforcement work that we're going to need desperately to protect ourselves from calamitous attack.
	And we can at some point get into a little bit the likelihood of a really calamitous attack on us.
	Without a biometric, that is virtually impossible to cheat on.
	Well, let me ask you your idea on this.
	That is, rather than take those risks in terms of American citizens' chances of infringement of liberties that would come through an ID card, what about very, very heavy sanctions against people in here illegally?
	I'm talking about taking people who are found here illegally and putting them out on some U.S. territory, an island, and keeping them there for life as a punishment.
	I will go along with any sanction you want, including criminal sanction for any employer who knowingly hires an illegal or should have known, given normal business practices.
	But wouldn't that be preferable?
	Or don't you think it would work?
	I don't think it's preferable because it's not, while it's certainly the case, and we have testimony now from Admiral Loy at Homeland Security, that he believes, based on the intelligence he's seen, that al-Qaeda and others intend to penetrate our southern border through illegal entry.
	So certainly we absolutely positively have to secure the border.
	But it's also the case, as the British found out, all six of the terrorists who hit Britain, London, this July, were homeborn.
	They were British citizens.
	They lived there.
	They were born in Britain.
	And they were terrorists.
	And I just believe that it struggle is largely a struggle of information withheld and sought, as they say, and the clandestine movement of dangerous weapons.
	And in that regard, and keep in mind also, by the way, that 40% of the people who get into the country illegally come in legally via tourist visas, work visas, other means, and then they stay illegally and melt into the population.
	So even after we've secured the border, we're not stopping illegals from getting into the country.
	I just think that this is one more tool that we need to have in our government.
	And it worries me because as a libertarian, I fear big government.
	As a conservative, obviously I want as small a government as possible.
	I'm just at this point in our history right now, my personal judgment is that the danger to us is greater from the terrorists than it is from our government, although we always have to keep this closest possible scrutiny on our government.
	But as I say, I'm open to other alternatives.
	All I'm saying is that my judgment is that the danger is so great that this intrusion at this point is, I think, more benefit than Burton.
	Now, I'll have to take that under advice.
	I know you will.
	But you highlight some scenarios of some possible dangers.
	Could you point them out to us?
	Well, yeah, yeah.
	I opened my book with a nightmare scenario, and it was a situation where radical Muslims in London started demonstrating and complaining about representational art that they found offensive because under Islamic traditions of art, you don't have the human image, you don't have statues.
	And so they said they were starting to demand that they be taken down in London.
	Eventually, in my scenario, that leads to demonstrations and then terrorism in Europe, and then the European governments capitulate and start pulling down their artwork.
	The other part of it is an American president, Republican candidate behind by a few points, running against a Northeastern Liberal woman candidate in the Democratic Party who has taken a very hard stand on Islam, on radical Islamists, decides, because of the critical Muslim vote in a number of states, decides to take a chance and calls for Sharia law to be available to them.
	And that flips the election and changes things.
	But that could happen in Europe, couldn't it, before it happens here?
	Well, I mean, it's arguably the case.
	Not Sharia law so far, although there was an effort to do it in Canada.
	It got knocked down in Ontario a few months ago, but it was being pushed for.
	And in fact, one of the things that multiculturalists argue to some extent is that since each culture is valid unto itself and there's no virtue in a common culture, that there's no reason why you shouldn't permit people to have their own law as well.
	So yeah, I think it's altogether possible that it could happen.
	I should point out that I wrote all that before July 6th, 7th, when there was a Muslim attack, a terrorist attack in London.
	And then a couple months later, the Tate Gallery, which is one of the great museums of the world based in London, withdrew an artwork because it was judged to be offensive to Muslim sensibility.
	And I understand that some banks had to stop some advertisements of using a pig.
	Oh, yes.
	And one of the reasons I thought that it was likely that that would come up is not only the theoretical tradition of Islamic art, and of course they're entitled to have any art they want in their own sovereign lands, but I also was...
	Hey, Tony, can you hold that thought?
	We have to go make some money.
	Can you stay off the break?
	Because a couple people want to ask you some questions.
	Folks, we're on with Tony Blankley.
	He is the editorial page of the Washington Times, and he's just written a book, an excellent book, The West's Last Chance.
	Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?
	This is vital because I think that we are facing one of the biggest threats since World War II.
	We'll be back.
	We're back, and we're on with Tony Blankley.
	He's just written a book, The West's Last Chance, and you can be on with him, too, by calling 800-282-2882.
	Tony, can you take a few calls?
	Yeah, let me just finish one quick thought and then take them.
	One of the other things I wrote was that we should anticipate urban violence in a number of European cities, starting with Paris.
	So for whatever it's worth, I don't think it takes clairvoyance to take a good look at what's going on in Europe and anticipate more and more problems.
	How do you assess that?
	The current problem in France?
	I think it is a combination.
	I don't discount that poverty is a wonderful medium in which ideologies and all sorts of bad ideas can be developed.
	But I don't for a minute believe that it is simply looking at it merely through the prism of economics, as Westerners tend to do, explains it.
	Because in fact, there are large parts of the world, and particularly radicalized Muslims, who see the world not just particularly through economics, but also through their culture and their religion, and those are other motivations.
	And in fact, there's already some evidence that the man at the bum factory that was found in Paris was a member of Tagreb, which is a radical Islamic group that argues against integrating into the European culture.
	And there's an important difference between the Muslims who have come to the United States versus Europe, and that is they are far more assimilated in the United States.
	Absolutely.
	Because we are a land of immigrants, we're more receptive to any kind of an immigrant.
	It's harder to be persuasive when you've got the idiotic ideology of radical Islam here in America, and it's easier to make the case in Europe, and there's no doubt about that.
	But the fact is the case has and is being made in Europe, and that's the increasing danger.
	And then also in France, the French people are somewhat intolerant of other cultures and other languages.
	Well, yeah, I mean, they're intolerant of all of us.
	I love the French, and I spent many happy weeks and months there over the years, but they're difficult people to get along with.
	That's right.
	Bob, you're on with Tony Blankly.
	Thank you very much for the call.
	I appreciate it.
	Mr. Blank, I read excerpts of your book from the Washington Times, and I truly believe the threat is just as real as you present it.
	One thing that's going on today, how do we overcome this political and media opposition to recognizing this threat?
	All you have to do is start picking up newspapers, read editorials, and look at what's going on in the Senate today.
	I know.
	I don't know if you have any master plan for it other than to speak out.
	I think the best cure for political correctness is to breach it.
	Because, in fact, a good percentage of people who follow political correctness don't follow it other than out of fear.
	And if people start standing up and speaking the truth, to a certain extent, the emperor's new clothes, the fairy tale, was a story about political correctness.
	And all it took was one little boy to stand up and say the emperor had no clothes.
	Well, of course he doesn't.
	But until someone stood up, everybody was afraid to talk.
	So the more people, both in our own private lives and in our public lives, who speak up honestly about it and tell their congressmen and senators, by the way, and their city councilmen, you know, they're not going to put up with us and let their media outlets know that they're angry with the political coverage, the sooner this will pass as a scourge on our country.
	And so many Americans are intimidated.
	They feel that you can end careers.
	In a lot of corporate America, you've got to be very careful what you say, or that's the end of your career.
	And even in private life, you say something, people will scrunch their nose.
	You don't want to have people scrunch their nose at you.
	But this is a time for courage, I think, not a time for timidity.
	Yeah, right.
	I know if I had to worry about people scrunching their nose, I. Barry, welcome to the show.
	You're on with Tony Blankly.
	Oh, yes, sir.
	I just wanted to say, do the Democrats really think if we pull our troops out right now, that the Iraqi government that we've got established will be able to continue on and go forward as they are right now, if we pull our troops out right now.
	What do they really think is going to happen?
	Well, I don't want to I've never been a spokesman for the Democrats.
	I have for the Republicans in my past life.
	But let me take a guess.
	I think the vast majority of them consider winning the next election and embarrassing George Bush to be about the alpha and omega of their political thinking.
	And for whatever reason, they have either reduced the danger or refusing to think about the danger of their policy being carried out.
	And it is an impending tragedy should it be successful.
	And Tony, I'm almost 70 years.
	I'll be 70 years next year.
	That's no age.
	My dad's 94.
	My mom's 91.
	And I think back to World War II and when we were in a fight for our life.
	And I just cannot imagine any opposition party doing what the Democrats are doing now.
	And they're kind of, I guess, mean-spirited.
	And I guess I can't find a word for it.
	The way they're treating the president and treating the war on terror.
	That is, if I were an Iraqi terrorist, I'd be very happy for what the Democrats are doing.
	And people are calling for.
	And John Muther is a star feature on Al Jazeera today, and I looked it up on the internet, al Jazeera.net.
	And he is being given prominent coverage for his statement.
	Now, he's entitled to dissent and say anything he wants, whether it's a free country, and I don't deny anybody the right to dissent and call for different policy.
	But on the other hand, I think we have a right to criticize them not for their ill intentions, but for the ill judgment in calling for this.
	There's no doubt this does help the opposition.
	One of the prices, of course, of living in a free country is that we're an unruly lot.
	And so, you know, I'm shocked by the way the Democrats are behaving.
	But all I know to do in a free country is to try to persuade as many people as possible to the rightness of our side of thinking.
	And if enough people think that way, I mean, they've only started moving because the polls have moved.
	I mean, all these people who voted for the war, probably insincerely then out of fear for their own careers, and now they're switching as soon as the polls slip 10 points.
	And if polls move back the other way, they'll suddenly find the Bush is right after all.
	I mean, we know what type of mentality this is.
	But, you know, future generations of America, if any of these scenarios pan out, you know, in the future, 25, 30 years from now that you're suggesting your book, I guess that future Americans are going to curse this present generation, present generation who are worrying about how we're treating cutthroats and Guetmo and Abu Ghareb.
	And you know, there were no more popular politicians in Britain than Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain right up until 1939.
	Winston Churchill was despised as a warmonger, and they were the most popular politicians because they were putting more money into municipal housing funding rather than into aircraft production.
	And then when the Nazis marched into Poland, overnight, the politicians who had been the heroes of the British people for 10 years suddenly became the villains, and they were vilified and remain vilified in history.
	So, yes, of course, you can win temporary popularity by ignoring dangers and offering people bread and circuses.
	But at some point, when the danger becomes manifest, when people are actually afraid again, as we were briefly after September 11th, the politicians who were on the wrong side of the advice will pay a price.
	Tony, I'm going to ask you to hold on just one more time.
	And we have a bunch of people that I want to talk to you.
	We'll be back with more of your calls after this.
	We're back.
	I'm on with Tony Blankley.
	Now, Tony, I have a question.
	Yes.
	And that is, I have a classroom policy, and I'm wondering how adaptive you might think it is to foreign policy.
	And that is at the first day of class, I tell the students, I say, look, I'm getting old, and I lose my train of thought easily.
	And if a cell phone goes off in class, that's it.
	It's just awful.
	And so I tell them that what happens to the student whose cell phone goes off, I deduct 10% of his total points for the semester, and I deduct 10% of the total points of the student sitting on either side of him.
	Well, you're teaching them economics, right?
	Yes, I am.
	Now, so that creates the right set of incentives.
	That is, a student comes next to the student and asks, do you have a cell phone?
	Okay, now.
	So here's the foreign policy aspect of it.
	And I say, well, look, let's say if a terrorist attacks our interests, let's say comes into Iraq, and we tell the people, look, if we find that the terrorists came from your country, we're going to bomb your country.
	Well, all I could say, I mean, if the country was complicit, knowledgeable in that, I would agree.
	On the other hand, if we get a terrorist who comes from, you know, Des Moines, I don't want to bomb Des Moines because he's stuck into Des Moines.
	New Jersey would be different.
	I was picking my spot, but I think nobody has anything against Des Moines.
	I was going to say Malibu, but well, there'd be some people who would say let's bomb.
	So I think one's got to recognize that at a time when the terrorists, by the all the terrorists in London were homegrown.
	It's not as neat as that.
	If we can find a territorial entity that's responsible, I'm completely in favor of that.
	But I wouldn't want to bomb London because somebody took off from London Airport.
	Of course not.
	Okay, we have some people with more serious questions.
	Mike on the cell phone from Detroit, Michigan.
	Welcome to the show.
	You're on with Tony Blanky.
	Thank you very much, gentlemen.
	I would take issue with Mr. Blankly's assertion that Muslims assimilate better in the United States living in Detroit with a large Muslim population located right about me.
	I can tell you from life experience that they don't move into other neighborhoods next to blacks or French American, Irish American.
	They stay in their own neighborhood and they move it block by block by block with their large birth rate.
	And they feel that they have the moral high ground because they look at us as an agnostic, decadent, godless society, which is why I feel in Europe, which is even more so that way, we are still a Christian nation for the most part.
	And in Europe, it's like fertile because they become basically agnostic.
	Let me say, I take your point.
	And in my book, I repeatedly say that the dangers we're seeing in Europe today can very easily be here tomorrow.
	It was not an absolute statement at all that we are immune.
	Quite the contrary.
	I believe, and I write in my book, that we have to be just as serious about the danger here as the Europeans need to be.
	I just think that at this point, from what everyone can tell, and it's only anecdotes, I haven't seen too many good, reliable quantitative analyses, it hasn't set in as badly here.
	But the danger is the same, and the instinct is the same, and we need to be completely on our guard.
	And I think that may very well require monitoring of mosques and centers because if it gets as bad as it is in Europe, and 10 years ago, it wasn't as bad.
	10 years ago, Europe thought they didn't have a problem in this regard.
	So I don't disagree with the caller.
	I think it's a matter of degree and time, but 10 years is a very short period of time.
	And thank you, Mike.
	Mike, we have another one.
	I'm not quite sure whether I'm going to...
	Tom Moss from Grand Rapids, Michigan.
	Welcome to the show, Thomas.
	You're on with Tony.
	All right.
	Thank you very much.
	I kind of agree with Mora.
	I'm a former Marine also.
	I see a thing that he sees.
	We have Syria and Iran that are sending in supplies and terrorists to kill our troops, and we do nothing, just like in Vietnam with Laos and Cambodia.
	They're sanctuaries, but at least in Vietnam we bombed them.
	We don't do anything now.
	I agree.
	At the Washington Times, I've already regularly editorialized against Syria and Iran and urged the President to take action because one of the advantages we have there rather than in Vietnam was it's easier to hit those targets.
	You don't have the jungle cover and all the rest.
	So I completely agree.
	I cannot understand why the President has permitted all of these terrorists to be coming into Iraq through Syria.
	I'm running an article next week by a Marine Sergeant in the field.
	His name will go without being mentioned, who's describing what's actually going on on the ground.
	And he's talking about the number of terrorists who are coming in from Syria that they're having to kill when they get here, when they get to Iraq.
	So the caller is exactly right.
	Thank you very much.
	We have to take a break.
	Tony, can you just hang on one more section?
	Because I've got a couple more calls.
	And what do you think of this?
	Think about this.
	I was thinking that maybe we should adopt a policy that when we catch a terrorist, let's say he blows himself up, that we bury him with a pig.
	Well, I've heard that.
	If that would be useful, I'm in favor of it.
	I believe we're in a battle to the death with radical Islam.
	And we should be as ruthless as we have to be to win.
	That's right.
	Thank you.
	We'll be back after this.
	Folks, we're back, and we've been on with Tony Blankly.
	He's the editorial page editor of the Washington Times, and he's been talking to us, giving us a lot of insights about his new book, The West's Last Chance.
	Tony, where can people get your book?
	Well, Amazon.com, any big bookstore, other sites that sell online, wherever good books are sold, as they say.
	And bad books, too, I think, in the same place as that.
	Spoken like a Britisher.
	Now, in the last paragraph of your last chapter, you say that today, in the first four years of our war against Islam terrorism, when time could have purchased a far cheaper price, we have squandered it.
	Can you just explain that just a little bit?
	Yes, I think we're suffering from complacency rather than urgency.
	One example I'll use.
	The biggest new program in Homeland Security since September 11th was Project BioShield to develop vaccines to protect us from biological attack.
	It took the White House a year and a half to come up with the legislation.
	It took the Congress another year and a half to pass it.
	Three years just to pass the enabling legislation, which gets us nothing other than the beginning of the project.
	Compare that to the sense of urgency we had in World War II.
	In June of 1942, Roosevelt assigned Leslie Groves the job of seeing if Einstein's theories have any relevance to warfighting.
	And in three years, they spent the equivalent of $23 billion, hired 130,000 workers and scientists, built cities in the desert, conceived, developed, perfected, tested, and delivered to the Army Air Corps two atomic bombs that ended World War II.
	Three years now, just didddling around trying to pass legislation, three years in World War II from beginning to end of war.
	That's the mentality.
	Right now, we have terrible shortages of Arab translators.
	We're doing nothing about it.
	You can go through the book.
	We're only inspecting 2% to 5% of the cargo containers coming into the country.
	Everywhere you look, we're just sitting around being complacent.
	And we're going to pay a terrible price for that wasted time.
	And then on top of it, a whole lot of the Homeland Security budget is being politically allocated as opposed to any kind of efficiency.
	That's a whole other question.
	I agree with you.
	I think they've improved it a little bit in the last legislative go-round.
	But yes, we're not taking this seriously.
	We don't recognize, we will recognize when the bodies are being piled up, then we'll recognize, we'll wish we had spent our time so much more productively than we have.
	And it's not just the President, it's Congress, it's the media, and to a large extent, it's the general public that is not screaming and hollering for more action.
	That is right.
	You've done a world of service with your book, and I thank you for coming on to explain to our.
	Thank you very much.
	And thank you.
	Thank you very much.
	Ladies and gentlemen, that was Tony Blankley, and I think he has a very, very important message in his book about just the survival of America.
	And if we don't pay attention to these clues, these warnings that we're getting, I guarantee you that future generations of Americans will curse us.
	That's been a fast three hours.
	Get out there and do.
	And gentlemen, men of the audience, look around the house.

▲