Rush Limbaugh Program - May 27, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 27, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:31

May 27, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Okay, here we are.
	Greetings, music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
	It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Looking forward to chatting with you today, middle of the week, Wednesday, 800-282-2882.
	Is the telephone number if you'd like to be on the program today, the email address lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
	The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as 10 years, despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012.
	This, according to General George W. Casey Jr., the Army Chief of Staff, said the world remains dangerous.
	The Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars.
	Global trends are pushing in the wrong direction, Casey said.
	They fundamentally will change how the Army works.
	Casey said his comments were not meant to conflict with administration policies.
	What administration policy?
	They all have expiration dates.
	And we remembered the story from yesterday that everybody that supports Obama expects him to lie.
	And they enjoy him lying when he fools conservatives here.
	So Obama says, trust me, I'm lying.
	That's what libs hang on to, regardless who he's lying to.
	So we don't now know how long we're going to be in Iraq.
	The boots on the ground guy says 10 more years.
	Obama says 2012.
	We'll see.
	The U.S. government, that means President Barack Obama expected to own 70% of a restructured General Motors.
	Unions, 20%.
	The bondholders, I had more invested than the union, but they are S-O-L left out in the cold.
	The prospect of a GM effectively owned by the government raises a number of thorny questions.
	Countless policy decisions on matters like fuel economy standards, tax incentives will present conflicting interest.
	Usually, the conflicting interest was profit and sustainability.
	Not now.
	Those are not profit and sustainability.
	Obviously, the government doesn't care about that because they can just print money.
	And by the way, the CHICOMs are upset that we're printing money.
	The ChiComs got the Dallas Federal Reserve chairman or leader, bank president, whatever, went over to the Far East, had a trip, and the ChiCom said, how are you going to monetize all these new policies you guys are implementing?
	If you're going to do it by printing money, we've got big problems with this.
	There is no other.
	Oh, take it back.
	The VAT tax.
	Are you aware, ladies and gentlemen, that there will be a value-added tax?
	They're troding this.
	It's a trial balloon, but they're going to need money any which way they can get it.
	They're going to tax health care benefits.
	They're going to do this.
	Robert B. Rice, Shaw, came out yesterday and said, this is the one thing that Obama was wrong about in the campaign to criticize McCain for, for taxing, suggesting we tax health care benefits.
	We're going to have to do it.
	There's something like $285 billion to be had every year by taxing health care benefits.
	And now a value-added tax.
	This is a tax at every level of exchange, from the producer to the wholesaler, to the distributor, to the retailer, to the consumer.
	And from the producer to the consumer, the VAT tax gets added at every time something's bought or sold.
	The VAT tax is added, every transaction.
	And guess what?
	The consumer ends up paying all of that, or as much as the retailer can pass on, because the retailer is the, in some cases, the wholesaler, but the consumer ends up paying for it.
	And they are looking at a humongous amount of money here.
	Now, they have the VAT tax in Europe.
	What?
	What do you mean, how did it happen?
	How did what happen?
	The idea of a VAT tax?
	Think of the VAT tax as national sales tax added on to the sales tax that you already pay in your state.
	What do you mean?
	How did it happen?
	What do you mean, how did it happen?
	Yeah, we're just hearing it.
	They're floating it as a trial balloon.
	It's a story out there.
	It's in a Washington Post.
	They're floating it as a trial balloon, and they're going to see if anybody cares or objects to it and who objects to it.
	Look, folks, do you realize we're committed to spending $11 trillion over the next 10 years?
	We don't have.
	We are committed to spending.
	In fact, the IRS reported that April tax revenues, generally April is a huge month for tax revenues, income tax revenue, because a lot of people wait to pay until the last moment, April the 15th.
	April tax revenues were down.
	I don't have the story right.
	34%, but what's the number?
	It's $138 billion less this April than last because of all the people unemployed.
	You know, that statistic right there illustrates how cutting taxes works.
	Supply side, whatever you want to call it.
	We've got people out of work who are not paying taxes.
	You add that to all that Obama has spent.
	We're going to have a budget deficit this year of over $2 trillion.
	They are searching everywhere they can for money.
	Now, the big problem with the national sales tax is, of course, that it is regressive.
	And that is, it hits the poor and women and minorities the hardest.
	So, I mean, can you imagine a national sales tax at McDonald's, a national sales tax at any low-cost retail enterprise?
	And, of course, what's going to happen then is that representatives of poor women minorities will scream bloody murder, and there will be a tax credit for these people, or maybe coupons for free Big Macs.
	I don't know what they'll do with the Obama administration, but they'll ameliorate it somehow because he's going to try to soak as much of the wealthy as often as he can.
	They're going to need the money, Snerdley.
	They're going to need the money.
	They cannot cut taxes now.
	It's too late.
	Well, never too late to do that, but the unemployment the way it is with no sign that's going to let up anytime soon, and they're even telling us that.
	So you've got a value-added tax.
	The government's going to own 70% of General Motors.
	Members of Congress have been calling Steve Ratner and Ron Bloom, who are running the auto task force for Obama.
	They are starting to complain about the closing of Chrysler and General Motors dealerships in their states because this is going to lead to more unemployment.
	Nobody can figure out exactly why certain dealerships are being targeted to be closed.
	There are some people looking into it, but the evidence is sketchy.
	All we know is that a whole lot of really successful dealerships are being shut down.
	Some of them happen to be owned by people who contributed lots of money to Republicans.
	But we don't have a large enough list.
	I mean, there are thousands of dealerships that have been closed, and we don't have a baseline to start from here, and we don't have the names of all the dealerships that have been closed.
	So it's a mess.
	But members of Congress starting to get concerned about it because, ladies and gentlemen, it's going to affect their districts.
	As factories close or move, those calls most likely will grow more intense, the calls for closing a dealership, in part because members of Congress will have a hard time explaining to constituents how the government could own 70% of a company and still have no control over deciding which factories stay open and which are closed.
	That's BS.
	It is Obama that's choosing.
	Chrysler didn't choose which dealerships to close.
	Obama's doing it.
	The Carzar, Steve Ratner, Ron Bloom, they're the ones deciding which dealerships get closed.
	And that's why it's interesting to note how they're doing it.
	Constituents are going to ask how the government could own 70% of the company and have no control over deciding which factory stay open.
	They are in total control over which factories stay open.
	Without government assistance, General Motors would surely fail with devastating consequences, including massive plant closures and a probable liquidation of the company, the UAW told its members.
	Bondholders who hold $27 billion in General Motors debt were unhappy with the plan because it gave them a much smaller stake than the UAW Trust, which owes GMOs $20 billion.
	So the unions are going to get 20% of General Motors.
	The bondholders are going to get much less.
	Evan Flashen, the chairman of the Financial Restructuring Group at the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani, said it's unfair treatment.
	I think bondholders are being discriminated against, same way they were in the Chrysler deal.
	But the government has also put in more than $15 billion into GM, so in a real sense, it's theirs to allocate.
	You know what we need?
	We need a Supreme Court justice.
	We need somebody on the Supreme Court who was a bondholder for either General Motors or Chrysler who can sympathize with how the bondholders are getting shafted here.
	We need somebody with empathy.
	We need somebody on the Supreme Court who can understand how people in the private sector are getting raped by this administration.
	And in Maryland, Wall Street Journal had this in yesterday's stack.
	Maryland could not balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy.
	Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income tax rate to 6.25%.
	Because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state local tax rate can go as high as 9.45% in Maryland.
	Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were willing and able to pay their fair share.
	The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would grin and bear it.
	Now it's one year later and nobody's grinning.
	One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls.
	In 2008, roughly $3,000 million income tax returns were filed at the end of April.
	This year, there were 2,000, which the state controller's office concedes is a substantial decline.
	On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing.
	Instead of state coffers gaining the extra $106 million they predicted by creating the millionaires tax, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year, even at higher rates, because they left.
	No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession.
	The Maryland State Revenue Office says it's way too early to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when tax rates rose, but no one disputes that some rich filers did leave.
	All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Maryland will fall on the middle class as the rich millionaires leave to avoid the tax.
	And hello, New York.
	I mean, this is exactly what is going to happen there.
	I had forgotten this.
	But the Hill, yeah, the Hill got the Capitol Hill newspaper recalled that in 1997, I predicted that Sonia Sotomayor was on a rocket ship for the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Yes, we have posted the story at rushlimbaugh.com.
	It's a flashback.
	The headline here, Limbaugh foresaw Sotomayor pick in 97.
	Rush Limbaugh all but predicted 12 years ago that Sonia Sotomayor was headed to the Supreme Court in 1997.
	When Clinton nominated Sotomayor to become a U.S. Circuit Court judge, Limbaugh urged Senate Republicans to block her confirmation.
	The conservative radio host said on the day of her confirmation hearing, September 30th, 1997, that she was extremely liberal, was on a rocket ship to the high court, according to a 1988 or 98 New York Times story.
	The New York Times suggested Limbaugh's Supreme Court warning was a key reason why Republican senators delayed a floor vote on her nomination for months, even after several Republicans on the Judiciary Committee supported her.
	No, we weren't worried about Hispanics.
	Look at, you have hit a button.
	You have pushed a hot button with me.
	I was going to try to leave this alone today.
	But H.R., asking me if the Republican Party was afraid of offending Hispanics back in 97 by opposing Sotomayor, you have hit a button.
	I am, I am, I. Let me ask a question.
	When Clarence Thomas was nominated to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, did the Democrats worry about angering the black vote when they opposed him?
	Why not?
	Why, do you recall that when Miguel Estrada and both Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzalez were nominated for positions in the Bush administration, they were opposed by Democrats specifically because they were Latino?
	Did that hurt Democrats with the Hispanic vote when Democrats went after Clarence Thomas or Alberto Gonzalez or Miguel Estrada?
	No.
	So my question is, who evolved this idiotic theory that opposing a judge on the basis of her incompetence, her lack of qualifications, and her judicial philosophy is going to harm the Republican Party because she's female and Hispanic?
	Who evolved that theory?
	I'll tell you who evolved the theory.
	The media and the Democrats and the wimp rhino-moderates buy into it.
	I even got an email.
	I even got an email about this.
	HR, you shouldn't have said this.
	I was going to try to let this go today.
	I had an email.
	It's from somebody named Nancy, from a subscriber to my website, Rush.
	We have to choose our battles.
	Opposing Sotomayor will further alienate people and give them more ammunition if we fight the nomination.
	This nomination was manipulated and staged for votes, but it'll bite us in the butt if we fight.
	We have to choose our battles.
	Okay.
	So what this listener is saying, Obama chose this woman to shut us up, and we better shut the hell up.
	Because if we don't shut the hell up, then we're going to get bit in the butt.
	We are bit in the butt with the nomination.
	The nation has been bit in the butt with the nomination.
	We're supposed to shut up.
	We're supposed to let their strategy work.
	I guess I'll have more on this when we come back.
	Hi, and welcome back.
	Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
	Dear Rush, we have to choose our battles.
	This will further alienate people and give them more ammunition if we fight the Sotomayor nomination.
	The nomination was manipulated and staged for votes, but it'll bite us in the butt if we fight.
	We have to choose our battles.
	Nancy Hoffman, who is a subscriber at RushLimbaugh.com.
	Then we have a piece, Mark McKinnon, who ran all the media for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, also was on the McCain campaign.
	He was the one who vowed to quit if the McCain campaign got critical of Obama.
	When it did get critical of Obama, McKinnon quit.
	He has a post at Tina Brown's website, The Daily Beast.
	He says we should be on our knees praising Colin Powell for declaring that he has not, despite the desire of some narrow vocal forces within the GOP, left the party.
	Because if he does, the Republican Party might as well turn the lights out.
	So for the good of the party, after applying a reasonable due diligence, we ought to be prepared to wave a white flag on Sotomayor, give Colin Powell a big bear hug, and sincere thanks for sticking it out and moving on.
	Now, if we take Nancy Hoffman and her, don't go after Sotomayor that said we can't win this, and it's going to alienate people.
	Hispanics and women are going to hate us even more.
	And Mark McKinnon, just, you know, wave the white flag on this and embrace Colin Powell.
	What's a logical conclusion here?
	If you take this logic all the way out, what both Nancy Hoffman, a listener to the program, and Mark McKinnon are saying is just throw in a towel on everything and give the left the country.
	Because anytime we oppose or object to anything the left does or any person on the left who is a minority, we lose because we make voters mad.
	So we may as well just throw in a towel on everything now.
	I mean, that's where this leads.
	Okay, we're back.
	It's Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
	Let me preface my next round of comments with this.
	I have no doubt Sonia Sotomayor is going to be confirmed.
	None.
	Zip zero, nada.
	She's in.
	They want to fast track this at the White House and get it done before the August recess, and I'm sure they will because there is no desire to object to her.
	A lot of Republicans have bought the notion that criticizing her on legal grounds, not because she's female.
	I agree.
	Nobody should be attacked because they're female or because they're Hispanic.
	My opposition to Sonia Sotomayor is not based on those two things.
	I couldn't care less.
	My opposition to Sonia Sotomayor is based on the fact she's not a good judge.
	She's overruled 60% of the time at the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Jonathan Turley is out there yesterday at MSNBC.
	She doesn't have any intellectual depth.
	She's an angry woman.
	She's a bigot.
	She's a racist.
	In her own words, she's the antithesis of a judge.
	She is the antithesis of justice.
	In her own words, she does not deserve to be on the U.S. Supreme Court.
	But our party, cowering in fear, buys into the notion that opposing her will only alienate potential future voters.
	Meanwhile, the meanest, the most extreme, angry, mean, spirited, personally attacking party in our nation's history, today's Democrat Party, never, never, ever seems to worry about alienating voters with their attitudes about people.
	Now, why is that?
	How is it that they can utterly destroy Clarence Thomas and not damage themselves with black voters?
	How is it that George W. Bush can nominate or populate his administration with two highly qualified Hispanic legal minds, Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzalez?
	And why didn't that not help us get the Hispanic vote?
	Why can George W. Bush come out and be the lead figure on amnesty for illegal aliens?
	Why does that not garner us a greater percentage of the Hispanic vote?
	So we take all these steps.
	We do everything that leftists prescribe.
	Bush's administration was more diverse racially and ethnically than any administration in history.
	What did it get him?
	Nothing but abject hatred and derision.
	Now, I want to know when my party is going to figure out that playing a game by the rules announced by the media and the Democrats is guaranteed to wipe this party out.
	When I get an email from a listener who suggests that we don't even bother fighting this, we have to choose our battles.
	This will further alienate people and give them more ammunition if we fight the nomination.
	It was manipulated and staged for votes.
	We should shut up.
	So what we're saying is, let's just admit that Obama's got us.
	He nominated this woman not because of her qualifications, but to shut up any opposition.
	So we'll go along and shut up.
	Now, what is the advantage to objecting to Sonia Sotomayor?
	We all know she's going to be confirmed.
	We all know that she's got this compelling, very compelling American story.
	We had a caller yesterday, by the way, if I make a brief departure here, with a brilliant point.
	He noted that virtually every liberal nominee to a cabinet position or candidate for high office or nominee of the Supreme Court, every liberal Democrat that is nominated to the court system or asked to serve in a presidential cabinet runs for high office, never ever credits the welfare state for their success.
	They don't cite a government program that made them who they are.
	They cite traditional American values, hard work, great parents, great home life, a parent or two who understood the values of hard work and stick-to-itiveness and having goals.
	And they praise all the people in their life that inspired them to seek greater things for themselves.
	And in no instance do liberals cite AFTC, welfare, the GI Bill, whatever the favored liberal programs are.
	They don't cite Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
	They don't say they got where they are because government's helping me out with health care.
	They cite traditional conservative values.
	And yet, when they get to those positions, they seem to forget all that and assume that nobody else can use the same prescriptions they did because they're incompetent.
	So they need government assistance.
	They need government help.
	They need racist affirmative action.
	They need quota systems.
	They need all the help they can get because they're incompetent.
	And we're supposed to wave the white flag over this.
	Mark McKinnon, who's brilliant at what he does, running media campaigns for Bush in 2000 and 2004, in his piece at the Daily Beast memo to my party, blasting targets like Sonia Sotomayor and Colin Powell is a surefire strategy to guarantee our extinction.
	So if we oppose the nomination of a woman to be a Supreme Court justice who's utterly unqualified, who is utterly incompetent, it means our extinction.
	If we are to not oppose on grounds of competence or politics or ideology, those that we deem to be harmful to the United States of America, then we already are extinct.
	I would suggest to you that the Republican Party is already extinct if it's listening to Mark McKinnon.
	The Republican Party is extinct if it's listening to Tom Ridge.
	The Republican Party is extinct if it's listening to Colin Powell.
	Because the logical conclusion, the end result of all this, is we throw in the towel on Obama.
	We don't oppose Obama on anything.
	We don't dare.
	It'll just make people mad.
	It'll just make people angry.
	It'll just result in fewer votes for us.
	The Republican Party is extinct if it has made the decision that the only way it can reclaim power is via identity politics.
	So we have to have policies that are friendly to Hispanics and women.
	Okay?
	Well, our party led the way.
	Our sitting president and our presidential nominee led the way on amnesty, legalized citizenship for illegal aliens, most of whom are Hispanic.
	Shouldn't they love us?
	Shouldn't they have voted for us in droves?
	George Bush appoints two highly qualified Hispanics to his cabinet.
	Shouldn't Hispanics love us using this theory?
	Why did they vote so much for Democrats if we took the charge, took the lead in showing our sensitivity to Hispanics?
	What happened here?
	Somebody's going to have to explain this to me because this philosophy of identity politics and running out and not alienating and not, in fact, not even not alienating, but actually pandering to, didn't achieve anything.
	Now, Mark McKinnon says we have got to embrace General Powell, who has yet to state a position on anything Obama's doing, who has yet to state a position on what the Republican Party ought to do other than to be inclusive.
	Colin Powell, who enjoys 70% approval or 60, whatever it is, because he doesn't specify anything on issues where he falls.
	Well, hell's bells, I could probably be loved by 70% of the people if I didn't have an opinion on anything.
	So we embrace Colin Powell.
	We embrace Sonia Sotomayor, and this is going to save the Republican Party.
	Well, how many of these people like the emailer Nancy Hoffman or Mark McKinnon, Colin Powell, how many of them want us to embrace Obama?
	Because if we're not to object to Sonia Sotomayor, because we're going to alienate women and Hispanics, and we certainly can't oppose Barack Obama because we're going to alienate liberals and Democrats and blacks.
	So don't you find it interesting that the only party, according to the Democrats and the media, the only party that alienates people and makes them mad is the Republican Party.
	And further, don't you find it interesting that the only element of the Republican Party that ever makes people mad is the conservative wing of the Republican Party?
	We're the only ones that make people mad.
	The left, the far left, the mainstream Democrat Party is as mean-spirited, without compassion, angry and enraged and personal as I have ever seen in my life.
	And we are to be led to believe that nobody ever gets mad at them, that they can say whatever they want.
	They can personally destroy our nominees.
	Robert Bork, 45 minutes after he's nominated, Ted Kennedy goes to the floor of the Senate with the famous Robert Bork's America.
	I have my own version of that for Sonia Sotomayor coming up.
	45 minutes.
	Try to wipe out Clarence Thomas.
	I could go on and on and on.
	They tried to destroy Samuel Alito.
	And somehow that never makes moderates mad.
	That never makes moderates mad.
	But we have to tiptoe through the tulips.
	We have to balance ourselves on a high wire so that we don't anger the moderates.
	What's the real reason for opposing Sonia Sotomayor if she's guaranteed to be nominated or confirmed?
	As I will stipulate, she's going to make it.
	She's going to make it with ease.
	She's going to get 75 or 80 votes.
	She's not qualified.
	She is incompetent.
	She, can I read the oath of Supreme Court justice takes?
	Here's the oath.
	I, name, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.
	By virtue of her own statements, she is going to break the oath.
	She's going to lie when she takes the oath.
	By virtue of her own previous statement, she is lying when she takes the oath.
	We're supposed to look the other way.
	Supposed to look the other way.
	If the Republican Party wants to allow itself to get trapped in the premise that it is racist and sexist and must show the world that it's not, then the Republican Party is extinct.
	The reason to oppose Sonia Sotomayor, even though she's guaranteed to be confirmed, has one purpose, as I announced yesterday, and that is to educate the American people about who Barack Obama is.
	The drive-by media is failing and has failed spectacularly in its primary constitutional duty.
	It has become slavish and sycophantish to Barack Obama.
	There is no suspicion.
	There is no curiosity about anything he is doing.
	There is only praise, endless praise.
	Sonia Sotomayor is a hack who is an anti-constitutionalist who will do the bidding of Barack Obama on the U.S. Supreme Court.
	It is imperative the people of this country find out who Obama really is.
	And through the opposition of Sonia Sotomayor on the substance of her career as a judge, that's what would happen.
	We come back, I'm going to play you, we're going to go back and visit the archives.
	From 2001, we have Barack Obama on Chicago radio explaining what he doesn't like about the Constitution and what the Supreme Court's role is in fixing what he doesn't like about the Constitution.
	Back after this.
	Folks, I think we ought to stop opposing the environmental movement.
	It's just going to alienate people who want to buy Priuses and hybrids.
	We should stop opposing runaway government spending and deficits.
	It's just going to offend people who will benefit from the...
	We've got to make sure that we don't offend anybody in anything we do as a party.
	That's how we're going to attract voters.
	And we don't offend anybody.
	Now, I'll tell you something.
	The big problem with the Republican Party and the reason that it is extinct is because it stands for nothing.
	Nobody knows what a Republican is anymore.
	Well, okay, you say, well, Colin Powell, he's a Republican.
	Fine.
	Somebody tell me what he believes on any issue.
	What does he believe on terrorism?
	What does he believe on tax cuts?
	What does he believe on abortion?
	What does he believe?
	He voted for Obama.
	He must believe what Obama believes, but he didn't say so.
	What's a Republican today?
	What does a Republican stand for?
	When you say Republican, what does it mean?
	To a lot of people, it means racist, sexist, big, and homophobe because Republicans have not fought back on that and have accepted the premise.
	And that's why, because they think they're viewed as racist, sexist, big, and homophobes, they've got to not offend anybody so as to prove that a lie isn't true.
	Imagine that.
	Republicans are trying to prove that the way they're lied about isn't true by not standing for something.
	Here's Obama on the Chicago FM radio station, except in 2001.
	The interviewer says, joined by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, 13th District Senior Lecturer at a Law School, University of Chicago.
	And in this bite, Obama discusses redistribution of wealth and how the Supreme Court's never gotten into it.
	If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote.
	I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order.
	And as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay.
	But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.
	And sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.
	So this is eight years ago.
	Barack Obama's chosen a justice who's going to do anything but the laws.
	He's going to delve into the issues of redistribution of wealth.
	He's simply putting one of his own on the Supreme Court.
	He's putting an anti-constitutionalist on the Supreme Court to do his bidding there.
	Pure and simple.
	The less she knows about the law, the less she is concerned about the law, the better, as far as Obama is concerned.
	Let's see.
	Yeah, we don't have time for these other two before we go to the break.
	But in these next two, Obama complains that the Warren Court was not radical enough.
	And it was in this interview in 2001, eight years ago, that he calls the Constitution a charter of negative liberties.
	And that is key to understanding the kind of people that Barack Obama wants to put on the court.
	And this is the kind of thing that the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor presents, the kind of opportunity that her nomination presents to the Republican Party to educate the American people about who Barack Obama really is, because they don't know, particularly those who voted for him.
	We'll be right back.
	Don't go away.
	Folks, there is another alternative in terms of the approach that the extinct Republican Party might try.
	And again, this is based on a news story from yesterday about how Obama's supporters know he's lying and they like he's lying.
	They like it.
	They know he's lying to him and they very much appreciate it.
	The Republican Party doesn't really need to stop believing in anything.
	They just need to lie about what they believe in.
	So whereas the Republican Party doesn't think Sonia Sotomayor is qualified, go out and say they do.
	Oh, she qualified.
	She's one.
	Great pick.
	Lie about it.

▲