are temperamental." to hear that this is a group that filed a case denying a woman medicaid funding for an abortion is the equivalent of slavery, that it is a challenge of parental consent in abortion cases is cruel, and challenging the death penalty and saying it should be stricken because it is a form of cruelty, i think a lot of viewers out there, a lot of democrats as well as republicans, are going to say, "g, i did not know that she supported that organization -- gee." gee."

i don't think she was able to respond except to say as a member of board you represent your clients but it is an unappealing portrait of that organization. she knows what this organize is and what its beliefs are. as a member of the board for 12 years you would think she would know what the defense of the puerto rican legal defense education fund was going after. >> that is a natural follow-up to these issues of abortion issues that they were arguing in the briefs. it will be hard for her to distance herself. >> legal defense lawyers are often public lawyers that represent cases that anybody who comes in wants. is are that strew of the puerto

rican defense legal education fund or do they have more discretion in deciding which cases they will represent? >> i think it is the latter. geraldo rivera has been on the board of this organization and he tells me it is the hispanic aclu and the hispanic ncaap, if you will. they choose which causes they will go after and he says there are a lot of prominent hispanics who become a member of this group or become a member of this board and that you would be hard pressed to find a latino or latina judge who didn't come up through that organization. >> it would be harder for her to say i was just on the board and they were just representing cases. it seems to me she is more linked to the various causes. obviously they have limited funds that cause the cases that they decide to bring and the ones they don't. megyn: juan, i want to ask you what is the difference, because we sat through the alito confirmation hearings, and he was grilled over his membership in the concerned alumni group

that had objections to women being admitted to princeton, which had not been previously allowed and minorties as well. he said "i don't really remember being part of the group, quite frankly. i remember being upset about them not letting military recruiters on campus, and that group wanted military folks on campus and i remember thinking, ok, i will align with them for that." that is as far as he went and we saw scathing cross-examinations by ted kennedy and other democrats trying to tie him to everything that group did and suggest he was a bigot that. wound up in lindsey graham having to rehabilitate him and saying are you a bigot, sir? and mrs. alito was crying in the background and judge alito, now justice said, of course i'm not. lindsey graham said of course you're not. that was a theme of that man's confirmation hearings. he was a part of the group and barely remembered it. she was on the board of this organization for 12 years, so is this hypocritical? >> not at all. i think there is a difference

there. i think there has got to be a higher standard for whites in the majority in an and a lead institution like princeton when you have people acting to somehow say the introduction of women or minorties, blacks, puerto ricans, hispanics, whoever, is somehow not going to be accepted or somehow acting against that, given the history of the country, and i think that is obvious to me. >> two different groups and one deals with whites and the other deals with minorties and it's not hypocritical to focus on one because it deals with white membership and the other because it is minority membership? >> yes. if you're asking me in a country that has white majority and slavery and legal discrimination which was government enforced and you ask me about princeton university that was founded by the presbyterian church as an institution for white mealz, you better be aware of the history before you say somebody has to be held to the same standards

and says we're here to protect the rights of minorties and dis proportionate poor people who are overly reliant on government assistance and therefore making an appeal to be a safe harbor. >> we're talking about the link to the organization. alito was a part of it. he barely remembered it. there was no proof he was active in and he got skewered for being a mere part of it. she was on the board for 12 years and signed that death penalty memo. >> correct. i think she is being skewered for it and being damaged for having stood there and allowed this kind of activity to take place. it is not appealing to me as i listen to it, the description of everything on the issue of abortion even down to her temperament. that's why it is not appealing. that is why she has been on the defensive all day. >> so you think it is fair game to hold the activities of the puerto rican legal defense fund against her? >> as a member of the board, like geraldo rivera or any other

prominent person, they will say i want to be generally supportive of a group that stands up for the rights of an agreed minority in the country r sometimes when you get into the policies made by the person might be the actual hands-on director, you might not be comfortable with every position that person takes, but in this case, she was the head of the board. i understand that is a higher standard. i bet she was busy with being a judge for the most part. >> this was before she was a judge, in 1989 to 1992. >> she was a private lawyer. she had been a prosecutor before. she was busy being a lawyer then and preparing to be a judge. >> i'll answer your question. she is a nominee to the supreme court, everything is fair game. i actually think it was fair game to ask alito about it. it is all fair game, and you choose to be part of an organization or you don't and you can sit there and say i knew about this or i didn't, but to say well, i was generally supportive, when you're talking about denying women medicaid

funding as a form of slavery, it is certainly outside the mainstream. >> not for her language, i don't think. >> that was the language of the group. >> do you know that she wrote that? >> no, she didn't write, that but on the other hand, i don't think she can divorce herself from that. i think it is a legitimate issue for them to bring up. if you have enough of those kinds of cases, you have to say well, what are you doing in that organization. >> that's correct. you should say at some time you should have e signed from the organization but that's different than saying you are responsible for every position that the organization has espoused. >> steve, do you think she was on the defensive in the last round of questions? >> i think especially when lindsey graham asked her in short questions one after the other eliciting short responses. actually, we got to hear from her, even though her answers were short. i thought it was interesting and very effective. i don't think he closed the door on one of his lines of questioning but i think, yeah, he was very effective. basically if you look at today, take a step back and look at the

day, you had jeff sessions at the beginning of the day that was effective and asked similar questions an set her up and led her down a line of questioning that she didn't want to answer. she was very much on the defensive. then you had a series of senators who didn't do that on the republican side. we started to see it more with jon kyl and lindsey graham, i think, was quite effective. >> let's bring in carl cameron. win of the lines of questioning for senator graham was about that back and forth in the room. what are #ur thoughts? >> it was machine gun questions that senator graham was grabbing everyone's attention. he took an entirely different tact. at one point he said maybe this is an opportunity to take personal reflection, as if to say i'm just saying here, judge, there is criticism out there, judge and you might want to do with it. there is a run of questions among conservatives about whether or not the republicans on this panel would hold the

nominee's feet to the fire aggressively and if they couldn't block the nomination that they could at least ensure that the history of the confirmation process wouldn't give a seal of approval that suggested experiences, emotions, beliefs, prejudices, et cetera could in any way factor into judging. they got a lot of repudiations of that in the nominee today, so while the conservative right may not see republicans block the nomination, it will be very interesting to gauge whether or not they're satisfied by the republican attempt to get her to back down, push back from her own remarks. the consensus among the republicans who came in and out of the hearing during this marathon of questioning today was that they are pleased by what she is saying now, and disappointed by the irreconcilability between what she is saying now and what she said back then. bret: carl, that is an interesting thing. you have great scoops talking to the senators behind the scenes and their staff members, how they think this is going.

for the republican side of the coin, the fact that she has stepped away from these speeches and that she has really backed away, in some cases contradicted directly her speeches that she gave numerous times, is that seen as a minor victory even though the numbers, as we've mentioned throughout the day, aren't really adding up on the votes against her? >> it s this is one of those situations where it depends on who you ask. they both think they're winning. republicans are talking about their sort of looking forward to another round of questions tomorrow, perhaps another half hour, maybe 20 minutes because they want to go over this again. they think there is a lot more fertile soil to be tilled. democrats are perfectly willing to let this go on because they believe the judge has not made any major gaffes. she has been calm and answered the questions. there is a couple of times where she look add little flustered but not extensive circumstances and they say that every time the democrat is allowed to speak,

the world is reminded that they are making the case for her, blunting the republican/ conservative efforts against her and republicans acknowledge they haven't derailed her and are doctors appointed by the past statements but are pleased by what they are hearing now, if they can believe it. bret. bret: any reaction from democrats after the judge said that she did not believe that a judge should judge the way president obama thinks a judge should judge, basically with empathy. she said, "no, sir, i wouldn't approach it the way the president talks about it." >> i talked to one senior democratic staffer, and they have to remain nameless because of the conditions of the conversation, but the response was what did you expect? we knew she would have to walk these statements back because to org otherwise wouldn't fly. the flip side is interesting as we determine whether or not this is a feisty confirmation process or not, there is a point at which you got to wonder whether

it's truly critical to say don't you agree that judges should be objective? i mean, it's kind of basic. bret: definitely. megyn. megyn: as we wrap up the day here, steve and look back at what blows have been landed and what whoas were unsuccessful, clearly you have to look at sessions in the beginning and graham at the end of the day. when people think about judge sonia sotomayor and we see the daily polling and the numbers have been going down, not in the direction democrats want, what will they remember about today? >> her answers in many cases raised more questions than they answered. despite that fact, i think she comes away from the day, from all this questioning looking like she knows her material, looking competent, looking sort of unflappable. she certainly didn't have the meltdown lindsey graham mentioned yesterday, but i think looking forward, if she is confirmed, one of the real questions before this with president obama was is she going

to be the kind of justice who is likely to persuade colleagues with the force of her arguments? this is not the format where we would have seen those kinds of skills but if it was that format, i don't think we saw that. megyn: how important is that? i have heard conservatives say she is a decent pick because she doesn't necessarily have the power personality that might persuade somebody on the fence, like a justice kennedy, you know, she's not going to be one of those persuasive people behind closed doors but how do we know because we have never been behind closed doors with her in a judge's chambers s there anything that tells you one way or another how she would come out in there? >> no, you can't tell. i read a by og ga fy on justice marshall and i talked with justice rehnquist and even justice scalia who said "you know what, to sit in that room who had the kind of experience as a thurgood marshall in dealing with the law and dealing with it as a minority made a huge difference in conference. " at times you would say enough,

but for the large part, they say it made a huge difference to have in there. having her there, given the wealth of her experience as a trial judge that's been pointed out she will be the only one there that has trial judge experience may be persuasive to some, but what we've heard today is also don't be fooled by the milk toast personality that is being presented, that she can be a bully. i was taken by those comments. i didn't realize the strength of the comments posted by the lawyers anonymously but apparently they are particular to her and not to other judges on the court and i'm not sure that that's a good sign. i wonder if that will not play well in what is regarded as a supreme court family. no matter what your position, conservative or liberal, they have to get along. megyn: in her defense, as someone who practiced law for nine years, when the judge rules against you and they are mean to you in court, you tend not to like them, and anyone can post anything on-line, so in her defense. we will be right back with the panel and final thoughts a couple minutes away.

stay with us. could someone toss me an eleven sixteenths wrench over here? here you go. eleven sixteenths... (announcer) from designing some of the world's cleanest and most fuel-efficient jet engines...

to building more wind turbines than anyone in the country... the people of ge are working together... creating innovation today for america's tomorrow. thanks! no problem! in a long line of amazing performance machines. this is the new e-coupe. this is mercedes-benz. fair, straight-forward pricing. that's what td ameritrade stands for. think about it. why pay investing fees you shouldn't have to? or account fees that aren't clear? like inactivity fees? or maintenance fees? it's not right. and you know it.

and the thing is, the other investment firms know it. but they do it anyway. and that's just not fair or straight-forward. td ameritrade. independence is the spirit that drives america's most successful investors.

h! the option to name your price -- new and only from progressive. call or click today. bret: welcome back to fox news

continuing cover rooj with the sonia sotomayor hearings. judge sotomayor, we're going to dip into this and we expect this to be toward the end of day. we will eventually join glenn beck in process. >> i raised this with justice alito and he said i agree with judge posner that the way these cases are lan delled leaves a tremendous amount to be desired. i have been concerned about this. what is your preponderance opinion of judge posner's observation in this 2005 case? >> it has been four years since judge posner's comments, and they have to be placed somewhat in perspective. attorney general ashcroft, what you described as streamlining procedures have been by, i think, all of the circuit courts

that have addressed the issue affirmed and given chevron deference, so the question is not whether the streamlined procedures are constitutional or not, but what happens when he instituted that procedure is that with all new things there were many imperfections, newer approaches to things create new challenges, and there's no question that courts faced with large numbers of immigration cases, as was the second circuit. i think we had the second largest number of new cases that arrived at our doorstep, the ninth circuit being the first, and i know the 7th this a quite significantly large number, were reviewing processes that, as

justice alito said, left something to be desired in a number of cases. i will say that that onslaught of cases and the concerns expressed in a number of cases by the judges, in the dialogue that goes on in court cases with administrative bodies of congress, resulted in more cooperation between the courts and the immigration officials in how to handle these cases, how to ensure that the process would be improved. i know that the attorney general's office devoted more resources to the handling of these cases. there is always room for improvement.

the agency is handling so many matters, so many cases, has so many responsibilityies making sure that it has adequate resources and training is an important consideration, again in the first instance by congress, because you set the budget. in the end, what we can only do is ensure that due process a applied in each case according to the law required for the review of these cases. >> do you feel it has changed since 2005 when judge posner set the add jude case time lines? megyn: you have now heard 11 out of the 19 senators that. is all we have made it through so far. bret: 8 left, 30 minutes each. i think we saw two judge

sotomayors. one speaking from the speeches back in 2001, 2005, and one today that stepped away from a lot of those remarks. megyn: she certainly did. the question is was it enough? will it satisfy her critics? if you want more of the sotomayor confirmation hearings, you can have it. go to foxnews.com. it is veeming live there all day. you can catch all that live coverage. we won't be there. bret: that's true. foxnews.com does have it, plus we have a full recap of the hearings on "special report" in a few minutes an shepard smith at 7 p.m. on "the fox report." megyn: are you going to do a little sotomayor? >> definitely. this is bret's set. i don't know how they will get it turned around for "special

report. bret: glenn beck, in progress. megyn: take care. >> welcome back. remember the islamic saudi academy in fairfax county, virginia? no? really? it is a saudi-owned college prep tore preparatory school that uses textbooks with passages that extoll jihad and martyrdom call for victory over one's enemies and say the killing is justified. they have been great kids that went to the school. the 1999 valedictorian joined al qaeda. there he is, right there. he was sentenced to 30 years. see him smiling. he is a nice guy. 30 years in prison for trying to assassinate president bush. now the school is looking to expand the size of their campus, but the town, all these hate mongers in virginia, they just -- all right. sure, nobody has been showing them what is in the textbooks or anything.

james lafferty opposes the school's expansion, chairman of the sharia anti-task force. you hate monger you. so the val dick toreian wants to kill the president and joins al qaeda. it's not like they have had another student that has gone wild. oh, wait. they have. it is rahid abdul sayeed. do we have his picture? what did he do? do we have his picture? >> are you asking me, glenn? glenn: yeah, do you know? >> yeah, he was the one arrested are at the florida airport last month. he carried a 7-inch butcher knife in his carrying case with him as he attempted to get on the plane. glenn: who could have forgotten the 7-inch butcher knife. sometimes you're at the airport and say, oh, crap, i took my butcher knife. is there a principal there? >> the principal also had some

problems. a young five-year-old girl reported to him that she was being abused by her father and he followed sharia law and took the girl and returned her to the abusive father, and then said to the father, you better get her under control. now, in virginia, that is against the law. glenn: what a great culture. >> well, virginia law says when we get reports like that, we report them to the police and usually somebody gets arrested. in this case, the little girl got turned back over. ultimately, the fairfax county police came in and arrested the principal. glenn: i have been following this school for about three years now, and gosh, i haven't been able to get anybody from the state department to help us out on any of the textbooks or anything else. nobody in the state department wants to look into this. it's wierd, because this is getting a lot of saudi money, right? >> it is. it is. the state department focuses on diplomacy, and i think when

president reagan reagan said we need an american desk over there to get them to listen to the people of the united states. they don't care about these issues. glenn: can we bring up the map and show where this school is, and do we have the map? here it comes. there it is. oh, my gosh! look how great this is. it is so close to the capitol. >> it is. it's very near washington. glenn: yeah, why would anybody worry about that? you apparently got a call from a teacher. you claim you got a call from a teacher. what happened? >> well, the teacher said that they were going to -- she was going to send us some material. one thing that she mentioned was that there was an illustration in a textbook for ninth graders which showed that under shah reya law when you're punishing someone, you should remove their hands or their feet, and it was a diagram that showed you exactly where to cut. it was like one of those things in the butcher shop where you

see the cow in different parts. these were hands an feet, and it just showed you the place to cut. glenn: well, if you're going to cut somebody's hands off, you might as well do it the right way. >> well, in ninth grade, that's really important. glenn: right. but we don't actually know if that's from there, because we can't get a hold of anything. they won't let anybody have the textbooks or anything. >> that's right. we have never see seen a complete set of the textbooks. we have been through exercises with them where we said that we object to one part or another, and what they usually do is just rip the page out. glenn: that's going to work. ok. so, last night theres was this big meeting. are they going to expand? >> well, it looks that way. it looks like it is headed that way. the fairfax county board of supervisors only wants to talk about whether or not they cut the grass and whether or not they have appropriate number of parking spaces.

glenn: you were in this school at one time, were you not? >> i was. glenn: because you did a film on -- >> i was. i worked at the federal equal opportunity commission, and i was an appointee of president george herbert walker bush there and i went down to help produce a video on discrimination against people wearing certain type of religious articles of garb. glenn: did you find that they were open-minded? >> well, it was interesting. during the time i spent there, they had many questions about the protections that the federal government provides. and they walked me through the school, and i noticed on these world maps that they had in the classrooms, there was one country that was missing, israel. glenn: hmm. that's wierd. must have been an oversight. thank you very much. we will talk to you again and follow this story tomorrow and as long as we can unless we get mired in the sand and they don't do anything, like the government usually doesn't. a lot of people worried about

president owe obama introducing a new fairness doctrine. it is not coming, but something is and i'll tell you about it, next. i never thought it could happen to me...

a heart attack at 53. i had felt fine. but turns out... my cholesterol and other risk factors... increased my chance of a heart attack. i should've done something. now, i trust my heart to lipitor. when diet and exercise are not enough, adding lipitor may help. unlike some other cholesterol lowering medications, lipitor is fda approved to reduce the risk... of heart attack, stroke,

and certain kinds of heart surgeries... in patients with several common risk factors... or heart disease. lipitor has been extensively studied... with over 16 years of research. lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems... and women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications, or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. i was caught off-guard. but maybe you can learn from my story. have a heart to heart with your doctor... about your risk. and about lipitor.

glenn: hello, america. tonight is our hot list, common sense solutions to the stories where the mainstream media just isn't doing their job. conservatives have warned about a fairness doctrine. i have told you on this program before, i don't think a fairness doctrine is going to happen. remember, it's all about

misdirection. oh, a fairness doctrine is coming, a fairness doctrine -- no, no, watch this hand. they're not going to do the fairness doctrine. it is going to be the fairness doctrine through a thousand paper cuts. let's start with our favorite topic, bailouts ax group of minority broadcasters have asked treasury secretary tim geithner for a bailout. they asked yesterday. it is similar to the financial and auto industries, so why not? let's just give money to the -- we should give it to the media. dig a little deeper. let's see the web of connections that no one else wants to show you. what lawmakers signed the letter? this is so great. our old pals barney frank, charlie rangel and house majority whip james clybourne. james clybourne. why do he know that? i remember why i know that name. he is the civil rights hero and democratic party heavyweight who supported an eventual endorsement of barack obama and helped him get into the white

house. on a completely unrelated note, clyburn's eldest daughter is a minion of former weekly newspaper publisher has been nominated now to be a member of the f.c.c. -- yeah, the f.c.c., that regulates broadcasters, including this 7.7% of minority-owned radio stations an 3.2% of minority-owned t.v. stations that just asked for the bailout. wow, that's a wierd coincidence! in a letter from the daddy of one of these soon to be regulators, can you say conflict of interest. q. isn't it great? no, you can't really say it is a conflict of interest with organizer in chief obama. in his world, that's called transparency. by the way, the minority groups may not get a bailout, but mark my word, they will find it easier to grab some funds for

alternative programming, you know, to get radio stations out of the hands of the evil white people. oh, wow. i'm conservative. i'm wonder if i will be on the radio soon. next, pretend you the c.e.o. off a company, how many jobs do you think you could create with $413 million? $413 million. i could create a lot. now, how many jobs do you think the federal government stimulus can create with $413 million? state of new hampshire. they've come up with an awful lot of jobs. 34. full-time. full-time. not 34,000. 34 full-time jobs. that worked out to $12,147,059 of your tax dollars for every job the state has created.

that's fantastic! what kind of reduction are they doing there? it's no wonder that the state will eventually get between $500 million and $750 million in stimulus funds, because you're creating that number of jobs. you take the higher number there, the state of new hampshire is going to be able to create a whopping 62 jobs. well, maybe not create them, but probably save them. i mean, who said that states don't know how to stretch a dollar? finally, as i told you last night, the only people counting sarah palin out are those who believe in only party politics, those who hated her anyway, mainly the cast of "saturday night live" i think and those who don't understand that the paradigm is shifting. but don't you count her out. er, she announced that she would be stepping down as alaska's governor later this month, and while her critics have said, oh, that's just political suicide,

there is some encouraging news for her supporters. her political action committee has received $200,000 in donations since her july 3rd announcement. wow. this is weird. you think you would read about this in the paper, especially in seeing that that's in addition to the more than $700,000 raised in the first half of the year, and wow, this is wild! of that money, 57% came from donors who contributed less than $200. wow. that sounds like an awful lot of grassroots support, but is anybody in the media reporting that? compare that to the gags of reporting about the great grassroots movement of candidate obama, and according to "the washington post" only a quarter of that money that obama raised came from small dollars, which i may point out was a smaller percentage than george bush that he raised in 2004. i didn't read about that one. separately, you willer that a

lot of obama donors were named mickey mouse, which is basically i think they were just big donations cut up disguised as smaller ones, but that's the real grassroots, the kind of grass that you look around and are like, oh, look, look at all those little nuts, or are those acorns? how much would you pay to read senator ted kennedy's memoir? i think it's worth about $1,000. yeah, that's what his publisher wants to charge for one leather-bound limited edition of ted kennedy's book. yeah. wow. i wish i had my wallet or my checkbook on me now, and that's your hot list. on a totally separate note, there is my new book, "common sense, the case of an out-of-control government." you can pick it up in paperback for about $6. come to think of it, i think you can get 150 of my books for one of ted kennedy's, oh, choices,

choices. common sense in bookstores now. number one on "the new york times" best seller's list for the last three or four weeks and number one on u.s.a. today's list. pick one up today and please after you finish reading it, pass it on to a friend. all right. obama's car czar leaving washington under the cloud of scandal. the real story behind steve rattner, and who is filling those big shoes. ben stein is coming up next. get to become that big. gecko vo: 'course, geckos don't literally sweat... it's just not our thing... gecko vo: ...but i do work hard, mind you. gecko vo: first rule of "hard work equals success." gecko vo: that's why geico is consistently rated excellent or better in terms of financial strength. gecko vo: second rule: "don't steal a coworker's egg salad, 'specially if it's marked "the gecko." come on people.

just don't feel like they used to. are you one of them? remember when you had more energy... for 18 holes with your buddies? more passion for the one you love? more fun with your family and friends? could be an easily treatable condition called low t. c'mon, stop living in the shadows. you've got a life to live. so don't blame it on aging. go to isitlowt.com to find out more.

glenn: hello, america. well, i don't know about you, but i love these czars that we have. president obama's car czar, steven rattner has stepped down after being the chief architect of the g.m. and chrysler bailout, which, hmm, let's savor that for a minute. he is being replaced by ron bloom, a former united steelworkers union advisor. oh, yeah! he is one of 32 of the obama

administration czars. 32, and the list just keeps on growing. coming up, number one! none of the czars play by the same rules as other p presidential advisors or cabinet members, but why? get ready for blood to shoot out of your eyes n los angeles, new york times columnist ben stein and former speech writer for president nixon, which we won't hold it against you, and president ford, which we also won't hold against you. you might want to remove that from your resume, don't you think, ben? >> i don't know. i love nixon and ford. glenn: you do? >> nixon was a great man, a great man. glenn: you know about the whole tape thing that happened, right? >> i do. i know if they taped every one of us, every one of us would have a lot to answer for. glenn: ok, ben, let's talk about the czars. speaking of president nixon, i believe president nixon had, what? >> well, first of all, there is

no provision in the constitution for czars. there is no provision in any part of the u.s. code for czars. this is just something that is made up by presidents. these guys are essentially presidential assistants. they have no power. the only power they have is go to the president and say you are a bad boy and the president will beat you up. they have no power. steven rattner was not a great car czar. hey no experience in the automobile industry whatsoever. we don't know if he has accomplished anything useful except for ruining the right to ked tores. glenn: we know he was an investment banker. >> his record in making money for anyone but himself is quite mediocre. glenn: hang on a second. he ran the quadrangle group. >> and some of those years they made money and some of those years they didn't make much money. as you know, he is now under investigation by the attorney general of new york state for possibly paying bribes, only possibly. there is no certainty about it, to get state pension fund

business. i think that's why he's gone. glenn: you will go for your guy being taped and breaking in, but somebody can't bribe somebody just for a little business. >> well, i guess it is a double standard. you're totally right. glenn: i see it. >> but this czar thing is out of control. what it really is a way to aggravate control in the white house. it's a way to bypass the cabinet department, bypass the congress and aggregate as much control as possible in the office of the president. there is no provision for that in the constitution. glenn: let me get into that and i want to talk about the idea that the guy who used to run the steel union is now going to tell everybody how to make cars. i think that will fix g.m. and chrysler. more ben stein, coming up.

or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today.

when morning comes in the middle of the night... rooster crow. ...it affects your entire day. to get a good night's sleep, try 2-layer ambien cr. the first layer dissolves quickly to help you fall asleep. and unlike other sleep aids, a second dissolves slowly to help you stay asleep. when taking ambien cr, don't drive or operate machinery. sleepwalking, and eating or driving while not fully awake with memory loss for the event as well as abnormal behaviors such as being more outgoing or aggressive than normal, confusion, agitation and halluciations may occur. don't take it with alcohol as it may increase these behaviors. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath, swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and in rare cases may be fatal. side effects may include next-day drowsiness, dizziness, and headache. in patients with depression, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide may occur. if you experience any of these behaviors or reactions contact your doctor immediately.

glenn: back with economist and columnist, strangely, a big fan of richard nixon, and good friend, ben stein. hello, ben. >> huge fan, huge fan. glenn: well, you also like the great state of idaho. >> i like idaho a lot. glenn: ben, here is the thing. we're talking about the 32 czars. the car czar just resigned. he may have a little bit of shadiness in his past, but we don't even really know who the czars are because they don't answer to the congress. they don't have to be approved by the congress. they can own stocks or bonds in companies and oversee them. they're not vetted even by the f.b.i. >> i'm not sure that's true. these people are ranked as special assistants to the president. i was once veft vetted by the f.b.i. to do it. i think they have to be vefted by the f.b.i.. there is a fraud here.

the idea is to appoint somebody to a job and thereby the job gets solveed is ridiculous. you can appoint someone to the job and just because he has the job doesn't mean he has to solve the problem. he has appointed a california water czar. i don't see any moraine in california. what's going on here? >> it's because you choose not to look at it. ronald bloom is the guy who is now going to be the car czar. he was an investment banker, and he was also, you know, head of the union or whatever for the yew united steel, and i don't know if it was steel or steal, i'm not sure. we can look into it. >> he has no experience in the automobile business, either. it's amazing. there are millions of people in this country with experience in the automobile business. they're not getting any of them. none of these guys has spent a day working at an automobile company. what makes us think they know anything about it? they is a young guy who dropped out of quail law school and he

has a dog. i like that about him, and he is one of the car people, too. what does he know about it? it is an infantile understanding of the car business. >> but they have the power and the presidential seal behind them. >> absolutely. glenn: you don't have to answer to these guys, legally you don't, right? >> not legally, but the white house will make your life miserable if you don't. they will make your life miserable. glenn: america, has this not been kind of what we have been talking about the whole time? look at acorn. what do they do these community organizers? they intimidate, they bully. here we have the czars going in and intimidating and bullying to get their way. this is america. >> with no congressional oversight. america is disappearing before our eyes, glenn. america is like being fed into a garbage disposal. it's very sad and very scary, and i wish the american people would wake up and see what's going on. already, the socialism that has

arrived in this country since january 20 iser is phiing, especially in the automobile industry, we're going to see it in healthcare, and we're going to see it in energy. socialism is not just creeping towards us. it is rushing towards us. glenn: ben, we have been friends for a long time. we disagree on a lot of stuff, but i have been consistently saying we are stripping everything out of america for two years i have been saying socialism is coming, and not because of barack obama but because of george w. bush. nobody would listen to me. at what point are you going to say we are in real trouble? >> i'm saying it right now. i think we're in real trouble now. i don't think it is george w. bush's fault. he didn't really understand what was going on. glenn: same destination. one was a steam train and one was a jet. >> henry paulson is the guy who has took over wall street.

washington still has their fingers in there. it is scary. the constitution is a living inkedbly important document. to throw it away is very terrifying. glenn: ben stein. thank you very much. we will be back. i

"what do you mean homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods?" "a few inches of water caused all this?" "but i don't even live near the water." what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you. including the fact that a preferred risk policy

starts as low as $119 a year. for an agent, call the number on your screen. glenn: tomorrow, america, an episode you won't see anyplace else. who is really in charge of our government and what is really happening in our country. you don't want to miss it. for more information on the show and what we're talking about and