This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," November 10, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.
ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: This is a FOX News alert.
The people of Jordan stood up against terrorism today. They took to the streets and chanted, "Burn in hell, Zarqawi," and, "Death to Zarqawi," one day after bombers killed more than 50 people at three hotels in Amman. Men, women and children stood together in denouncing the barbaric attacks.
It was an unusual moment of solidarity in a country where many hard- line Muslims have opposed King Abdullah's more moderate and pro-Western policies. And this may be only the beginning. More protests are also scheduled in the Red Sea port city of Aqaba, where a rocket killed a Jordanian soldier in August.
Meanwhile, the rioting in France seems to be finally under control. There was a sharp drop in violence overnight after the government imposed emergency curfews and deported foreigners involved with the riots. The emergency powers also allow officials to put troublemakers under house arrest, ban or limit the movement of people and vehicles, and close public spaces.
Today, some French groups are calling the emergency tactics racist and illegal, but the violence finally seems like it's under control. But now the tough questions need to be asked about France's relationship with its Muslim and North African immigrant populations.
Joining us now with reaction to these two big stories that we have been following this week, an exclusive interview with the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson.
Excuse my voice. Dr. Dobson, good to have you with us. Thank you very much.
JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: Alan, it's always good to be back.
COLMES: Let me ask you about Zarqawi. You know, this is a guy many think is responsible here. We had opportunities, according to our Pentagon, to go after Zarqawi before the war with Iraq, and they were told, "Don't go after him. We want a bigger war in Iraq."
This was reported heavily in the press a couple of years ago. I wonder if that was a mistake. We had a chance to get this guy.
DOBSON: Well, Alan, as you know, I'm not an expert on foreign policy in that way, so I'm not sure I can weigh in on that. I didn't know that's where you were going.
I do believe in the war. I do believe that it was the right thing to do. I think there are an awful lot of people who were suffering and murdered over there, the mass graves. And I think we should have gone in there.
We were right to be there. But as for the developments day by day, that's not my area.
COLMES: Well, you know, we're having all kinds of problems now. We have insurgency in Iraq. We're seeing what's happening in Amman, Jordan. I want to talk about France with you in just a moment.
But, you know, there are those who would say that we have created or helped inflame an insurgency, which is now visiting these horrible acts upon innocent people in Amman, Jordan.
DOBSON: Yes. I give you the same answer, Alan. That's not something that I'm prepared to talk to you about.
COLMES: All right. Do you have any feelings about what's going on in France? We're showing — we're going to show some video of that. You know...
DOBSON: Yes, I do have some feelings about that, because I'm kind of an amateur student of history. And that looks really dangerous to me, because what's going on there is very similar to what took place in Germany between the two world wars. And we know where that led.
And it's anarchy. And it does seem to me that the French government is appeasing those who are bombing, and throwing Molotov cocktails, and doing things that really need to be confronted.
It also looks to me like the American press is kind of whitewashing that. And they described the developments there in a sympathetic way. These are thugs. These are destroyers and they really ought to be confronted.
COLMES: Well, I'm not sure, Dr. Dobson, who has described this in a sympathetic way. And also, the French government has cracked down. They've had curfews. And, indeed, the violence has subsided over the last day or so largely because of the crackdown by the Chirac government. So I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say otherwise.
DOBSON: Well, this has been going on for two or three weeks. And you say the last two or three days. It seems to me they let it go a long time before they did approach it.
And the American press failed to mention they were Muslims for a long time. I guess that's not politically correct.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Well, Dr. Dobson, it's Sean Hannity. That's the question I wanted to get to here.
The way it was reported — and by the way, what, they finally cracked down after two weeks. You know, how many thousands of cars, how many homes had to burn in the process? It's nuts.
But it seems to me that the average reporting of this in the mainstream media in America, it was about, "Well, this really has to do with poverty. This has to do with economic conditions."
Do you see this more as something other? For example, is there an unwillingness to identify those that have some sympathy or support for radical Islam? Are we that politically correct now in the world?
DOBSON: I believe that, Sean. I really do. And I think, if you just look at the way it's been reported, it's as though they're making a case for the fact that these are frustrated young people.
What they're doing is wrong. It is illegal, and it is dangerous. And I think, again, the Muslim aspect of this has been very unreported, underreported.
HANNITY: Yes, well, doesn't it get to the heart of — and maybe there are lessons for America to learn here — about people that need to identify with the culture? I know a lot of people don't want to talk about the word assimilation.
For example, every immigrant group that's come to America, they've assimilated. They've learned the language of success, which is the language of English.
In many instances, this did not happen here. Are there lessons for America to learn, especially as we know grapple with a very strong illegal immigration population in the country?
DOBSON: You know, the family of mankind is a very small community. And what's going on in Europe also has antecedence here. And I think there is a lesson to be learned here.
Where, in the past, we have had "E. Pluribus Unum." We have had, "From many, one."
Now it seems we've gone from one, many. And people come here, but they want to retain their identity and don't want to assimilate into who we are. If they don't want to do that, they really shouldn't come here, because they know what they're getting when they come here.
HANNITY: I want to ask you some moral questions in the next segment about these questions that they're asking 7-year-olds about sex and the court decision that says that that's appropriate and parents don't have rights. I want to get to that in a minute.
But I want to first ask you a political question, Dr. Dobson. You know, you were involved in the Harriet Miers' situation, as you know. Now Samuel Alito has been chosen.
Republicans are watching their poll numbers slip considerably. But yet I see Republicans somewhat abandoning their principles on the size of scope of government, government spending, drilling, energy independence, immigration. Do they deserve that slippage?
DOBSON: I think they do, to a degree. You know, it's been just one year now since the Republicans celebrated a great victory in the presidential election of last year.
And there was blood, sweat and tears that went into that election. And many people were highly involved. The values voters came out and put Republicans in power.
I'm telling you that the House and the Senate have not passed one single piece of legislation that I'm aware of that deals with the social issues that they ran on. There has been nothing. The Senate has confirmed judges, and I will give them credit for that. But beyond that, there's very little.
COLMES: We'll pick up with Dr. Dobson in just a moment, right after the break.
HANNITY: And welcome back to "Hannity & Colmes." I'm Sean Hannity.
Also coming up tonight, are high taxes really to blame for the high cost of gasoline? We have a surprising "Hannity & Colmes" investigation in our special series called "Follow the Money." Could it actually be that it's the politicians that need to be reined in on the cost of a gallon of gasoline?
But first, the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, known for legislating from the bench, recently dismissed a lawsuit by California parents who sued their school district because a sex survey, with inappropriate questions, was given to 7- to 10-year-olds.
Now, the court declared that parents do not have the, quote, "exclusive right to teach their children about sex if they are enrolled in public schools."
So how would the confirmation of a conservative Bush Supreme Court nominee like Samuel Alito impact these types of court decisions?
We continue now with the founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson.
Dr. Dobson, these are 7- to 10-year-olds. I don't think — I'm hardly a prude. I understand the facts of life. Just put up on the screen what the Ninth Circuit says is appropriate for teachers to ask without the parent's permission.
For example, are you having sex feelings in your body? Thinking about touching other peoples' private parts? Are you getting scared or upset when you think about sex? Are you thinking about sex too much? Are you touching your private parts?
On and on and on. Is that appropriate?
DOBSON: Well, Sean, that's something we can get our teeth into. That's something that I care about deeply.
In fact, I think that's one of the most frightening examples of judicial tyranny that has come down. And, of course, the ruling involved Judge Reinhardt, who also gave us the prohibition on kids saying the Ten Commandments.
So this is the most out-of-control, imperious, unelected, unaccountable court in the country. And they continue to hand down these rulings that are just off the wall.
HANNITY: Let me read from the decision, some noteworthy quotes, I believe. "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children." Well, why don't we just turn our kids over the moment we cut the umbilical cord and let Alan and Ted Kennedy raise them?
COLMES: That's a great idea. I like that.
DOBSON: Does the word...
COLMES: Dr. Dobson, let me ask you, Dr. Dobson — first of all, I thank you for the offer, but no thanks.
But, look, this is a situation where the court simply said that what this survey was not illegal. And they were withdrew the survey in 2002. Nobody condoned those questions. The court doesn't condone them.
And by the way, one of the arguments from the parents was that the court had a right to privacy, or that parents have a right to privacy that's in the Constitution. Conservatives normally argue the Constitution has no right to privacy. But you feel the Constitution has that right?
DOBSON: Well, what parents do not have is the right to raise their own children. And that's what they said.
And it didn't relate only to sex education; it related to the whole curriculum. And what this judge is saying is parents no fundamental right to raise their own children...
COLMES: No exclusive right. That's not true.
DOBSON: ... according to...
COLMES: They said no exclusive right.
DOBSON: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, who is going to challenge it? I mean, the parents either have the responsibility to raise their own children or they don't.
COLMES: Well, they do. But they don't have the exclusive right. If you send your kid to a public school, parents can't control every piece of information. They weren't condoning the survey. What the court said is, the public school has a right to impart information to your kid.
DOBSON: Alan, you're saying, and you're asking that question as though this is not a departure from everything that that has gone on since the founding of this country.
COLMES: All the court ruled was that it was not illegal to ask those questions.
DOBSON: Parents have a fundamental responsibility to raise their own children. And to have a judge step in there and say that they're out of the equation, and that the schools can do anything they want with the curriculum — and it was the entire curriculum — is just unbelievable.
And the word that comes to mind for me is impeachment.
DOBSON: It is time to impeach that judge there on the Ninth Circuit.
COLMES: So are you saying, if you don't like what a court does, if you don't like a decision of a court, you want to just off the judges? And the Republicans are now trying to divide the Ninth Circuit, because they don't like some of their decisions. So you want to give more power to the legislative branch, is that correct?
DOBSON: No. What I would really like to do is to have the Congress take the responsibility and the power that is given by the Constitution. In Article III, Section I of the Constitution, it says that Congress has the right to create and to control the courts below the Supreme Court.
And they won't use it. And as a result, you've got these judges out there that are just determined to legislate from the bench. And it ought to be stopped.
HANNITY: Dr. Dobson, good point. And parents ought to have the exclusive right to put those values in their children. And if the teachers don't like it, too bad. They ought not be able to circumvent the values of the parents.
Good to see you, Dr. Dobson.
DOBSON: If parents don't yell for that, there is something wrong.
HANNITY: I agree with you. Absolutely.
Thanks for being with us, Dr. Dobson, of Focus on the Family.
Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.