All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:05
August 11, 2005, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm just looking for something here.
Hang on.
The music is good.
People like it, so sit tight.
Oh, there it is.
There's one thing I'm looking for.
All right, and just one more.
Okay, greetings and welcome back, folks.
Nice to have you with us.
This is the one and only Rush Limbaugh program.
We are the EIB network, and I am America's anchorman, America's truth detector, and uh the Doctor of Democracy all combined to rolled up into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Great to be with you.
Uh if you want to be on the program, the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
I want to go back to the Washington Post again.
And I the the the thing I had uh moments ago about the hypocrisy, all these groups demanding that uh club Gitmo be shut down, so the Bush administration, okay.
Well, we'll we'll send we'll send some people out of there.
Now the left is upset at where they're going to be sent, saying you'd be better off kept at Club Gitmo, but Club Gitmo was the absolute worst place on earth to keep these people because we're so rotten and inhumane.
Well, the Washington Post also had a story yesterday by Dan Balls, and it plays off the latest polling data from uh Carville and Stan Greenberg and their democracy core group, whatever they call it.
And the the headline is this.
For Democrats, a troubling culture gap.
Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy, and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans.
But a study by Democratic Strategirus warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.
Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less educated voters saying that they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates.
But the new democracy course study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters, giving the Republicans a significant electoral advantage.
The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in uh in Colorado and Kentucky.
The good news for Democrats, all the groups express dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president in the GOP-controlled Congress.
Then the bad news.
As powerful as the concerns over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes, specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life quickly renders Democrats almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level, said this study by Greenberg and Carville.
Many of those voters still favor Democrats on economic issues, but they see the Democrats as weak on national security and on cultural and moral issues.
And they view the Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values.
Most referred to Democrats as liberal on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them immoral, morally bankrupt, and even anti-religious, according to the Democracy Core analysis.
What have I told you people?
I've told you that this is exactly how the mainstream of America sees the Democratic Party, precisely this.
This is why I told you that there would not be any anti-Republican backlash over the Shaivo case.
If anybody gets hurt by the Shaivo case, it's gonna be the Democrats.
And this study by Carvel and Greenberg proves it.
Actually, it's not Carville here, it's Carl Ognay and Greenberg.
They conducted the focus group.
They said Democrats need a reform-oriented anti-Washington agenda to overcome the culture gap.
At this point, Democrats are in no position to capitalize if there is a clear backlash against Republicans.
No matter how disaffected they are.
Over Republican failures in Iraq and here at home, a large chunk of white non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain unreachable for Democrats at the national level.
Well.
Now what do you think this is all about, folks?
What do you really think this is all about?
This is why the Democrats are out there trying to find such things as George Lacoff rhymes with and other linguists to help them try to fool people into thinking that they are mainstream when it comes to cultural issues, but they're not.
This survey really nails it.
Most referred to Democrats as liberal on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them immoral, morally bankrupt, even anti-religious.
Why do you think there was so much Democrat backlash against the Nayroll ad?
Precisely for this reason.
And I'm going to tell you, Democrats, something you can sit out there and you can try to claim that you are religious and that you are moral and that you share the same views of morality and values that mainstream America does.
But as long as you continue to make abortion the most important issue culturally, you are dead.
Because it is not a majority issue for you.
It hasn't been for a long time.
And your association with groups like Nayrol and people for the American way and the nags, the National Association for Gals rubs off on you.
And it is clear that that's the only thing that matters to these people.
And it's also clear that they don't like morality.
They don't like the concept of it.
They don't want to have to answer to somebody's morality.
They don't want there to be any judgmentalism.
And you combine that with the Democrats' obvious weakness on national security.
And it explains why the Democrats are so panicked.
And it is why they're so panicked about these Supreme Court nominations.
Now let's bring something else in here.
Let me go back to one of these paragraphs here that the Democrats, uh, according to the balls story, uh, really have to have uh come to Jesus meeting with themselves about it's this paragraph.
As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the war in Iraq and the economy, blah, blah, blah, the introduction of cultural themes, and look what's mentioned first here, specifically gay marriage.
Abortion, the importance of the traditional family union, and the role of religion in public life quickly renders Democrats almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level.
Well, let's take these issues.
Gay marriage.
Now, you don't hear Democrats talking a whole lot about it.
Why is that?
Why is it?
I mean, most gay activists think the Democrats are on their side on this issue, but where are the Democrats leading on the issue?
Do you hear them leading on this issue?
No.
Well, why?
Take a stab at it, Mr. Snerdley.
Why are the Democrats not leading on an issue that their constituents think that they ought to be leading on?
Because it's a three-state issue, and the vast majority of Democrats are opposed to it as well.
And in fact, to illustrate this, I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
San Francisco Chronicle Story Today by Carolyn Lockhead.
Gay issues destined for top court.
Listen to some of the stuff in this story.
Abortion may dominate next month's Senate hearings on whether to confirm John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court, but gay rights, gay rights is the stealth issue.
Democrats are not as eager to push for same-sex marriage as they are to protect abortion.
But there is little question that the leading edge of civil rights law involves lesbians and gays rather than more settled questions of gender and racial equality.
Over the next decade or more, and if confirmed, the 50-year-old Roberts could be on the court for 30 years.
Activists on both sides expect the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage.
Several such cases already are moving through lower courts, though they may be several years away from the Supreme Court.
Tony Perkins, president, family research counsel.
I don't think there's any question that such cases ultimately will come before the Supreme Court.
John Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay advoc advocacy group agrees, is whoever gets appointed is going to be on the court for a long time, and eventually these issues are going to reach the Supreme Court, although the stakes are high.
Both sides are downplaying the issue for strategic reasons.
Some gay leaders warn against making gay issues a focus of the confirmation hearings, fearing such a move could backfire.
Why?
Why would it backfire?
Must be a lot of opposition to it.
Hmm.
Very few Democratic senators support same-sex marriage.
And the public remains largely opposed to the idea.
Activists are advising the Senate Democrats to address the issue indirectly, under the rubric of a constitutional right to privacy.
Religious conservatives, on the other hand, want to avoid imposing a litmus test on gay rights so that liberals can't demand one on abortion.
Bush himself has carely avoided uh carefully avoided doing so.
Now, the point that I take away from this story and the and the ball's story, Dan Ball's story, is that the Democrats cannot even be honest.
They j they have to shelve what they really believe.
They have to zip their lips on it.
If the Democrats open up, and and this is, by the way, you know what this Greenberg survey proves, it proves the Democrats' message has gotten out.
As I have said all along, ever since the 2002 midterm elections, the Democrats out there complaining, we didn't get our message out.
And I said, Oh, yes, you have.
Your message has gotten out loud and clear, and that's why you're losing.
And the Democrats' own group survey indicates it.
How else do the Democrats surveying people they think should vote for them come up with this idea that as powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes quickly renders Democrats almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level?
The only way they can be rendered irrelevant is if everybody knows what their positions are.
So congratulations to all of you Democrats.
You have gotten the message out, you have gotten it out loud and clear, and it's coming now to bite you.
Uh coming back now to bite you.
So it's a huge dilemma, conundrum, whatever for these people, because they've got a constituency group out there that's very much for a lot of these things.
The Democrats don't dare say it.
Now I'm telling you, this is not a position you want to be in when you're running for political office, national office especially.
You can't do this kind of thing.
You can't win big majorities and form big leadership coalitions running as a stealth party.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue in just a moment.
And we are back, El Rushbow serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly here on the EIB network.
I want to go back to uh one of the paragraphs in the San Francisco Chronicles story, because it's uh I think it's somewhat important.
Uh, very few Democratic senators support same-sex marriage, and the public remains largely opposed to the idea.
Activists are advising the Senate Democrats to address the issue indirectly under the rubric of a constitutional right to privacy.
All right.
We should, by the way, I think, go on offense, and we should explore this issue of privacy rights because it leads to anything goes.
If you establish the rubric of the right to privacy under the Constitution, then bar the doors, folks.
I mean, same-sex marriage, polygamy, want to marry your dog, you can marry your dog if you do it in private.
As long as you never take the dog out to dinner, as long as the marriage between you and your dog occurs in your house, who can stop you under the right to privacy?
Where would the line be drawn?
Where would where would the liberals draw the line on the right to privacy?
I mean, if if you can if you can uh marry somebody the same sex, can you marry a third person of the same sex?
Can you have a marriage of four people?
If you're going to destroy and blow up the definition of marriage, then it can include pretty much anything if it occurs under the rubric of the right to privacy.
You're either for privacy in the bedroom or you're not.
And if your bedroom's private, then maybe even incest will end up being okay.
Make the liberals defend their position on this.
Don't let them hide behind the right to privacy.
You know, this is this is the liberals' uh activist groups are advising Democrats.
They don't don't talk about, don't talk about same-sex marriage when you talk about these nominees.
Don't say that Roberts is be opposed to it, don't say that Roberts will stop it, because they know they lose on it, they know that the country would rally to that.
We just we want to go at this by in a stealth way.
We want to get the same-sex marriage by not even going for it.
We want to go for the right to privacy, and then anything goes.
Okay, if that's the strategy, then the liberals need to be asked.
What are the limits?
What limits are you willing to go for on the right to privacy?
Bigamy, polygamy, incest, where Where are you going to draw the line?
I mean, what do they mean by privacy right?
They need to define this kind of thing.
If they're running a stealth uh campaign, as it were, to get what they want under the right to privacy.
Uh better get some specific definitions from them as to what they mean.
And why shouldn't let so the public can know.
So the public can have some idea of what the plans and the intentions are by the American left.
And why shouldn't we debate other issues?
A recent poll showed the American people are very concerned about the court's rulings in which they gave due process rights to terrorist detainees.
Libs a week on that one too.
That that um you know the the the the what was it a DC circuit um DC Circuit or was it the Fourth Circuit forturned that federal judge that Clinton appointed federal judge that said detainees have a right to lawyer and that military tribunals were unconstitutional.
It was the DC Yeah that Roberts in fact Roberts was one of the three judges that's right Roberts was one of three judges that overturned in a majority opinion by the way that stupid idiotic decision of a lower court judge that was a Clinton appointee.
Liberals are very weak on this.
And there's no reason to keep playing defense.
And the reason we're playing defense on this is because, well, it says here anyway, that religious conservatives want to avoid opposing a litmus test on gay rights so that liberals cannot demand one on abortion.
What can't the liberals already have?
What do you think Chuck Schumer's litmus test is?
What do you think Pat Leahy's litmus test is or Barbara Boxer's or any of these people?
There's already a litmus test on abortion.
And it's on that basis that they are going to end up opposing any nationals.
nominee whatsoever.
Now get this I found this I was I was perusing the internet last night and I went to uh one of my favorite websites Townhall.com they post people's uh op-eds there opinion columns and there's a piece that I found by a man named Jason Opuzo.
Jason Apuzo is a filmmaker, co-director of the Liberty Film Festival, editor of the conservative film blog Libertas.
Slow to awaken after the 9-11 attacks, Hollywood's finally come around to contributing what it can in the war on terror, namely glossy, star-studded movies that sympathize with the enemy.
Hard to believe?
Well, here's the pitch.
With box office numbers trending down, studio executives are suddenly green-lighting movies they can describe to shareholders as controversial or timely.
Whether the films are anti-American or otherwise demoralizing to the war, it's apparently immaterial.
Its appetite whetted by Fahrenheit 9-1-1's $222 million worldwide gross, Hollywood thinks it's found a formula for both financial security and critical plaudits.
Noxious, anti-American storylines bathed in the warm glow of star power.
And try this.
He has a list here.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 movies.
that are currently on the drawing boards to be made and he describes them and here's one called Syrian S-Y R I A N A Syrian starring George Clooning and Matt Damon this Warner Brothers film set during the first Bush administration features a plot by American oil companies and the U.S. government to redraw Middle East borders for greater oil profiteering.
The film even depicts a handsome, tragic suicide bomber driven to jihad after being fired by an American oil company.
The film's climax comes with the jihadist launching an explosive device into an oil tanker as American oil barons and Saudi officials look on.
V for Vendetta from Warner Brothers and the creators of The Matrix.
Comes this film about a futuristic Great Britain that's become a fascist state.
A masked freedom fighter named V uses terror tactics including bombing the London Underground to undermine the world.
the government leading to a climax in which the British Parliament is blown up Natalie Portman stars as a skinhead who turns to the revolution after doing time as a guantanamo Style prisoner.
The Scorpion's Gate.
Sony has optioned former terrorist czar, Richard Clark's novel about oil companies and Washington politicians colluding to reshape the map of the Middle East for greater oil profiteering, this time by launching a global nuclear war.
So two movies on that theme, Syriana and the Scorpion Gate.
And I'll read you some of the descriptions of the other movies and Mr. Opuzzo's conclusion when we come back after this brief time out here at the bottom of the hour.
Sit tight.
We'll also get your phone calls as the program continues on in mere moments.
A man, a legend, a way of life, fearless and aggressive.
You're on the EIB network.
Hollywood's new war effort is terrorism chic, according to Jason Apuzo.
Again, uh ten movies he says are in the pipeline to be made, and they're being made because Hollywood's figured out that they uh made so much money on Fahrenheit 911 worldwide.
Um that uh and they hate Bush so much that going after America and uh and so forth is the way to make big bucks.
George Clooney and Matt Damon, star in Syrianna, set during the first Bush administration, features a plot by American oil companies and the U.S. government to redraw Middle East borders for greater oil profiteering.
The film even depicts a handsome, tragic suicide bomber driven to jihad after being fired by an American oil company.
The film's climax comes with the jihadist launching an explosive device into an oil tanker as American oil barons and Saudi officials look on.
Uh Sony has optioned former terrorists Richard Clark's novel about oil companies and Washington politicians, concluding to reshape the map of the Middle East for greater oil profiteering, this time by launching a global nuclear war.
So the theme here is that this is all about oil.
It's all about Bush and uh and his oil buddies getting oil, and that's all this war is about, which was also a central theme of Fahrenheit 911.
American Dreams is another movie.
This satire from Universal Pictures deals with Pakistani suicide bombers out to kill the U.S. president.
The film stars Hugh Grant, Richard Dreyfus, Willem Defoe, and Mandy Moore.
According to writer-director Paul White, who uh did American Pie, the film is a comic examination of cultural obsessions like the war on terror and how they can anesthetize us to the actual issues of our day.
No true glory, the battle for Fallujah.
Universal has uh attached Harrison Ford to star as real-life General Jim Mattis in this story, blaming the White House for the deaths of 50 Marines in one of the Iraq War's deadliest battles, uh, based on the book of the same name by Bing West.
Terminus, set in the Middle East of the Future.
This Warner Brothers film depicts a disillusioned war correspondent covering an insurgency he decides he has to support.
The producer says it deals head-on with what some call insurgency, what some call guerrilla warfare, what some call freedom fighting.
Jarhead, this universal movie starring Jamie Fox and Jake Gillenhall, deals with the dehumanization of Marine trainees prior to and during the 1991 Gulf War, based on Andrew Swafford's notorious and questionable memoirs of the same name.
Uh Mr. Puzzo says that uh the above list should not be taken as comprehensive.
For example, Paramount also has projects in the works about a reformed Al-Qaeda operative, about the victim of an Iraqi suicide bomber.
Little about these projects, though, has been made public.
Now he's he's worried about this.
He says it's imperative for conservatives to shift strategies as well.
It'll no longer be sufficient for outraged conservatives to storm talk radio, the internet or Fox News with the idea of verbally rebutting these movies, like dower lawyers in a courtroom.
When these films arrive with their star power, swelling soundtracks and digital effects, they'll hit the public with the force of a hurricane.
There'll be no obvious butt of derision like Michael Moore for talking head conservatives to target.
These filmmakers and their movies will be much more polished, subtle, and insidious.
These films will be more dangerous than Fahrenheit 9-11 because their strategy will be To entertain.
Hollywood shifted strategies in its opposition to the war on terror, no longer to let clumsy, uncouth documentary documentarians like Michael Moore conduct its foreign policy.
Hollywood's rolling out big guns like Harrison Ford, Leo DiCaprio, and George Clooney, complete with their PR firms, dazzling smiles, and easy charm.
And he is convinced that this campaign will work in swaying public opinion.
Because it's uh it'll be an onslaught.
It'll be so many movies that it'll affect people's mindset, uh, either consciously or subconsciously that uh they've been lied to and that uh this and that and the other.
I'm not so sure about that.
I'm not as doom and gloom pessimistic as Mr. Apuzo is.
Uh and not because uh the talk radio or Fox or the Internet can rebut this.
It's just that I I think I don't see Middle America groveling to Hollywood these days.
Hollywood, what's the story?
They're losing money left and right.
I think people are sensitive to the anti-Americanism coming out of Hollywood.
Not just Michael Moore, just the whole anytime one of these people open their mouths and talk politically.
People are fed up with it.
They don't want to be preached to.
They want to be entertained.
Well, he says these movies are going to be entertaining.
Well, they're obviously going to be preach at you movies as well.
Uh haven't talked about this because everybody else has, but let me bring up this Cindy Sheehan business.
This is this woman from Vacaville, California, who's camped outside Bush's ranch at Crawford, Texas, trying to pull a little bit of a swindle.
Um Bush uh was very supportive of her son's death, supported the family regarding the son's death, and uh after she met Bush and he met the family, uh, she was quite supportive and quite complimentary.
The story is now, well, that uh that was just phony.
We didn't feel that was the right for him, but I'm mad, and I think Bush is an in-grate, and he killed my son, and you you know the story.
Uh, she'd been posting on uh on on Michael Moore's website.
She's been she's been totally co-opted by the the Jersey girl mentality and the and the whole Michael Moore leftist mentality.
And last night, for example, on the CBSC CBS Evening News, they devoted a second segment to promoting her vigil.
Bill Plant noted the obvious as he provided more publicity.
She's gotten a lot of media attention by camping out on the road that leads to the president's ranch.
You got people saying, no way should a mother of a son who died in New York have to sit in a ditch.
Go out and meet her, Mr. President.
Well, he already has.
He has met with this family.
Plant pointed out that she understands it's very difficult for the White House to dismiss anyone in her position and touted how she also knows she's not alone.
Anchor Bob Schiefer ridiculously asked, I wonder why the president doesn't meet with her.
Plant replied, well, you'd think it'd be an easy thing to do, but noted that that would lead him to having to meet with a lot of people.
Bill Plant nor Schiefer pointed out that Sheehan did meet Bush last year, but she says now that that wasn't a satisfying meeting.
Plant didn't note her praise then for Bush after the first meeting, and neither is the rest of the mainstream media.
They've caught this, and they're on this story.
This is exciting.
They still ignore the Air America scandal, but they will they're all over this thinking it's something new.
But there is something new.
The family of uh American soldier Casey Sheehan, who was killed in Iraq on April 4th, 2004, has broken its silence and spoken out against his mother Cindy Sheehan's anti-war vigil against the president held outside his Crawford, Texas ranch.
The following email was received by the drudge report from Sherry Quarterlow, Casey's aunt and godmother.
Our family has been so distressed by the recent activities of Cindy that we are breaking our silence.
We have collectively written a statement for release.
Feel free to distribute this statement as you wish.
Thanks, Sherry.
In response to questions regarding the Cindy Sheehan Crawford, Texas issue, the Sheehan family statement is, The Sheehan family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq war and we have been silently, respectfully grieving.
We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan.
She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation.
The rest of the Sheehan family supports the troops, our country and our president silently with prayer and respect.
Sincerely, Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins.
So the Sheehan family's had enough, and they've sent this statement out, and we'll just see how much of the rest of the media reports on this statement.
We'll just see because Cindy Sheehan's just the latest Jersey girl.
She's just the latest example that then the press is giddy about this because they're all trying to gin up all this anti-war sentiment among the American people.
And a U.S. Air Force colonel has been charged with painting obscenities on parked cars bearing pro-President Bush bumper stickers.
According to police, on uh on Wednesday, Lieutenant Colonel Alexis Fecto, who supervises 41 full-time and part-time reservists at the National Security Space Institute, Colorado Springs, is suspected of vandalizing twelve cars at Denver International Airport over a six-month period, according to the Denver police.
Lieutenant Colonel Fechtow had been charged with one count of felony mischief and six misdemeanor counts related to the uh vandalism.
He couldn't be reached for comment.
He scheduled to be arraigned later this month.
The cops said they got several complaints dating back to December 2004 from people with cars bearing Bush or Bush Cheney campaign bumper stickers that their vehicles had been vandalized.
So the cops set up a bait car with a pro-Bush bumper sticker, parked it at the airport with a surveillance camera, and they waited.
On July 1st, the camera recorded a man spray painting over the bumper sticker with an expletive.
Investigators traced the license plate of the suspected vandal to Lieutenant Colonel Alexis Fechtow, 42, turned himself into cops last week and was released after posting a $5,000 bond.
Now you you Democrats, see this what you don't get for every one of these jerks, and every every Cindy Sheehan out there.
Remember when Gephardt talked about the stock market dropping a hundred points, you guys picked up a house seat?
How happy about that?
What he let me you guys are losing votes and seats in the House exponentially every time one of your wacko supporters does things like this.
There may be a general sentiment in the country that doesn't support the Iraq war right now or doesn't think it's going very well, but they don't hate the president, and they don't disrespect for the president, and they don't hope we lose.
And they don't want to, in fact, that may be one of the reasons why there's some disapproval.
They don't, they might not think we're doing enough.
And so for every one of these weirdos that you that you trumpet, you're hurting yourself.
These are not the kind of people that represent mainstream values.
I sorry, Cindy Sheehan does not cut it.
She's not gaining you any support.
She's hurting you in this wacko lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, same thing.
There is not an anti-Bush sentiment in this country.
There's no personal hatred for this guy like you guys have.
People may be upset with the war right now, but they like him personally, they respect him, and they think he's honest and a decent guy.
And you guys are out there trying to paint him out as a Nazi, as Satan or whatever.
And when you do that, you're just writing yourselves out of the scene.
Hope you keep it up, but I mean, somebody's got to tell you.
We'll take a quick break and be back after this.
Stay with us.
Fastest three hours in media.
We're almost finished here, folks.
Zowie, go to San Francisco and uh Tom.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Uh, thank you.
Uh Mega struggling to be independent in a land of polar opposite dittoes to you.
Appreciate that, sir.
Um I was listening to your discussion about uh the right to privacy, and uh barring the constitutional aspects.
Can you clear up the apparent conflict in your position on the right to privacy in relation to what has been happening in Florida with your medical records?
Well, yeah, but I I I uh the I don't I don't think I can leave the Constitution out of it.
Uh the Florida Constitution has it specified.
The Florida Constitution has a specific reference to the right to privacy and medical records, which is what you know I was fighting to keep private uh uh are a relevant uh it's a relevant thing To fight under the Florida Constitution.
U.S. Constitution, you can do a keyword search of it, search the word privacy.
You won't find it there.
There's an assumed right to privacy based on the Griswold case.
And that's where Robert Bork got into trouble because he said, I don't see a right to privacy here as an originalist.
But, you know, the comparing the two things, and I'm I'm glad you called and asked the question.
Because the, you know, I I wasn't trying to uh do anything other than exercise my rights as granted by the Constitution of Florida and a Florida citizen.
And I also believe that the statute uh that allowed these medical records of mine to be seized had been violated.
So I appealed it and I lost.
Take your lumps, it's the way it happens.
Still think that it was an error by the courts, but they happen all the time.
So you move on and you live with it.
In the case of the uh uh federal constitution, U.S. Constitution, and what's being done here by the left to pervert it and distort it, they want to have this rubric of the right to privacy, which is not specified in the U.S. Constitution, used in order to advance a stealth agenda.
They are not being specific about what it is they want to become constitutional as a result of what they perceive to be an assumed right to privacy in the Constitution.
So I'm simply saying they need to be forced to explain themselves on this, because their activists are telling their uh the senators uh on the Judiciary Committee and and elsewhere, don't mention the gay rights business and the gay marriage business, and don't go there because we'd rather get that done under the right to privacy.
So what they're saying is they would rather have some right to privacy affirmed as a result of these hearings, so that whatever goes on in private is constitutional.
I'm simply saying, well, okay, if that's your strategy, then I think it's incumbent upon us to get from you what the limits are going to be under the right to privacy.
If if you're gonna say that gay marriage is permitted under right to privacy, then pretty much anything that you do in private, I assume it'd be okay.
You can marry your dog.
If you um if if you're a guy, you want to marry another guy, and then marry another guy and you have a three-way marriage.
I guess if you do it in private, and it's private, then you can do it.
Is that what is that where you're headed?
Um I mean, you you you could you could make what is incest going to be okay under under the right to privacy?
You know, now you may think these are extremes, but they need to be asked because it's being used as a stealth uh in a stealth manner to try to get things pronounced as constitutional, which the people, if they had a chance to vote democratically on these things, would hand down disapprove of.
So it's clearly an end run.
And it needs to be focused on.
Mine was not an end run.
Mine was just straight up and as as clear and clean as it can be.
I don't think my medical rights, my my medical records are subject to being seized without my participation.
And I don't think that that my medical records ought to be plasted all over the internet, uh, like some of them have been, the pharmaceutical records and so forth, uh, according to two things, not just the Florida Constitution's guarantee of a right to privacy, but pay attention to discussions nationwide about medical records,
and you'll find that the U.S. government, the Justice Department, failed to try to get a bunch of medical records of doctors in Chicago, because what they were seeking was abortion records.
They wanted to go out and try to file some cases, uh, some charges against women and doctors who may have committed partial birth abortions.
They could only get the evidence they needed with medical records.
And the uh the U.S. uh district court system all the way to the appellate courts that said no, medical records are private.
You can't do it this way, Justice Department.
So there's already an understanding of the privacy of medical records.
There's a privilege between doctors and patients.
Doctors aren't permitted to discuss patients' medical situations, except in my case.
Now, but that's what I was fighting, but I don't think there's any real congruity here in the two.
But I'm that's why I'm glad you asked.
Back after this, stay with us.
And by the way, I did win one thing.
The uh the lower court eventually required the state here to return records that didn't comply with their original search warrant.
They weren't entitled to go get everything as they wanted, uh, even though we lost some of the way.
Here's the uh WNBC Marist College poll, Hillary Clinton has slipped 14 points since Janine Pierrot announced herself at the race.
▲
Export Selection