All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
June 19, 2009, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Way too kind, way too kind, thanks.
Appreciate the kindness of Johnny, the kindness of Rush for letting me hang out here today, and oh, by the way, Tuesday of next week.
A kindness that is extended to Mark Stein on Monday.
Always enjoy hearing Mr. Stein and the fill-in stint.
And we will all enjoy Wednesday because that is when Rush returns.
Let us return to your phone calls, a multi-topic day as open line Friday often is.
Um, I think I want to go first to a gentleman who was, uh, talking about who happened to, to glom onto the census issue I mentioned, because there are a couple of things in today's news.
Michelle Obama comes uh Michelle Obama.
That is not Freudian.
That's just a screw up.
Michelle Bachman, not mistaken for each other uh ideologically or physically at any time.
Lovely women both.
Uh Michelle Bachman, Republican of uh of Minnesota, uh said, uh I'm not filling out my census for him beyond how many people are in my house.
And with that, uh I've I've sort of gave you a little homework assignment or a little bit of a quest that we can all get together.
Because if we're going to do a little civil disobedience on uh on an uh intrusive census questionnaire, um what is our basis?
Uh and it needs to be a really good one.
Again, the likelihood of us being rounded up and imprisoned for this would seem to be fairly slight.
But um let's go to Nolansville, Tennessee, uh, because Kurt ran afoul of this, apparently, and so perhaps there's stuff to learn from from his story.
Hey, Kurt, Mark Davis in for Rush.
Pleasure to have you.
What's up?
Mark, great program.
You're doing a superior job as the uh stand-in host or very quick.
Thanks.
Uh I received not only one from the Census Bureau last year, about ten pages, but also from the Department of Agriculture.
Uh similar both of them, but uh a little bit different as you would imagine with the I uh uh Department of Agriculture.
Uh I'm a farmer in Tennessee.
I actually ignored that census uh in the beginning, and after the fourth phone call, uh where they asked me why I had not responded why I hadn't sent it back in, and did I realize that if I didn't send it back in I was subject to fine and imprisonment of etc, etc.
About the second time I asked them if my government was threatening me, and they were all apologetic.
No, we're not threatening you.
But we still need you to send it in.
So the the fourth person sent me a second copy, and I did what Michelle Bachmann did.
I basically answered the questions that I thought were appropriate.
Uh I put on there, I have to apologize up front, none of your doggone business.
The first time I got the one that I didn't like, and then from then on I just simply wrote declined.
And then I got two more phone calls, and the second phone call, the guy says, We've got to have a completed form.
And I said, Look, you can send the police and you can arrest me, but I am not placing any more information.
You have all you're going to get out of this household.
So do what you've got to do, and I've not heard from them since.
God bless you.
Now if if we all do this, those of us who are similarly inclined, one of two things will happen.
One, these people will go away, as happened in your case.
Right.
Uh or two, they will indeed show up.
Someone will be the Rosa Parks of this movement.
S uh and will and again, it's not apples and apples, please, no.
Not using something metaphoric here.
Uh and w there will be video of someone being led away in handcuffs for not answering personal questions on the sound of anything beyond what is constitutionally called for uh uh for uh for any numeration.
And is that not?
That video good is that not the answer to your homework.
Well, no, because it doesn't settle the ultimate thing, and that is that the if that person is indeed taken off and and fined or imprisoned, well, they broke the law and they'll pay a price.
But one of the ways one of the ways we routinely test laws that we think are unconstitutional or inappropriate is to have a test case.
So this would be a way of having a test case.
Indeed so.
So let's so let's say that that person then winds up uh uh with a fine or imprisonment, and then they appeal it, okay?
What would be the basis of their appeal?
That the law in itself was unconstitutional.
But but but again, that's where the question arises.
There are are speed limits unconstitutional?
Are are child seat uh or seat belt laws and and ch and child seat requirements?
Uh you know, un unless I with seat belts, there are libertarians who say they are, and then maybe I'm one of them someday.
But there are a thousand laws that you and I obey every day, gladly, that are not in the Constitution.
It's the one that's the stuff we don't like that's not in the Constitution that they're foisting down us that we like to come forward and say, well, then that's unconstitutional.
When, you know, maybe it's not.
So I need to find a some way to argue that it is.
The absence of its uh uh I tell you what I'll do, I because I've I guess it's been an hour or so since I looked at that.
If if if the census restricted, if the Constitution restricted the census to an enumeration, saying that it will be an enumeration and nothing else.
Oh, then we're golden.
But but it doesn't.
That's what's tricky.
So let me uh listen, but good for you for for standing up.
Uh uh Kurt, thanks.
You know, um they can't come get all of us.
They can't come get all of us.
And for anybody driving around, walking around thinking, golly Moses, man, is this uh does this really rise to the level of civil disobedience?
Yes, it does.
I don't pretend I'm being denied a place where I can sit in the bus.
I don't pretend that I'm being denied uh the basic dignity that was denied uh, you know, uh people of of certain races, certain sexes, this and that throughout throughout history.
No, no, no.
But here in 2009, approaching the census year of 2010, what we are all being denied so increasingly in this in in this day and age is um is the dignity of keeping information to ourselves.
Now here's where it becomes a real sticky wicket.
You ready?
Because you you almost heard me drop uh the P word privacy.
And if if if we as conservatives or or well, uh there may actually be liberals who think that the census is intrusive.
So let's let's be bipartisan about this.
If there are people who believe that the census is too intrusive, those of us who are conservative who step forward and say, well, they have no right to ask us those questions.
We have a right to privacy.
Uh-oh.
Oh-ho.
That is fraught with trouble.
Because guess what?
No, we don't.
We don't have a right to privacy.
Now we have a Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The cops can't come into your house for no reason to see if you've got weed.
Uh the cops can't stop you and and frisk you for no reason.
That's a Fourth Amendment illegal search and seizure issue.
Privacy, guess what?
Not in the Constitution.
And most of us who are conservative and anybody who spends time talking about it and arguing things like Roe versus Wade, that was that that's that's what they hung Roe versus Wade on.
It's between a woman and her doctor.
She's got a right to privacy.
Guess what?
As Robert Bork properly told us.
No, she doesn't.
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.
We afford privacy as a society because we know that it really is just a good thing to do.
That it is uh that that that there are that there's a dignity that comes with keeping information to yourself.
We certainly have drawn the line with the Fourth Amendment about searches and seizures, which certainly are privacy issues, but in general, a general right to privacy?
Not in there, man.
Not in there.
And maybe we want to put one there.
I don't know.
We can have that debate.
So here's what's what makes this just a delicious talk show topic.
There are a ton of us, you know, listening right now, thinking that the intrusive census uh is a real problem.
But the thing that we invoke to claim that it's a problem is the thing that we reject when used uh on the issue of for like abortion rights and such.
So uh uh it's uh this is the stuff of chin stroking.
So uh what shall we do?
What shall we do?
Uh your uh your thoughts are welcome.
1-800-282-2882.
Let me do another call before we pause, and then uh j the lit what's thicker, the Manhattan phone book or just the list of stupid ideas that come from government.
Uh I guess I'd have to know the thickness of the Manhattan phone book because here comes another one.
Are you familiar with cash for clunkers?
You can kind of tell what it's about.
But every once in a while government will do this things like this.
And it's it's just insidious and and it's just stupid.
And I'll tell you why in our very, very next segment.
But let's see here.
All right.
Um this is kind of interesting.
Let's go to Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Lynn.
Hey, Mark Davis filling in for Rush.
How are you?
Well, I'm doing really good right now.
I'm still in the land of the free right now, but my plot on the census is that they'll get the fact that there's two of us in the household.
Uh the rest of it, I'm going to plead the Fifth Amendment.
It's in the Constitution and it's my right.
Well, okay, that this is the no no no.
This this is great.
This is the intellectual exercise that we th that we have to have to go through is to put things to a test.
Okay?
Fifth Amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment of indictment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when in actual service of time of war public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,
nor shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
I love me some Fifth Amendment.
Eminent domain is in there, uh, you know, uh obviously being a witness against yourself.
Um double jeopardy is in there.
Where in there is the base I I might have an answer, but I'll ask you first.
Where in there might be a basis for saying no to answering the census?
Well, all I can say is I know there's still a God, and uh I'm gonna plead the fifth.
And like I say, if if somebody wants to call in and shoot me down, they can try, but I still have that right.
I I think I I'm well I may just have, and I'm a big fan of God too, but but here's here's the uh here's the thing, right?
It it's it's it's broad.
Deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Does liberty mean only that you can't put me in jail, or is there a liberty argument?
Get Levin on speed dial immediately.
Is there a liberty argument for keeping inf information to yourself?
Let's let me take that blet me take that book.
Well, well, that it's a hair that needs to be split because you know uh split that hair too far, and you're gonna have to run for office.
Oh, well, no one enjoying the private sector way too much.
Lynn, thank you.
All right, let's let's let's hit the break.
And uh and all right, liberty deprived of life, liberty or process without due process of law.
Or life, liberty of property without due process of law.
Okay, what is liberty mean?
Uh, you know, the basis obviously is they can't drag you off to jail without due process of law.
That's depriving you of liberty.
There are a thousand other ways to deprive you of liberty.
Keeping basic personal information about yourself strikes me as a form of liberty, as a big part of liberty.
Um I stretching or am I on to something here?
1800-282-2882 Rush Limbaugh.com every day, even when Rush isn't here.
He will be back on Wednesday, though.
And that means you got me today, and that's another 42 uh minutes, and then Mark Stein on Monday, and then I come back on Tuesday, and uh Rush returns on Wednesday.
Okay, we're all right.
The thinking caps on, back with you in a moment on the EIB Network.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show on the EIB Network.
It is Friday, open line Friday.
Rush is away for a lengthy weekend.
He'll return on Wednesday.
I'll return on Tuesday.
Mark Stein will be there when all of us return for the work week.
And uh look forward to hearing him on Monday and talking to all of you again on Tuesday, and of course, all of us uh looking forward to Rush's return on Wednesday.
All right.
If if you're just joining us, uh Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, quite the rising star in Minnesota says uh to the U.S. Census, essentially, I will tell you how many people are in my house, as the Constitution requires, but beyond that, uh blow it out your ear.
I think she phrased it somewhat differently.
Um I think that's the kind of thing that will spark a lot of people to a similar civil disobedience if uh if that's what it is.
And so we're in search of a firm basis for our um for our refusal to answer more questions.
And uh silly me, I actually do go looking for a firm basis for things rather than just uh because we accuse the left of just doing what feels good and feels right.
Well, I gotta tell you it feels good and feels right to flip the bird to this census form, but uh I've sort of adopted a bit of a responsibility here to fashion a basis for doing that, and we may have found one with the help of a gentleman who just called us from Tennessee.
He sort of wanted to put it in the general form of pleading the fifth, as if that entitles us to not talk to government in a a million different ways.
Not so much.
But that is where we find uh the protection against being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Uh it is does the definition of liberty contain not answering questions that are none of government's business.
Um is uh uh that either is or isn't a stretch, depending on where you come from, I guess.
Um I guess the government could come back and say, well, okay, well I'll tell you what we're gonna do.
We w w the establishment of these laws, the requirement that you answer them, uh is due process of law.
So you know, balls in your court.
So with the ball in our court, um the search continues for a very serious basis for for uh for thwarting that census form.
And again, here's here's the the the tricky thing.
I think even uh constitutional purists would tell you that just because something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean government cannot do it.
I'm part of the large community that believes they should not do much of what's beyond the Constitution, but from you know motorcycle helmet laws, which you can either have or not have, um child safety seat laws, which we all approve of, speed limits, which most of us approve of, even while violating them.
Uh they're not in the Constitution, but we can have them.
Uh so that's that's so that's so there we are.
There we are.
All righty, the quest continues, and I think what we'll do is take another call or two on this and some other stuff, and I'll give you the cash for clunkers idiocy right after the uh bottom of the hour.
Uh th as with a million other things from these people, capital T, Capital P These people in the Obama administration, uh, or the Democratic Party in general.
It sounds so good.
Money to help you buy a car, money to help our air get cleaner because it helps people buy cleaner cars and more efficient cars.
What could be better?
Uh I got a great idea.
It's called not giving people money for smokes, crack and beer details in our next because that's exactly what it is.
You tell people, hey, here's $4,500 that you don't have to spend on a car.
Well, nothing frees up money uh for the slovenly among us, like uh like cash for a conquer.
Buy a better car, and you got 4500 in taxpayer money that you can go out and spend on whatever kind of debauchery uh and self-abuse you wish.
All righty.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis filling in from WBAP Dallas Fort Worth, and we head next uh right uh to to the old homestead.
Greg is in Dallas.
Pleasure to have you, sir.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hi.
Mark, hi, how are you doing?
I'm doing great.
Nice to have you, thank you.
I've already made the decision for my family.
Just like this lady has.
And under the basis that first of all, there are government websites that are s that are out there to so-called help people in their in their finances.
And they they speak of things like not handing out personal information to people that you don't know.
Right.
Okay, number one.
That's basically the rule that I'm going to imply if anybody asks for anything personal.
And if they do I mean, why should I give in why should I give personal information out to anybody whom I believe acorn, for example, is a fraudulent company and here are workers from Acorn, a fraudulent company, why would I give my information out to those people?
Wisdom wisdom teaches that.
Absolutely right.
The answer uh the answer that the government would tell you is because the law empowers them to ask and compels you to answer.
If your objection is, yeah, but who in the world knows what kind of acorn yahoo this might be in front of me, then what we've established is a kind of a right Not to cooperate with the law if we don't trust the face and voice of the law that's in front of us.
And if that's true, it essentially means we can't really cooperate with a cop whose look we don't like, or maybe there's some other authority figure that that we have doubts about.
And I mean, doesn't that it doesn't that sort of extend to that?
And Lord knows that's not an argument that would last five seconds.
Well, now, if it was a uniformed officer and if we had uniformed, I know these people what they're gonna look like.
They'll have some you know matching t-shirt on.
Now who knows who they are.
They'll have ID, I know.
Uh okay, so if if they if it was as easy to identify and be assured of their reliability as it is for a real cop, then then the bar would be bet.
But uh a matching t-shirt.
All righty.
Um, let me scoot.
Thanks, and we'll run that up the flagpole when we return.
I'm Mark Avis in for Rush.
Well, it's going to be knocking on the door of about a hundred degrees here in Texas uh today, tomorrow, and uh let's see, every day till Halloween.
So I hope your weekend and your summer are planned.
And a very, very happy Father's Day uh to all, to absolutely all of you who are dads, all of you who have dads, let us let us celebrate fatherhood, let us revel in the joy of being fathers.
My seventeen-year-old daughter Regina, my six-year-old son Ethan, I love you, you make my life, and um boy.
Uh just uh this this has always meant a lot to me.
And um and father Father's Day is big, because I'm a dad and uh being a dad is one of the greatest titles, one of the greatest honors that can ever drop into your life.
So um happy Father's Day to absolutely everybody.
All right, uh cash for clunkers.
Um having created so much warmth in the room, let me destroy it with more bitter cynicism.
Uh Congress approves a measure to subsidize car purchases.
Consumers can get as much as four thousand five hundred dollars to trade in old cars.
Now, as it is today, and as it has been, oh forever since the uh automobile was invented, if you have a car that is, as they say in the industry, crap, uh and you want a better one, it's a it's a very labyrinthine process.
You save the money and you get a better car.
That's what I did in moving from the 1970 Maverick to the 1976 Buick Century.
That's what I did at various other junctures in my life.
Well, not under these people.
A one billion dollar Washington program to give vouchers to consumers who replace junkie cars with fuel efficient models is likely to ramp up soon.
Congress passed the Cash for Clunkers measure late last night as part of the I love this.
You know what it's part of?
Because everything makes such sense in Washington.
It of course is part of the war spending bill.
106 billion dollars for funding the war, one billion of that uh helps your shiftless cousin uh buy more meth because he won't have to use that money on on getting a uh on uh on uh on buying a Ford focus.
So it's not clear exactly when the program will be available to consumers.
My vote will be never, if they ask me.
President Obama plans to sign the bill into law.
Imagine my surprise.
Let's see, an administration statement.
We are gratified that the Congress delivered on this administration priority.
Very good.
Standing up for democracy in Iran, not an administration priority, throwing money at people to perpetuate their slovenly lifestyle so they can buy a better car.
Administration priority.
The bill's passage comes as welcome news to automakers.
Do you think?
Uh oh, and by the way, I'm guessing that probably uh they'll ramp it up if you buy a car from Government Motors GM.
And I'm I'm so weird.
I love GM.
This is hadn't this just bro and listen, my father-in-law, thirty years on the line at the GM plant, Arlington, Texas, that's right behind my head sitting in this building.
Uh part of my heart in my head wants to help GM get out of this and go buy every GM car You can so they can get out of this and get government's hooks out of their skin.
But I, you know, I get 'em.
I know a lot of people that there are a lot of people who say, you know what, won't set foot in the dealership until the government is out of this.
I guess it's a cart and the horse uh kind of thing.
Anyway, irrespective of what uh whatever make you choose.
Um let's see.
Mike Moran, spokesman for Ford.
We appreciate Congress's efforts to move this quickly across the legislative finish line.
God bless automakers.
They they don't have they're the last people to go to for clarity on this.
All this means is more folks are coming in with money to actually buy a car, which virtually no one is doing lately.
What would the measure do?
What would it do?
It would give consumers vouchers worth as much as four thousand five hundred dollars to turn in gas guzzlers and buy newer cars that are more fuel efficient.
I believe if the car that you're buying is like ten miles per gallon better than then whatever uh uh uh uh clunker you're trading in, that the the 4,500 will kick in.
Is there an income thing here?
Uh could I get this?
I'm doing pretty okay in life.
Uh but if I uh you know, I've I've I've suppose I got a car that's I've you know one of the things in my garage is probably older than five years old, and I could probably upgrade on that and get 4500.
Sweet.
You know, help uh pay part of my uh my kids' private school tuition next year.
But that's me.
What if it's somebody else?
Now I hope I didn't deliver an unbridled insult to a whole lot of people when I've talked about the people's slovenly lifestyles.
I know full well that there are people for whom this will be a very nice bit of help, that they are living a good life, and they are uh responsible, yet of meager means, and and this forty, five hundred dollars of your money and mine will help them to get a better car so that they can get to work, cart their family around more reliably, and that's just I'm prepared to have the requisite amount of warm fuzzies about that.
That's one way this can work.
The way in which it will work in countless examples, is people whose cars either don't work or barely work, and they're maybe doing a little less crack cocaine or maybe smoking a few fewer cartons of smokes or or or maybe not quite filling the fridge as full with beer because they're saving for the car they gotta have, because if they don't have it, they'll get fired and then they'll really be up the creek.
Guess what?
No worries, mate.
Here comes forty, five hundred dollars of taxpayer money, so you can head to the liquor store.
You can go to the meth lab.
You can get that carton of luckies.
Go ahead.
The 4500 frees up your budget.
That is why this whole cash for clunkers subsidizing of and it is always always BS.
Because for every upstanding person whom it will quote unquote help, uh there are three miscreants down the block for whom it will facilitate uh their misbehavior.
So what do we say to to the upstanding souls who will not be helped if cash for clunkers is um is shelved, we say to them, God bless you, work hard, do it the way everyone has done since, oh, I don't know, the beginning of time, and through the sweat of your brow and the effort of your labors, you will get a better car.
And you know what you'll be able to say about it?
I earned it.
I earned it.
That nobody from you know Poughkeepsie to Palm Beach had to give me money to get my car.
I got my car.
And President Obama didn't help me.
Oh, and there's the deal breaker right now, because the Messiah wants to be he you you you have health care because of him.
You have a better car because of him.
The sun rises because of him.
So um cash for clunkers, my foot.
All right.
Where ought we to go now?
Let's go to the phones.
1800-282-2882-1800-2828 two.
Um more on how to uh provide a basis for um saying no to the census.
That's coming up here in just a minute.
But Ryan, let's head up to New England, shall we?
Let's get some uh wicked lobsta in Freeport, Maine.
Tom, uh Pardon the Bad Dialect, Mark Davison for Rush, how are you?
Good afternoon.
Hey.
And uh thanks for doing a great job.
It's my it's my pleasure.
Thank you.
Uh I've been active in Republican politics since uh since before the Goldwater days up here in Maine.
And one of the big problems we have in this country is the Republican Party, which uh, you know, refuses to get off its stuff, refuses to bec uh find some passion, uh really, really provide some leadership.
And in the context of what you've been talking about this afternoon, if you take if you take the uh the marriage situation and especially gay rights marriage, uh if you read the Fourteenth Amendment, uh when's the last time you read the Fourteenth Amendment?
Knowing you are coming, I have fired it up in front of me.
And last sentence.
Uh nor deny any person within his jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Plural.
Now uh marriage uh today in this country is an institution, a and it is a legal institution recognized uh under that word across the country.
It's universal.
A marriage certificate is recognized in the courts, both to to enter into marriage, and as we all know, even more so if we try to uh disengage a marriage.
Are are you using that as a basis for the right of of gay folks to assert that their marriages must be the legal equal of heterosexual marriages?
What I'm what I'm suggesting is a Republican Party could do itself and the country a big favor by seeking to establish some credibility and taking the position that there no one has the right to deny any citizen of this country the right to the institution of marriage.
But that except for one thing, that's insane.
Uh using that very argument, I can marry my dog.
Using that argument, I can marry five women.
And I'm not and please no no ang no angry gay people.
I don't care if anybody's gay, but if that denying people the quote unquote right to marry.
I I mean it's funny.
A marriage is three things.
It is legal, it is social, it is religious.
Only thing we ever talk about is the legal part.
Uh gay folks can get married today, and they and they can have a champagne fountain and go to a church that'll marry them before God and and that's fine.
And uh the only question is whether it'll be the exact same w recognized exactly the same legally as a heterosexual marriage.
The equal protection of the laws uh clause of the 14th Amendment in no way guarantees that every human being will be able to come up with whatever definition of marriage he pleases and assert a right to it.
Mark, there is no modification of constitutional rights other than through the courts or or through an amendment.
So you y you know, we all have our own ideas about what marriage should be.
My point is that first thing the Republican Party can do is is remind people that they have to separate the discussion into two in into at least two different parts.
One, the legal aspect, and uh secondly, or or first, whichever you like, the the moral philosophical question.
Well, of course.
And and and all of and the moral and philosophical is largely left to us as individuals.
What we what there needs to be is a firm reason for the legal difference, and I I I'm late for this break.
Let me hit it.
You give me a great question, and and and uh if anybody's wondering, how can one oppose the legal equanimity of gay marriage without having a homophobic bone in his body?
I've done it my entire life, and I'll tell you how next.
It's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
What a debug book, but I love you, love you, love you, love you.
Gotta roll.
1-800-282-2882, Rush Limbaugh Show.
Be right back.
Always an appropriate bumper tune in these crazy times, Michael Sembello's maniac.
All righty.
I'm Mark Davis filling in for Rush.
Uh happy Father's Day, everybody.
We're out of here in just a few minutes, and Rush is back on Wednesday.
Mark Stein is here on Monday, and I'm back on Tuesday, which thrills me doubly for reasons I'll tell you just in our closing moments.
Last gentleman uh calling on the Republican Party to essentially uh admit that the Fourteenth Amendment gives everybody the right to define uh marriage like whoever they want.
Well, no, no, no, no.
Under equal protection of the law.
No, new, new, new, no.
Now, and we probably ought to say this more clearly than we do as conservatives and as Republicans.
Homophobia has nothing to do with this.
Nothing to do with this.
And here's here's why.
If we say that for a man, that for me, to be married to a man is the same as to be married to a woman.
If we give equ legal equanimity to that, that is I mean, do your algebra, the associative or whatever property that is, if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C. That means that men and women are the same.
That to be a man and to be a woman is the same.
Not just deserving of equal rights, equal protection, da-da-da, but are in fact the same, which is antithetical to the human condition.
And and I don't just say that as a red flag word, here's what I mean.
I believe that every child has the right to a mother and a father.
There's a difference between moms and dads.
As we head into Father's Day, those should perhaps be uh in sharp focus.
There's a difference between men and women.
They're attributes women have that I'll never aspire to.
Maybe vice versa.
I don't know.
I tend to think women are a slightly higher evolved form of life most of the time.
Men and women are not the same thing.
We're both human, but bring to the table different aspects of humanity, and it is the presence of men and women, mothers and fathers, that is the engine of the propagation of the species, and not just through procreation.
Men and women are not the same.
I don't ever want women to be drafted.
Don't want men to be drafted either.
We'll deal with that another time.
Uh adoption.
I believe that the notion of adopting that you should be able to prefer, you should be able to have a preference for putting a child in a house with a married mother and father.
That's better than two men, better than two women, irrespective I mean, not because they're gay, but because motherhood and fatherhood are complementary, and you see where I'm going here?
That that this notion of just waving wand and saying, it's marriage, give everybody the right.
That has costs.
Manhood and womanhood are not the same.
Motherhood and fatherhood are not the same.
And that's why keeping the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, legally speaking, is worth upholding.
Now, does that mean gays can't marry?
No, not at all.
Go get married.
It's better than promiscuity, please.
Uh but the the notion of of the right of expectation that these will be viewed as the legal equal of heterosexual marriages is fraught with obstacles uh that a lot of folks just don't think about.
Now, as far as the other things, human decency issues, rights, uh hospital visitation, rights of survivorship, those can and should be taken care of i in law, of course.
So that's just issues of basic human decency.
All right.
Well, that either worked or it didn't.
Back for some final words in a moment.
Mark Davis filling in for rush on this open line Friday.
Okay.
Speaking of things that'll either work or they won't.
I'm going to try to get two people on in two minutes, so brevity will serve us all.
We are in Music City, Nashville, Bill, Mark Davis in for rush.
How you doing?
It seems that um we have to sign when we sign forms for the federal government at the bottom, it always asks us to swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that the above is true.
So if that's the case, it would seem that the Fifth Amendment would apply so that we don't perjure ourselves if we were to answer wrong incorrectly, or you know, something on those.
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
Uh if for those just joining us, we're looking for a basis for not filling out the rest of the census form, an actual good strong constitutional basis.
Um not answering is not perjury.
I I've I suppose, right?
I mean, their perjury is lying if you fill out bogus information other than who's in your household.
That would be perjury, but leaving it blank uh doesn't strike me as perjury.
And in Napa, California, Paul, Mark Davis in Farush, take us out.
Hey, Mark.
How about the Fourth Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches.
And seizures.
Now, if that's that was the first place we went, is just keeping that information to yourself seem like a Fourth Amendment issue is at is government asking an intrusive question kind of like a search.
The census to ask more than just the count, isn't that?
Isn't that altering that the uh unconstitutional?
Well, they can I mean that well, no, it goes beyond what the Constitution requires, but a million as I've said all day, a million laws do that.
The laws we cannot have are the ones that contradict what the Constitution clearly lays out for.
But you may, as we close up shop here, you may have found something.
Can it be argued that the intrusive question from government uh beyond who's in your household, that's where it gets intrusive, that that is like a search.
That just as a cop can't come through your house at three o'clock in the morning without cause, nor can a form ask you a question that's none of government's business without cause.
Last minute, I consider our experiment a success.
And today as well.
For that I thank you, I thank Rush.
Happy Father's Day.
Mark Stein in on Monday, and holy cow, I'm back on Tuesday.
Have a fantastic weekend.
This is the EIB Network.
▲
Export Selection