Rush Limbaugh Program - November 28, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 28, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:21

November 28, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you, and welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Our day continues, our relentless pursuit of truth.
	Look, you know that the president is in Riga, Latvia.
	He's talking to NATO about more troops into Afghanistan.
	You know that the study group, the Iraq study group, former Secretary of State Baker, is heading up with people who are going to, you know, the wise people of our society are going to try to extricate Mr. Bush now from the failure of Iraq.
	And the major media describes it that way every single day.
	Iraq, of course, is not a failure, but that's a long story.
	The question I think before the House today is, okay, so now what do we do?
	What should George Bush do in the wake of the obvious unhappiness of the American public with regard to the Iraq war and other things, and the thumping that we took at the polls in the Republican Party?
	What should the president do now in Iraq?
	And I think that's the proper focus of the debate.
	Well, San Diego Congressman, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and potential presidential candidate himself, Duncan Hunter, Congressman, welcome to the program.
	Roger, great to be with you.
	Tell me, if you were out there now advising the president, I think you've even sent him a letter in this regard.
	What would you advise him to do in Iraq?
	Well, I sent him another communication through his national security folks yesterday to the team that's over there.
	But right now, Roger, we've trained 114 Iraqi battalions.
	And, you know, we're in what I would call the second phase of the same three-step process that we've used for 60 years to stand up free governments, whether you're talking about Japan or the Philippines or El Salvador in our own hemisphere, and that is that we stand up a free government, number one.
	Number two, we stand up a military that's capable of protecting that government.
	And number three, the Americans leave.
	And right now, we're standing up the military.
	We've got 114 Iraqi battalions that are trained and equipped.
	And of the 18 provinces that constitute Iraq, in nine of those provinces, in half of those provinces, there's basically no contact happening.
	You have less than one attack per day taking place.
	So you've got very peaceful parts of Iraq, and you've got some places like the Baghdad area that are very hot right now with respect to combat.
	My recommendation to the President is to make sure that of those 114 Iraqi battalions that we've trained and equipped, we've got 33 of them that are in areas where nothing's taken place.
	And my recommendation is to saddle those troops up.
	They've all been trained and they're being paid by the American taxpayers.
	And it will help them.
	It will develop them into a mature military force to rotate them into combat.
	So before we decide whether we're going to take our troop levels up or down, let's get all of the Iraqis that we've trained into the operation.
	Let's take those 33 battalions from the peaceful areas, move them into Baghdad, move them into the SUNY triangle, and let's see how much of that burden they can carry.
	Duncan Hunter, Congressman Hunter, with us.
	Now, Duncan, that sounds logical to me.
	Probably sounds logical to a lot of people.
	If it isn't happening, why isn't it happening?
	Well, I suspect when they put together the Iraqi forces, they assigned them areas of operation.
	And an area of operations can be a very peaceful province, or it can be a province where a lot of military contact is taking place.
	Right now, you've got most of the fighting concentrated in the Sunni triangle and, of course, in the Baghdad area.
	So probably originally they spread them out because that's what you do with military forces.
	You assign them areas of operation.
	There probably may there is also some resistance from the Sunnis in the government right now, who I think probably in some quarters don't want to have an army which is primarily Shiite in the Sunni neighborhoods.
	They'd rather have American forces in there.
	But we simply have to push that aside.
	If the Iraqi military is key to this operation, in fact, it's the factor upon which everything else depends right now.
	That's to have a military that's capable of defending that government.
	And when we get it stood up, as we've done for the last 60 years around the world, the Americans can come home.
	And I would not describe this operation as a failure.
	I think it's a long, tough, difficult operation.
	And, Roger, I think the point is that there's no easy road to changing the Middle East, but this is going to be the most important effort that's been made to change that part of the world for the last 50 years.
	I think we're going to succeed.
	Duncan Hunter with us.
	Now, again, Duncan, do you think the Bush administration has the political capital to weather this kind of lame duck status for the next couple of years, to weather the results of the election, to implement this kind of a policy or any policy that looks to actually successfully winning this war, or, you know, because the national media, the international media, all of the elites, the United Nations, everywhere else, they're all saying this is a failure.
	We've got to get some way to get the Americans out of there.
	They're causing the violence.
	Iran is now in bed with our president here, Maliki of Iraq.
	That government we're trying to stand up basically is over there meeting in Tehran today with this guy who hates the U.S., Britain, Israel, everybody else.
	This doesn't look good to a lot of Americans for those reasons.
	Roger, we've been here before.
	I was here in the 1980s when President Reagan stood up to the Russians in Western Europe, and when the Russians ringed our allies in Central Europe with SS-20 missiles, and he started to move in the ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing IIs, you had liberal America going nuts.
	They said this is going to be World War III.
	Ronald Reagan's starting it right now.
	He has to acquiesce to the Russians, but he hung tough.
	He stood up to the Russians, and at some point they picked up the phone and said, let's talk.
	And we dissembled the Soviet Empire, and we freed, Roger, not a million people, not 10 million people, but hundreds of millions of people through a policy of peace through strength.
	And in our own hemisphere, in Central America, you can recall the days when they said El Salvador was going to be the next Vietnam, and we had to leave immediately.
	But we provided a shield, a military shield for that fragile government.
	We stood it up, and today El Salvadoran troops stand side by side with us in the Middle East.
	So bringing freedom to the world and various parts of the world is not easy.
	It's not a smooth road.
	And we have to have the one quality that's pretty tough for Americans to have sometime, and that's patience and endurance.
	I think that this president can hang in there.
	And I think, incidentally, the Democrats think of Iraq as a hot potato.
	They don't know what to do, and I think they're more than willing to let this president succeed or fail in Iraq.
	But he's a commander-in-chief.
	He's got the reins.
	And incidentally, he has the reins, not this study group.
	And we shouldn't devolve the leadership of America's armed forces to a group or a committee.
	He's a commander-in-chief.
	He needs to hang in there, and we need to finish up this stand-up of the Iraqi forces.
	When we do that, I think they're going to be able to hang in there.
	Duncan Hunter with us from Washington, D.C., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Congressman from my area, and a good friend.
	Now, Duncan, I appreciate everything you're saying, and I agree with you.
	Is this president going to do it, in your judgment?
	Yeah, I think he is.
	I think one of George Bush's great qualities is tenacity.
	And I think he's going to hang in there.
	He's obviously got a Congress now that's dominated by the other party.
	They're going to take a lot of shots at him.
	They'll shoot a lot of times and they'll make a few hits.
	But again, Roger, I think that the Democrats who have no clue about spreading freedom in this world, they're always the get-out-n-out party.
	I think they're more than willing to leave the leadership of Iraq to the President of the United States because they don't know what to do.
	And I think they feel that it is going to be a failure, and they want to pin it on him.
	I think it's going to be a success.
	And incidentally, the troops that we've got over there standing up these Iraqi forces right now are doing a superb job.
	We've got a higher quality military, I think, than we've ever had.
	And the forces that are actually in the thickest fighting, the American forces, have the highest re-enlistment rates.
	So they're hanging in there.
	They think this mission is winnable.
	I think we need to support them.
	Duncan Hunter, let me switch topics on you now that I've got you.
	A Mississippi Democrat named Congressman named Benny Thompson is scheduled to take over the House Homeland Security Committee after the first of the year as part of the Democrat takeover of the House of Representatives.
	And I've got some real bad feelings about this guy and the border.
	You represent the border and have been a champion for border security since your first days as a congressman.
	What are we looking forward to here in Benny Thompson?
	Well, you know, I saw Benny's remarks that he doesn't like the border fence idea.
	Well, we've now passed something called a law.
	And incidentally, Roger, I wrote that law, and it's the same law that we wrote for the San Diego border fence during the Clinton administration.
	We said, you shall build a border fence.
	And we didn't say it's a goal or something we want to work toward or a suggestion.
	We said, you shall build.
	The administration shall build the border fence.
	And under that mandate, we forced the Clinton administration to build the double fence in San Diego that has been superb, that has worked very well.
	As you know, knocked down the smuggling of people and narcotics by more than 90 percent.
	We put exactly the same language in the bill, which is now the law that the president signed, that extends the San Diego border fence some 700 miles across Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
	And it doesn't say that it's a goal or a suggestion that Benny Thompson can waive off or anybody else can waive off.
	It says it shall be done.
	So I think I've been in to see the Department of Homeland Security, talk to them.
	They, of course, would like to see a virtual fence in some places, and I think that's virtually the wrong thing to do.
	Virtual fences don't work when you have lots of people coming across in very, very short periods of time.
	We need to have that double fence.
	But the law is in place, Roger, and we're going to ensure that the administration's feet are held to the fire on this one.
	We're going to build that fence.
	Duncan Hunter, I appreciate your time.
	Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a congressman from our area here in San Diego.
	Thanks for joining us.
	Hey, Roger.
	Thanks so much.
	See us then.
	All right.
	There we go.
	Let's take a break.
	Duncan Hunter, with more sense in the last nine minutes than I've heard out of Congress and the other 434 members.
	How about you?
	I'll take your calls at 1-800-282-2882 after this.
	Roger Hedcock, Infer Rush Limbaugh, taking your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
	Now, Duncan Hunter, in the previous segment, the Congressman Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, at least till the Democrat Party takeover of the House in January, raised a red flag about Benny Thompson, the Democrat congressman from Mississippi, who is in line to become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
	Now, not only has Benny Thompson come out against the fence and in favor of the virtual fence, Benny, if I may be so bold as to address you by your first name, because I know down in Mississippi that's probably the way you're known as Benny.
	Benny, look, the day you put in a virtual security system at your House office building, I'll believe you about the border.
	Because right now you have a physical boundary that I have to go through as an American citizen and taxpayer who paid for the building.
	Okay, well, maybe a brick.
	That I have to go, a physical barrier I have to go through, armed guards, the whole search thing, before I can enter the building where you, my representative working for me, have an office.
	Now, as soon as you have a virtual security system at that office building, I'll believe you about the border.
	Here's what's worse about Benny Thompson.
	Here's what's worse.
	The Department of Homeland Security has proposed guidelines, this happened back in June, concerning what are called no-match letters from the Social Security Administration.
	Now, let me tell you where I'm coming from here.
	I believe the fence alone does nothing.
	I'm in agreement with people who criticize the fence alone as some kind of magic wand.
	It isn't.
	We need the fence for border security.
	We need the fence for the Border Patrol to be effective.
	Don't get me wrong about that either.
	But in addition to the fence, we also need to let employers know that if they employ illegal aliens and they know they're illegal aliens, they're going to jail.
	I believe employer sanctions, the part that was never enforced out of 1986 out of the Reagan law, we got the amnesty, we didn't get the employer sanctions, that's what's caused the 20 million more illegals to move in since then.
	And believe me, we need workers.
	I'm in favor of immigration.
	I'm in favor of legal immigration.
	And our economy and our society benefits from it.
	We are disastrously, adversely affected by illegal immigration in 100 different ways, and I'm absolutely opposed to it, and it's got to come to a stop.
	So the way you do it is you tell employers, and this is what the Bush administration finally proposed, you know, six years in, they said, okay, look, you're going to, well, five and a half years in, you're going to, as an employer, you're going to check with Social Security.
	If they send you a no-match letter indicating that your applicant to be hired has given you a Social Security number that does not match that name or that person, and 99, 999 out of 1,000 times, that means that person is illegally in the United States, and they bought that Social Security number at Purging Park in Los Angeles for $15.
	Okay?
	This is the way it works in the real world.
	Those things are for sale.
	They're for sale in every community in this country.
	But when that person gets to the employer and says, here's my name, here's my number, and that employer does the, and there's a pilot program that's now being expanded to make a quick check, just like they check your credit card when you're making a purchase to make sure that that credit card is good and it's you and all that stuff, they check.
	Now, here's Benny Thompson.
	Benny Thompson says, wait a minute, in a letter to Cintos Corporation that it could be charged with illegal activities in violation of state and federal law if any of its 32,000 employees are terminated because they gave incorrect Social Security numbers to be hired,
	Benny Thompson is saying it's discrimination if you dare to use that no-match letter to not hire or to fire a person that you have hired because you're afraid of getting in bad with the federal government over having an illegal alien working for you.
	If you actually follow that rule, says Benny Thompson, you could be charged with illegal activities if you dismiss the person.
	Now, imagine employers now.
	Imagine employers caught between a rock and a hard place, caught between trying to, okay, we'll verify the Social Security numbers.
	We'll go along with that.
	We don't want illegal alien workers any more than anybody else does.
	And maybe some of them do, and they ought to be going to jail.
	But most employers don't if they have a simple way to go ahead and verify that this person is who he says he is or she says she is.
	So Benny Thompson says, oh, no, no, no.
	If you discriminate, if you use that no-match letter not to hire that person or fire them, then you're going to be subject to these anti-discrimination laws.
	So Benny Thompson has now thrown a major wrench into the at-long-last enforcement of employer sanctions by the Bush administration, five and a half years coming.
	And now Benny Thompson, scheduled to head up as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is saying, no, you could get in trouble now.
	Yikes.
	Look, ladies and gentlemen, we need in this country a firm policy to tell employers, no, you are not going to exploit illegal aliens, pay them under the table, which 60% of the illegals are paid under the table, for example, in L.A., according to a study.
	You're not going to avoid the system.
	You're not going to violate all our laws.
	You're not going to do it in the name of cheaper workers, which throws Americans out of work.
	You're not going to do all that.
	You're going to have to verify people who are hired, who claim that Social Security number.
	By the way, this is a huge problem.
	We found in Washington, D.C. that the no-match letters that have been going out indicate that there are over 12 million people filing their W-2s with Social Security numbers that do not match that particular name.
	And of course, the federal government is benefiting.
	Here's the dark underside of this whole thing.
	They're benefiting because they're getting the employer deduction for Social Security, and maybe if there's actually a check, the employee deduction as well, knowing full well they'll never have to pay out because it's a fraudulent Social Security match between the number and the person.
	Is that the way they're trying to extend the life of Social Security now through these on the backs of illegal aliens?
	That's not right either.
	So, ladies and gentlemen, let's not forget that the death toll for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan lumped together is lower than the death toll of Americans killed every day by illegal aliens.
	Statistics produced by WorldNet Daily in their service.
	These are the kinds of things that I hope on this program, the relentless pursuit of truth, will get us to a logical conclusion.
	And Benny Thompson, you're on notice, pal.
	This is not going to fly.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock, In for Rush, back after this.
	One of the election results from this recent election that the drive-by media does not want you to even think about occurred in Michigan, where a measure on the ballot of Proposition 2 won,
	even though it was opposed by, well, the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties, the labor unions, the Catholic Church, major media outlets, the University of Michigan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Senator Barack Obama, and a whole bunch of other folks.
	And Proposition 2 won.
	The proponent is Ward Connerly, and he's here to tell us how he beat all those folks.
	Hi, Ward.
	Hi, Roger.
	How are you?
	I'm doing well, thank you.
	You're doing very well.
	Tell me about Prop 2.
	What would it do in Michigan, and why do you think now the rest of the country ought to pay attention?
	Well, Proposal 2 will do the same thing in Michigan that it did in California and the state of Washington, and that is to prohibit preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in the public areas of employment, contracting, and college public employment contracting and education.
	As you indicated, the measure was opposed by virtually every segment of the Michigan establishment.
	But I think that the one thing that came through loud and clear is that when the American people are presented with an issue in clear terms, we can trust the collective wisdom of the people.
	This initiative is almost identical to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which guarantees equal treatment under the law for every person.
	It is one that was passed, I think we said, 58 to 42.
	That's no squeaker.
	That was a landslide.
	Given the fact that the governor is a liberal Democrat, the state has many liberal tendencies, but Michigan is also the state that coined the phrase Reagan Democrats.
	And I think we begin to see some of that, Roger, with this election.
	What it portends for the rest of the nation, I believe, is the fact that if we put the issue of race preferences or affirmative action, call it what you will, or diversity programs, if we put it to a vote of the people, it's going to fail every time.
	And my belief is that coming before an anticipated decision of the Supreme Court next spring on these two cases in Seattle and then Louisville, Kentucky, involving the use of race in school placement, I think we're witnessing the end of an era.
	I think that in a very short period of time, if we could get three to four more states to join California and Michigan and Washington State, I think that this thing will fall like a house of cards.
	One of the things that was also reassuring to me was that until now, we didn't have a national movement to fight those like the NAACP and Jesse Jackson and Sharpton and the others.
	This time we did.
	And I think that's largely due to George Will, who wrote a very critical article on our behalf, a critical of the racial thugs, as he called them, and Dusty Rhodes at National Review.
	Those people really helped us to mount an effective letter-writing campaign and foot soldiers to go out and make our case that race preferences are morally wrong.
	They harm the state.
	So it's a very, very big victory for us in the state of Michigan.
	Ward Connerly with us.
	I often describe myself as a mutt because of a variety of backgrounds of my ancestors.
	Mr. Connerly, you should know, is an African American, a Native American, and a Caucasian in his heritages.
	You know, Ward, I think you represent the new America because as a result of people doing what people will do in choosing mates and so forth, we have a situation in which an increasing minority, might be a majority of the population, has a little bit of everybody's race running through their veins.
	That's precisely the case.
	The melting pot has melted and it's boiling over.
	And all of this blather about diversity is so nonsensical because we are naturally diverse.
	And if we're just left to our own devices, that diversity will manifest itself at every venue of American life.
	Where next are you going to try to you mentioned three or four states?
	Are you going to try to take this message and allow the voters again to have a say on this?
	Basically telling the liberals that the hypocrisy of affirmative action violates their own often stated rule of getting rid of discrimination on the basis of skin color.
	Well, Dusty and I had a conversation last night about this very point, and we're going to be very cautious and very strategic about deciding which states.
	The ones that we're looking at right now are Oregon, Colorado, Utah is pretty far down the list, Arizona, Nevada, South Dakota, Missouri.
	We're looking at all of those, and I would like to see a Super Tuesday, if you will, on Election Day in 2008.
	If we get a critical mass of eight or nine states under our belt where the voters are saying we don't want to use race to make decisions about who wins and who loses in the contest of American public life, then I think that the Congress, which has been slow to respond, presidents, Democrat and Republican, have been slow to respond.
	Legislatures won't touch this with a 10-foot poll.
	But I think that we can, in fact, inspire the courts to do what it must do, and that is to end this era of treating American citizens differently on the basis of their race or skin color.
	Ward Connerly on the Russian Limbaugh program.
	Ward, it's 10 years since Proposition 209 that you mentioned before.
	You've been after this for a long time, this idea that we ought to really finally make our commitment to a colorblind society, to the idea that no one gets ahead or behind because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background.
	209 is now under attack.
	As you know, it's constantly controversial out here in California because this state initiative that banned using racial preferences for public university admissions, as well as state of California hiring and contracting, it's the university that continues to foment where you were for 12 years a regent of the University of California.
	There is now a hue and cry about the number of Asian American students.
	There's too many Asians getting into the University of California.
	This is ridiculous.
	Yeah.
	You know, the culture at the University of California among too many administrators at San Diego and Los Angeles and Berkeley is that it's just not right to use academic standards for admission to an academic institution because that gives an unfair advantage to Asians.
	You know, that's the logic that they employ.
	Logic in quotes.
	And as Ronald Reagan once said, I don't care if every seat is taken by an Asian if they've earned the right to be there.
	And I think that we're going to have to reinforce that point.
	The weakness of our movement, if you will, is that we won the election and we sort of washed our hands and said we will sue in courts, but we did not try to reinforce the importance of that victory to the people of the state.
	I have no doubt that if the election were held today, 209 would pass again.
	And I don't think that the beard and sandal crowd at Berkeley is going to be able to overturn this.
	But I think we do need to mount a defense and to explain to people why it is so morally wrong to be trying to punish Vietnamese and low-income Asian kids, Chinese kids, for excelling in academics.
	We need to make sure that blacks and whites and Latinos measure up to the same standard.
	UC is not discriminating against them.
	It is simply saying these are the standards and Asians are studying hard and winning the competition.
	Ward Connerly, one of my heroes, ladies and gentlemen, and you can tell that just by the way he talks.
	I am thrilled to hear you're going to carry this as many years as you've through good times and bad, through good health and bad, by the way.
	Ward Connerly has carried on this mission to carry out the civil rights dream of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to achieve that colorblind society, which, of course, puts the race baiters like Jesse Jackson and others out of business, doesn't it?
	It does.
	It does.
	And that's what we're fighting right now.
	We're fighting an industry that doesn't want to let go.
	They're like the old segregationists of the South, affirmative action forever.
	And I smell the go-line, though.
	I think that we are close to the end here.
	I think that the people are firmly on our side with this.
	We just now need to muster the courage to go the rest of the way.
	I think it's another 20 yards and we can win this thing.
	Ward Connerly, now, do you have a website where people listening to the program can get more information about what you're doing?
	It is under reconstruction, but it is all those W's, ACRI.org.
	A-C-R-I.org.
	All right.
	AmericanCivilRights Institute.org.
	A-C-R-I.org.
	All right, Ward Connerly, stand by.
	I'm going to take a short break, and then we'll be back with callers for Ward Connerly and the Colorblind Society, the Civil Rights Act envisioned, blocked now by the affirmative action of professional racists like Jesse Jackson.
	That's where we are in this country.
	What do you think?
	1-800-282-2882.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush.
	Back after this.
	Roger Hedgecock, In for Rush, interviewing Ward Connerly, one of my great heroes, a businessman, a regent of the University of California, and he brought 10 years ago to the voters of California this bluest of blue states, Proposition 209.
	We voted unanimously, not unanimously, but in a large majority to say, no, The idea, the ideal is that you don't have racial preferences in either way, either discriminating against or discriminating for anybody on the basis of their skin color.
	That we are, in a word, a Tiger Woods nation and not a Martin Luther King Jr. nation.
	We've moved on.
	And the point being that continuing affirmative action has no place in a world where you're trying to strive for a colorblind society, a society based on merit, regardless of skin color.
	And Ward Connerly has been with us.
	Ward, I'm inspired even listening to you, my friend.
	Let's take some calls.
	Here's Janice in Gross Point, Michigan.
	Janice, hi, welcome to the program.
	Hello there.
	You're on with Ward Connerly.
	Mr. Connerly, I really supported you.
	I thank you for bringing us to Michigan.
	And I would just like to hear your comments and reactions to the president of U of M coming out saying that she was going to fight for the University of Michigan.
	Janice, after serving a 12-year sentence as a regent, I can tell you that there are few people who are more arrogant than most university administrators.
	I do believe, however, that the president of UM, Mary Sue Coleman, is posturing to a large extent.
	Proposition 209 went through every legal hurdle imaginable, and it survived every one of them, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
	So I don't think that they're going to file suit.
	Instead, I think they're going to see if they can find some way to circumvent Proposal 2 by holistic review or some other device.
	But I don't think that they're going to mount the kind of campaign that she was talking about the day after the election when she had that press conference at the Quad at UM.
	I know that some of the alum, some of the very successful alum at UM, Bob Brown, who is a very good friend of mine and a strong supporter of Proposal 2, has made it very clear that his millions of dollars that he annually donates to the University of Michigan will not be forthcoming in the future if the president of the university continues to try to defy the will of the people.
	The more and more that people get the courage to do what Bob is doing, then I think that will have a very chilling effect on the defiance that the president originally suggested.
	Yeah, absolutely right.
	Ward Connerly with us.
	And now to Seattle, Washington, to the Hutch, Ken Hutcherson, former Dallas Cowboys, a friend of Rush Limbaugh.
	Hello, Hutch.
	Hey, how are you guys doing today?
	We're doing well.
	Ward, thank you so much for being on today.
	But, you know, we got another problem up here in Seattle.
	What's that?
	We won that Act 200 fight, you know.
	I know, but we could lose with John Carson and all the guys really leading that, and we did a great job.
	Now, bring us up to speed, Hutch.
	What is that?
	I-200.
	What's that?
	Same build as 209 down in California.
	All right, go ahead.
	So what happened was last year, we got backsided here with a whole new discriminatory law.
	They passed 2661 up here to give homosexuals equal rights as African Americans.
	So we got another fight on our hand, not just to say let's eliminate the quotas on all the African American quotas or anyone's special rights.
	Now they've turned around and come through the back door and say that homosexuals should have special rights.
	Well, there is a movement afoot in many colleges to give gays and lesbians affirmative action.
	One of the Ivy League institutions has been flirting with the idea of some sort of preference based on sexual orientation to achieve diversity.
	I obviously oppose that.
	I'm not an opponent, however, of giving every American citizen, regardless of their sexual orientation, equal rights.
	The government has a duty, I believe, to treat every American citizen equally in the areas of public education, public contracting, and public employment.
	There should not be discrimination against anyone by the government.
	There should not be any preference for anyone by the government.
	That is a moral position, I think, that if we take that and we defend that, then we are on very solid grounds.
	But you're absolutely right, Hutch, that it's something we have to guard against in the sense that this diversity mantra can very well lead to the granting of special preferences on the basis of sexual orientation to achieve that diversity.
	It's wrong for the government to be empowered to manipulate people and their lives in the interest of this amorphous concept of diversity.
	Ward Connerly, thanks so much for being with us today, and I sure appreciate your leadership.
	And again, give us that website where people can go.
	I know it's under construction, but I want them to write this down and get to you and help you out when you move to these other states.
	A-C-R-I.org, American Civil Rights Institute.org.
	A-C-R-I.org.
	Ward Connerly, God bless you.
	Thanks for being with us.
	Thank you, Roger, for all your help over the years.
	Appreciate it.
	Ward Connerly.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock.
	Let's take a short break on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	With your call at 1-800-282-2882 after this.
	Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush today at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Taking your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
	And let's take Joseph in Yonkers, New York, quickly here.
	Hi, Joseph.
	Welcome to the program.
	How are you doing?
	I just want to say as a black male, as a Hispanic male, that the idea of affirmative action is very insulting to say to people like myself that we need these kind of preferential treatment and that it basically suggests that we can't learn.
	You know, I'm glad you said that because if someone told me, listen, we're going to get you ahead of the others, even though they have more, going for more merit than you do because of the color of your skin, that would be my first instinct to be insulted.
	You mean I can't make it as well as other people with different colored skin?
	What kind of crap is that?
	Oh, yeah, it's a terrible message.
	And actually, when I was a school teacher, one of the messages that we got, I'm here, I'm getting my master's in education right now, but one thing that they're telling us to do is to tell kids not to learn standard English, but to embrace slang and ebonics because it's part of their culture.
	But it's the same mentality of, you know, embrace these things that are going to harm you instead of learning the things that are going to actually help you have the skills to be able to achieve.
	I mean, it doesn't address the real problem, which is a lack of education.
	Yep.
	Now, Joseph, I'm running out of time, Joseph, but let me reaffirm what you just said.
	In your master's program, they're telling you to allow kids to talk that way.
	No, they are almost opposing me from teaching standard English.
	They're telling me to make sure that, well, this is college professors.
	All the curriculum is designed to discourage.
	Hey, Joseph.
	Joseph, God bless you.
	And I'm glad you're a teacher and you keep it up.
	And I appreciate your calling the program.
	I've just run out of time and up against the heartbreak.
	We'll be back with much more.

▲