RUSH: This is Jan in Spokane, Washington. Hi, Jan, I’m glad you called. Nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. A real big pleasure to talk with you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I just flipped on the radio this morning on my way to work and was listening to you talking about Sotomayor and some things that she said and what I was wondering is when will Caucasians become the minority, considering that we’re thinking about amnesty, and also considering the birth rates of non-Caucasian people groups, who’s keeping track of when we become the minority?
RUSH: I don’t know what the projected target is nationally. In California it’s pretty quick. It’s pretty soon. You’ve got a number of things happening in California, people leaving, illegal immigration, of course. I don’t know what the year is, but there have been some demographers that have run projections on this based on current trends. The middle of the century is probably the best guess as to when this will happen, but the problem is that you’ve got people running the show now from Obama all the way down through his administration through the House of Representatives who, regardless of their race, are racists. They are far left extreme radicals who believe this country has been unjust since its founding, and their objective — and this describes Sotomayor — minorities will always be found in favor of wherever it is, a court, a place of work, wherever, simply because they’ve been discriminated against. Maybe they haven’t been discriminated against personally, but members of their race have been.
This is about get even with them time. This is returning the nation’s wealth to its rightful owners. This is radical leftism on parade. So when I say does it really matter when Caucasians become a minority, what I mean by this is we already have a governing majority. He’s gonna treat them that way. It’s reverse racism. We have people who are angry and fit to be tied and they think it’s time some people have a lesson taught them and those people happen to be those who have succeeded, those who have achieved, regardless of their race, and those who have been perceived to have all of the power for all of these years, it’s time to get even with them. And the parade is on, and you see it happening right before your eyes very day with every piece of legislation that comes forth.
CALLER: Hmm. Well, yeah, I was just wondering when they’re going to start needing to make some laws to make things go the other way so that now the minorities can be —
RUSH: No, no, no, you misunderstand. The purpose of the laws now is to achieve the exact opposite. The affirmative action quotas, whatever you want to call it, the intent was never to find equality or to properly compensate, and I first learned this all the way back in the seventies. I was dabbling in a talk show on a local Kansas City radio station. This is before I went to work for the Kansas City Royals. I forget the issue. Might have been the Bakke case, University of California-Davis, a guy, Bakke, had scored far greater on medical school entrance exams and was not permitted to get in, almost a replay of this firefighter case in New Haven and I had a bunch of civil rights supporters on and they were singing the praises of affirmative action and quotas and ending discrimination, and I said, ‘Well, okay, at what point down the line, how far out in the future is it going to be where you think that the playing field has been leveled and we’re no longer going to need what you’re saying?’ ‘Never! That will never happen.’ Their purpose has not been to level any playing field. It’s to reverse it.
Folks, the best way to understand this, I think — and it’s hard for those of us who are patriots who love this country the way we do, it’s hard to understand there are people who detest it, who hate it, who think it is immoral and unjust and always has been. This really took root in the sixties, and all these kids in the sixties, a lot of them in government now, a lot of them in universities teaching your kids various classes, a lot of them are on the bench, the federal bench, they arrive at these positions with anger in their hearts. I firmly believe this describes Obama. I think Obama is angry, he’s not this cool, calm, collected guy. He’s very cold, he’s very angry, he’s angry at the British over the colonization of Africa, he’s angry at Churchill, he’s angry at this country for its discrimination and slavery past and so forth, and he doesn’t think that the proper price has been paid for it. Some people are speculating that all of this cap-and-trade legislation, health care reform is nothing more than reparations in disguise, that it is a way of transferring the nation’s wealth to its, quote, unquote, rightful owners.
They’re smart enough to know that if they call a piece of legislation reparations, it doesn’t have a prayer, but if they couch the legislation in fairness and compassion, the usual liberal terms, then people will go for it because they think that they have created enough white guilt at all of the unjust immorality of the history of this country that people sit by and let it happen so that their own personal guilt can be assuaged, regardless of the impact on the country. They’re playing this tune very consistently, and they’re playing it very well. Political correctness has gone a long way to shutting people up and making a lot of people afraid to stand up and oppose all this rotgut, which is exactly what it is, and we’ll just see how far they’re going to be able to take it and get away with it. We hope that the Senate does end up being this saucer where the heated coffee spills and cools awhile before they actually vote on it.
RUSH: A very pleased Associated Press reported in 2007: ‘White Americans no longer a majority by 2042, according to new government projections.’ That’s eight years sooner than previous estimates made in 2004. AP was excited as they could be over this, so 2042 according to government projections, whites will be the minority by 2042. Not that that matters. I’m just answering the question I was asked by a caller. (interruption) Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm. No, no, no. Now, Mr. Snerdley has asked… It’s actually a very good question for a change. (laughing) ‘If these laws on the books benefiting minorities, if they’re all that good, will they then apply to the white minority in 2042?’ Snerdley, would you answer your own question on this? I mean, if you want to project out to 2042, what do you think will happen by then? What’s going to happen is that the white majority is always going to be considered to be a majority no matter what the numbers are.
The Second Circuit Sotomayor case — the Ricci case, the firefighters case — illustrates the point. This is why Justice Scalia said today that the pedal is going to hit the metal, the rubber is going to hit the road pretty soon because the whole constitutionality of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not decided, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, according to a lot of lawyers, is in direct contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case did not require that whole Title VII to be reviewed because this case was so obvious it could be decided just on the merits of it, and Scalia said there’s a reckoning coming and we didn’t deal with it here in this case. So I guess, not being a lawyer, this was so blatant (laughing) there was no way anybody could find appropriate cover here to uphold Sotomayor and her gang on the Second Circuit. Don’t forget it was Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, on the Second Circuit who upbraided Sotomayor for deciding this case along with her colleagues in summary judgment and totally ignoring the constitutional issues here — which happened to be Title VII, Civil Rights Act of ’64. And is it in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, equal-protection clause? We’ve got an equal-protection clause in the US Constitution. We’ve got a Civil Rights Act which just blows it to smithereens. And it hasn’t been tested constitutionally yet. And this case didn’t get that done so that’s the day of reckoning still ahead. Scalia is right.
Here’s, Tim, Toledo, Ohio. You’re next. I’m glad you waited. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. I wanted to make a comment on the Sotomayor non-promotion that she voted in favor of, being overturned. We’re like one vote away from total one-party control top-to-bottom from Congress, the president, and now the Supreme Court. I know she’s not replacing a conservative, but what’s to stop us from having like a total dictatorship, you know, one-party rule? What I say… You know, from the president on down.
RUSH: Well, you want to know the answer?
RUSH: The only thing stopping us is the next election or any next election. But then you gotta throw into that mix our old buddies at ACORN who are out there trying to jimmy all these elections by fraudulently registering people. It’s the Chicago way. The consequences are dire. There’s no question. I talked about it last week and people smirked at me. But trust me there are people who are looking at what’s happening and they’re not seeing much of a viable opposition rise up. They’re saying, ‘You know what? I better get what I can now, enjoy what I can now because it’s going to hell in a handbasket.’ A lot of people are very fatalistic. And your question sort of summarizes or epitomizes the view that more than a few people I know have about this. So the next election. It’s always the next election. And always going to boil down to just how much faith are you going to have to in the American people? At some point to say, ‘This is not what we want; this is not what we voted for.’
The problem with that is, how many of them benefit from all this ‘dictatorship’ you call it. How many benefit? How many are benefiting from government getting bigger? How many benefit from the government run by a bunch of statists. Well, the statists want as many to benefit as possible. It’s hard to vote against the entity that provides you your living, regardless what that living is. This is something the libs have known for a while. So it’s the next election. And the next election. And the next election. You know, liberalism is something that’s going to have to constantly be fought. The evidence: 1980, 1984, Ronaldus Magnus two landslides. You would figure as well as the country did then — tax cuts, the economy coming back, beat the Soviet Union, wiped out Soviet communism. You would think that those eight years of actual experience would have instructed people, but the Drive-By Media back then and through today and the Democrat Party has done its best to revise history and lie about what actually happened during the eighties.
‘Yeah, we did pretty well but we did it on the backs of the poor,’ which of course makes no mathematical sense whatsoever but they still said that. Of course the poor believe it. Some in the middle class believe it. Lifelong Democrats — born that way, don’t question anything — believe it. And that’s why it is so troubling to me to see conservatism fractured the way it is. With so many of our otherwise bright people saying, ‘Colin Powell is the way of the future of the Republican Party.’ Sorry, I still don’t get it. We have a faction of the conservative movement who actually believes, ‘You know what? People do want big government now. So we gotta come up with a better way of saying, ‘We can do it better.” Well, that’s forfeiture of the game. That is giving up. That is abandoning conservatism for the sake of doing whatever you have to do to win. My point is, if you are a conservative but you throw it away in order to win, what have you won if you have to govern as a liberal in order to stay in power? So it’s a lot of work ahead, folks. I’m not sugarcoating it.