Rush Limbaugh: Drive-Bys Show Us Trump’s Huge Crowd

RUSH ARCHIVE:  There were 15,000 people at this event in Biloxi, and Trump — now, this is an indication.  Nobody else does this.  Trump spotted a CNN photographer, and he had the presence of mind to know that the CNN photographer was not showing the entire crowd.  And from the stage, Trump called this guy out and challenged him to show the entire crowd. (imitating Trump) “You get your camera, you aim it, you show everybody who’s here. You show the size of this crowd,” because they weren’t.  He called ’em out on it.  That’s something that doesn’t happen. The crowd stood up and cheered; they loved it.  Because many of the people of this country know you’ve also gotta beat the media if you want to win an election.  It’s not just the Democrats.  You gotta beat the media because they’re one and the same.

RUSH:  So here is Trump last night in Lowell, Massachusetts.  And, by the way, I’m looking for the — I wonder what Stack I put this in. Here it is.  Chris Cillizza.  Our old buddy at the Washington Post.  He’s starting to change his mind, a lot of leftist reporters.  Remember, I told you yesterday that a lot of people reporting on Trump in the Drive-By Media are saying, “Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, he’s got a lot of crowds. I mean, these crowds are showing up, big crowds, but I don’t think they’re the kind of people that are gonna vote.  I mean, Trump supporters, they’re showing up ’cause he’s a reality TV star, or because he’s celebrity.  But I don’t know how many of ’em are gonna go vote.”

This has been a standard inclusion now in the last two or three weeks in every Trump story.  It is a way the Drive-Bys are attempting to defuse the importance of the size of the crowds gathering to hear Trump.  “Well, yeah, of course, but most of them aren’t gonna vote, and Trump doesn’t have a get-out-the-vote effort, he doesn’t have any ground game, so I don’t think it’s gonna be big.”  Now they’re starting to change their mind because the media is showing up at these events and standing in line to get in, and they’re finding out that people are standing in line in 19- and 20-degree weather for hours, and they’re not even assured they’re gonna get in.  It may fill up before they get in there, but they’re willing to brave that.

So now some reporters, “You know what?  Maybe we have change our thinking on this.  Maybe Trump’s people are committed enough to vote.”  When Obama was drawing these large crowds in 2008, was anybody saying “Yeah, yeah, yeah, but these are not the kind of people that are gonna show up and vote”?  How unique that is with Republican primary crowds.  But Chris Cillizza here in the Washington Post: “This crowd shot from Donald Trump’s Massachusetts rally is absolutely mind-boggling.”

He was in Lowell, Massachusetts, five miles south of the New Hampshire border at a big arena rally last night and it holds 8,000 people.  It was at the Tsongas Center arena, named after Paul Tsongas, well-known Massachusetts politician, Democrat candidate for president.  Eight thousand people is capacity.  It was overflowing.  People lined up unable to get in, 20 degrees.  There was a picture of the crowd.  Cillizza saw it, that’s what his piece is about.  This crowd shot from Trump’s Massachusetts rally is absolutely mind-boggling.  And these crowds are nothing new.  Trump’s been drawing these crowds for months now but to the Drive-Bys they’re all of a sudden noticing it.

And you know what else they’re noticing?  Hillary doesn’t come anywhere near crowds this size, nor the crowds that show up for Hillary have anywhere near, not even half as much of the enthusiasm as Trump’s crowds.  Bernie Sanders attracts bigger crowds than Hillary does.  Bernie Sanders’ people are more enthusiastic.  Some Drive-Bys, by the way, I saw it today in doing show prep, some Drive-Bys are now thinking that Bernie Sanders may actually do better in Iowa than the polls indicate.  They’re really starting to get worried about Hillary.  And you know something else that’s worrying about Hillary?  Bill yesterday in New Hampshire was a bomb.  Exactly as I thought.  He was rambling.  It was almost incoherent.


And there are stories today about how women in the audience were rolling their eyes as though they couldn’t believe what they were hearing. There were looks of boredom all around on the faces of women. At the first event, Bill Clinton shows up solo to campaign for Hillary, and they make the point that Bill is afraid to attack Trump because that’s a nonstarter.  When he was asked questions about Trump going after his peccadillos with women, Clinton’s answer was, again, incoherent and off subject.

You couple that with stories that we had yesterday of a rising fear in the Democrat hierarchy that Hillary is not a shoo-in, is not automatic as they’ve believed all this time.  So if they are reporting what they are about concerns with Bill and concerns with Hillary, then I guarantee you those concerns are at least twice as serious as they are being reported.  Meanwhile, here’s Trump at the rally in Lowell, Massachusetts, last night.

TRUMP:  I’ve never seen so many cameras in my life.  We have a lot.  Look at all the cameras here tonight, and all live television.  You’re all on live.  Wave.  Hi, folks!

AUDIENCE: (cheers and applause)

TRUMP: And I wish… You know, I always do this.  I wish they’d turn the cameras and show the audience.

AUDIENCE: (jeering the media)

TRUMP: But they tend not to do it.

AUDIENCE: (applause)

TRUMP:  They tend not to do it.  We won’t do it too much tonight. But —

AUDIENCE: (cheers)

TRUMP:  — but I said —

AUDIENCE: (wild cheering and applause)

TRUMP: Wow! They’re doing it!  Wow!  That is so amazing. They did it!  They turned the cameras.

RUSH:  Exactly right. Right after I called ’em out on it yesterday, the Drive-Bys turn the cameras and showed the crowd at the Lowell arena, the Tsongas arena in Lowell where Trump was.  Hey, I’ll give you a little anecdotal story here.  I was on the golf course Sunday, and it’s not far from PBI, Palm Beach International Airport.  I’m on some fairway. I’m getting prepared to lace a 3-wood 240 yards, second shot on a par 5 going for the green.  So I’m totally focused on the shot.  When I hit the ball, nobody comments on my shot.

They said, “My God, Rush, you just missed Trump! You just missed Trump!” I said, “What?” “Yeah! The Trumpster!” They pointed to the sky. Trump’s plane had just taken off and flew over the golf course.  These are guys that six months ago couldn’t have cared less if Donald Trump had driven by on a golf cart, but there’s Trump’s plane! It’s big. It’s a Boeing 757. It’s black, TRUMP in giant gold letters on the fuselage. You can’t miss it.  It’s parked next to mine when he’s here in Palm Beach.  So these guys say, “You just missed Trump’s plane! Trump just took off! Wow!”

I said, “You guys you didn’t see my shot?”

“What shot?”

My point is the excitement over seeing Trump’s plane take off.  And this was Sunday, so he was… I don’t know where he was headed Sunday.  Maybe back to New York from the New Year’s weekend; I don’t know.  But he had been in Biloxi Saturday night, so he had obviously flown back here Sunday. This had to be in the afternoon about three.  I don’t know where he was going, but maybe up to Massachusetts or New York, ’cause his appearance in Lowell was last night.


Rush Limbaugh: Trump’s “Nutty” Proposal Is Already the Law of the Land — and Was Used by Jimmy Carter During the Hostage Crisis

RUSH: Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens.  This law was written in 1952.  It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president.

“Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president.  Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Over here, everybody in the establishment in the political class, Republican, Democrat, media, you name it, is all claiming that what Trump said is dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous, unconstitutional, while it is the law of the land.  And it was utilized by Jimmy Carter, no less, in 1979 to keep Iranians out of the United States, but he actually did more.  He made all Iranian students already here check in, and then he deported a ton of ’em.

There is precedent for everything Donald Trump has said he wants to do.  And if you listen to the wizards of smart in this country and our political establishment, you will think that this stuff is just unheard of, it’s almost unspeakable, it’s just indecent.  Here we have in the establishment the reputed best and brightest, the smartest. We’re not even qualified to be in their company no less.  And they’re dunces on this.

In November the 1979 United States attorney general had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office.  Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the United States, 1979.  When this law, inadmissible aliens I just read to you, which I’m gonna be reading a lot to you today to the point you’re gonna get tired of hearing it, but you won’t forget it.

This law was passed in 1952.  Do you know what was going on in 1952, among other things?  There was no immigration in 1952.  It was shut down.  Immigration was shut down 1924 to 1965.  And why did we have this?  What was the need for this in 1952?  Oh, yeah, we had rampant illegal immigration. I’m talking about we suspended legal immigration from 1924 to 1965, but we were being overrun in 1952 like we always are.  We’re the last great hope of the world.  That law was written to allow the president to keep undesirables out and to kick undesirables out.  There’s no mystery.

RUSH: I’ve got to remind you of something here, folks.  The Jimmy Carter stuff that I just told you about, all of these statements that Jimmy Carter made were made in public, and the announcements that he made that he was gonna send Iranians home, Iranian students home, that they had to report to immigration, they had to confirm they were here legally, those who weren’t were sent back. They put a moratorium on all Iranians being allowed in the country back in 1979.

Carter did that publicly.  He announced it in public, and he announced it proudly.  Cookie has been scouring our archives and all of the other archives that are out there to try to find Carter audio.  But she can’t.  And the reason is, the networks are not digging it up and playing it for anybody.  The networks have it, is the point.  There is video of Jimmy Carter making these announcements.  ABC, CBS, NBC, the odds are, have video of Jimmy Carter, just as they do of Reagan and Nixon and all the way back to Kennedy, when television started, they’ve got it.  They’re just not interested in finding it. They’re not interested in dredging it up and playing it for anybody.

These are not proclamations on a Friday night document dump where nobody was paying attention.  Carter proudly announced these maneuvers in public.  And the Drive-Bys, if they were doing their jobs, would be digging into their archives trying to find this.  But it’s not in their interests, because right now they’re all trying to say that what Trump has proposed is unconstitutional, it’s ugly.  What Trump wants to do is dangerously ugly.  It ignores the law, it ignores the Constitution, and it feeds into our worst impulses.  It feeds into the worst aspects of who we are, just ugly.  In fact, it’s not, it’s been used before. It’s been United States law since 1952.  Get back to that here in just a second.  I got another salient point to make about that, but I want to tell you about SurveyUSA.  Now, listen to this.

They just completed two surveys in cities near San Bernardino.  Their focus was on Trump’s declaration that the United States should block any Muslims from entering the country.  In both of these cities near San Bernardino, the majority of adults polled supported Trump’s proposal.  In fact, more than a third of adults in both of these cities strongly agreed with the idea that Muslims should be barred from entering the country.  In both cities, more people strongly agreed with the idea than strongly disagreed.  You combine the “strongly agree” and “somewhat agree,” you combine that, and you are well into a majority of people who agree with Trump on this.

There was a partisan split, as you might expect, but even among Democrats, more than a quarter of them answering the poll strongly agreed with Trump’s idea.  When have 25% of Democrats agreed with any Republican idea?  Can you recall?  When have 25% of Democrats ever agreed with any Republican proposal?  The Washington Post is the source for this.  The Washington Post reports the results of SurveyUSA’s data, and the Washington Post notes that both of these towns heavily voted Obama in 2008 and 2012.  And a majority clearly now agree with Trump.

So here again, number 8 United States Code, inadmissible aliens.  “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president.  Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation,” meaning he doesn’t have to go back and get a new vote.  This law empowers him to stand up and do what Jimmy Carter did.  “He may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary –” until next week, until next year, until whenever he wants “– suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Now, apparently our armchair constitutional scholars inside the Beltway think that United States code must be unconstitutional, ’cause they’re running around saying it’d be unconstitutional what Trump is suggesting, ridiculous, you can’t do that, it would be horrible.  It’s right there in the United States statutory law.  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, written and passed by Democrat-controlled Congress and signed into law by a Democrat president.  Trump’s proposal is legal because all of our immigration laws have always barred some groups of people based on their actions or ethnicity or nationality.

The very first US immigration law was the Chinese Exclusionary Act of 1882.  Then there was the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903, which we have discussed on this program.  But this has reminded me of something.  A couple of weeks ago Obama went on TV, as he is wont to do, and said (imitating Obama), “We do not have a religious test for people entering our country.  It doesn’t matter what they believe.  We have freedom of religion in this country, whatever amendments since then.  And it’s the law, it’s our law, and we cannot ask people about their religion, and we certainly cannot use what they say as a reason to keep –”  And I was forced to remind everybody that not only can we, we must, because it is also American statutory law.  We must ask immigrants seeking asylum what their religious beliefs are.  We have done it.  We continue to do it.  Here’s why.

The primary reason most refugees give for seeking asylum is that they are fleeing religious persecution in whatever war torn place they’re coming from.  During the interview process, it is required that we investigate that.  “What religion are you?” we ask.  They must tell us.  Based on what they tell us, we then examine whether or not there is indeed persecution of that religious belief in the place where the immigrant, the refugee, is coming from.  We dealt with this a couple of weeks ago.  Obama said you could never have a religious test for refugees, and we showed that a religious test is actually written into the statutes that govern refugees and asylum.

You know, the thing is here, folks, whether we’re talking about the hard left or the progressive left or these RINO type Republicans and the commentariat, these people are actually making up a new Constitution and body of law as they go along based on how they feel.  So Trump comes along, they do not know about this law.  They obviously don’t know it or they wouldn’t be making fools of themselves saying what they’re saying.  They don’t know the law exists.  Trump proposes that we put a moratorium on Muslims entering the country, and they just have a conniption fit and they talk about how it’s violating the Constitution and it makes a mockery of our system and it makes a mockery of our values and this is not who we are. They’re just telling us how they feel, but they are certainly not knowledgeable of the Constitution.  They’re making it up.

Tom Brokaw is one of many out there claiming what Trump wants to do so is unconstitutional, it’s in violation of United States law, it would never stand up in court.  He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but he certainly is letting us know how he feels about it and making up his own law and his own Constitution as he goes, as they are all doing.

So as a result the last thing that they want anybody to do is actually look at what the law of the United States is.  And they certainly don’t want us looking at the history of this country because they certainly do not want us finding any precedent for anything that, in this case, Trump has suggested.  So now we have the soap opera, the daily soap opera that is the narrative of the day written by the media in Washington, and we’ve got the same thing about history.



Rush Limbaugh: Why They Won’t Call It Islamic Terrorism

RUSH: I’m gonna try to explain something today, a question that has a lot of people flummoxed.  So they just announced, CNN led the pack, but now everybody is reporting that Syed Farook, which means global warming in Arabic, climate change, and his wife have been influenced by ISIS.  You’ve heard that.  And yet have you noticed the government still is not calling this terrorism.  Have you noticed that?  ISIS inspired the couple, but this is not yet terrorism.  And they’re now angling further down the road of workplace violence or postpartum depression.  Have you heard that one?  The wife was postpartum depressed and she radicalized the guy and they blew up everything.

Since this all began, it has been apparent to you and to me and to anybody with even a pea brain that we were the victims of a terror attack, that this was Islamic terror that took place in San Bernardino, California, and yet the authorities refuse even now to call it that.  And when asked why, they say, “Well, you know, we’re still examining all the evidence.  We haven’t yet figured out a motive.  We’re doing everything we can.”  And finally, after a while, you get the idea here they don’t want to call this terrorism.  And a lot of people are scratching their heads, “What? Why be so obtuse?”  And I am here today to give you the reason.

I want to go back to the situation in San Bernardino, because this is going to answer a lot of people’s questions.  Even now government officials from the FBI to the Regime to whenever, will not say that this was terrorism, even after linking it to ISIS.

And in fact, folks, to just give you a little hint, linking it to ISIS actually helps the government not call it terrorism because ISIS is not Islam.  No, I’m not saying that.  The government says that.  The left, the media says it.  ISIS is not Islam.  You’ve heard Obama say that.  ISIS is making a mockery of Islam.  In fact, what you really need to understand about the way our government looks at Islam, they look at Islam as anti-terror as well.  Islam is anti-terrorism.  Therefore, no terrorism can actually be Islamic.  Islam is the religion of peace.  We say that jokingly.  That’s actually the position of the US government.  It’s rooted in political correctness and fear and a number of other convoluted things.

The religion of peace can’t possibly engage in terrorism.  Therefore, ISIS is not Islam, and what happened in San Bernardino is not terrorism because these were Muslims.  And Muslims are the religion of peace and were influenced by ISIS, but ISIS is not Islam, and therefore there was no official terrorism.  Another word you can bank on hearing, “radicalized.”  What does that mean, the way our government is using it and the media?  “Radicalized” means we had this nice guy and his lovely wife — by the, has anybody seen a picture of her?

She had been vetted. She had a K-1 fiance-type visa.  Has anybody ever seen a picture of this babe?  I haven’t.  Have you?  I don’t think they’ve put one out.  I wonder why.  Anyway, ol’ Syed was running around having a grand old time collecting pipe bombs and stuff for his garage and his car. He’s just a decent guy going to holiday party, and he gets into an argument here with a messianic Jew.  That could be confusing for those of you in Rio Linda.

A messianic Jew is a Jewish person that believes Jesus Christ is the savior.  You may think that’s contradictory but for the purposes of understanding here, just accept that.  You have a messianic Jew that this nice guy, Fareed Syed Farook GPS, whatever, got into an argument with. And apparently the messianic Jew provoked poor old Syed. He was running around minding his own business and this messianic Jew started talking about Islam and the religion of peace and just set the poor guy off.

He ended up being radicalized by that and by his wife.  By the way, a sound bite coming up about how Islamic Muslim women are far more radical than the men.  And it’s our media saying this.  I thought there was a Republican War on Women going on here.  Instead, the Drive-Bys and the Democrat Party are just attacking Islamic women.  So this woman takes this innocent young Syed Farook. As I say, he’s minding his own business, going about his day enjoying the American dream. He’s come back from a couple trips to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He went to the Hajj in Mecca. He’s done it all, and now he’s living his life and he’s loving it. And then, all of a sudden, his coworker starts talking about religion to him, and they get into this big argument! His wife starts radicalizing him, and he snaps.  Radicalized!  “Radicalized” is a new keyword for you to understand that allows our government to not say “terrorism.”

“Oh, he was a nice guy, wasn’t bothering anybody, going about his business, living the American dream; then he got radicalized.  Doesn’t matter by who! Radicalized by coworker, radicalized by his wife, radicalized by ISIS, whatever. And he lost it. Workplace violence. He couldn’t help himself! It was workplace violence.  He was provoked.  Damn it, damn it, the workplace made him do it.”  That’s what is evolving as we sit her at this moment that… (interruption)

Oh, stuff in the garage? Well, that’s part of the radicalization. That’s part of the being radicalized.  The point you have to understand is our government’s official position. This is why they have been waiting and waiting, hoping that some circumstance or series of circumstances could be discovered to allow them to construct a scenario whereby this man is not a terrorist and this was not terrorism.  (interruption)  I’ll… (interruption) I don’t… (interruption)  Well, whether they think we believe it or not, that’s why they’re doing what they’re do.

The real question is: “Why are they so afraid of identifying Islamic terrorism for what it is?” You remember… You might think I’m saying some crazy things.  Don’t forget, immediately after 9/11, the whole posture of our government was: “What did we do to make them so mad?  What did we do to cause this?” And the “religion of peace” line. You know, Obama says we can’t use the word “terrorism.” We can’t use the word “foreign.” We can’t use any of these provocative words that insult them. “Islamic terrorism” is a phrase not permitted to be used by the US government.

I mean, don’t doubt me on this, folks.  It is what it is.  And it’s a… (interruption) I can’t explain why.  The logic here escapes me a bit.  I could just speculate.  Fear of billions of Muslims?  Sympathy?  Some other form of identification with Muslims?  I don’t know.  The fact that the United States is who’s really guilty?  The fact that the United States is responsible for all this that’s happening to us, that we sort of brought it on ourselves, maybe even deserve it?


The Washington Examiner has a story.  “Report: Scale of Islamic State Recruitment in US Unprecedented.”  Have you heard, by the way, that one of the places Obama wants to relocate these arriving Syrian refugees is Redlands, California, where Syed Farook “Climate Change” lived?  That’s where Obama wants to put these new Syrian refugees.

And now we have: “Scale of Islamic State Recruitment in US Unprecedented.”  But that doesn’t mean we’re importing terrorists.  Islam is different than ISIS!  Yeah, they’ve got Islamic in their name, but they’re not Islamic. See, Islam’s a religion of peace.  Therefore, ISIS cannot be Islamic.  I don’t care what they call themselves, our official position is: “They are not Islamic.”

I mentioned in the first half hour that much of this comes from Andrew McCarthy who has written extensively about Islam.  He’s tried cases against noted figures such as the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman.  Put him away, in fact, United States attorney.  So Rudy Giuliani comes on television the day after San Bernardino and says, “If you can’t see this is an act of terror, you’re a moron.”

And yet even as we sit here at this very moment, our government still will not call it an act of terror.  They will not even call it terrorism.  They’re looking, as I’ve just previously discussed, for any other number of alternative explanations.  Why?  What’s going on here?  Well, it goes like this.

Our government denies that terrorism is caused by Islamic doctrine.  Now, that is true, and it is a declarative statement.  It’s not arguable.  This administration and even in prior administrations, the Bush administration went to great lengths to exempt Islam from terrorism.  They say Islam is a religion of peace and terrorism is not really Islam.  It’s a weird, way-out bastardization of it, but it is not Islam.

McCarthy decided to read the Koran as part of his preparation for trial because he couldn’t believe this guy, the blind sheik, some of this stuff he was saying. It had to be vitriol, had to be wacko extremism, and it wasn’t.  He found out it was right from the scripture. That the blind sheik and all that he was discussing and promoting, was right from the book.  But our government refuses to see that and instead claims that terrorism is not part of Islamic doctrine.  Islam, the religion of peace and any terrorism that happens, is not really Islamic or Islamic inspired.

This is called a willful blindness.  It’s also political correctness.  Our government is in denial of radical Islam as written. “Unwilling to deal with Islam as it is, the government must make up an Islam of its very own. Regardless of the abundance of evidence to the contrary, the government holds that Islam is a religion of peace, case closed.”

They have made up their own version of Islam to avoid having to deal with the reality of Islam because it’s just too daunting, frightening, scary, whatever, and they don’t want to deal with it.  Therefore to the government, terrorism committed by people who happen to be Muslim is not in any way a reflection of legitimate interpretation of Islam.  You might find this hard to believe, but if you’re doubting any of this, just search your own memory.  All the times that we have heard that Islam’s a religion of peace and that we can’t use the word “terrorism” to describe it and Obama will not use it.  And then remember all the times that this administration actually claims that violence by white right-wing white Christians poses a greater threat to the people of this country than Islam.  Islam’s a religion of peace, and anybody conducting terrorism in the name of Islam is a liar and a fraud.  They are bastardizing the religion of peace.

So again, to the government, terrorism committed by people who are Muslim is not a reflection on the legitimate interpretation of Islam, even if Islamic supremacist ideology, which endorses jihad violence — Islam, standard, mainstream Islam endorses jihad violence, but our government doesn’t want to admit that or deal with it.  Here in America, as in Western Europe, this is the key to understand.  The violence is deemed anti-Islamic.  Meaning, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, they can’t be Islamic.  Islam is the religion of peace.  They are bastardizing it. They are frauds. They are calling themselves Islamic and they are calling themselves Muslim, but they’re not.  Because Islam is as anti-terror as you and I are.  Islam is the religion of peace.

I’m telling you what our government’s position is.  The US military position.  The FBI, you the name, this is why they will not call these acts of terror “terror,” because, if they have any connection to Islam, it can’t be, because Islam is the religion of peace.  And Islam, genuine, real Muslims are as opposed to Al-Qaeda and ISIS as we are.  That is what has been dictated to our law enforcement agents by their superiors.  If those were your instructions, and you have a terror attack and you’re out there reporting to the media, trying to answer questions, you’d sound like a babbling buffoon, too, because you’d have to come up with ways to violate the very common sense you know is true.

So what are the policy implications of the government and this fantasy Islam, what are the policy implications of a United States government that believes Islam is as anti-terror as you and I are?  Well, it means that Islamic doctrine can never be cited as the cause of terrorism, as a matter of policy.  And it never is.  It never is.  This leads, for example, to what is happening right now this very day, this preposterous hand-wringing over radicalization.

We are supposed to believe that young people like Syed Farook “Climate Change,” who just happens to be Muslim, spontaneously, out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, he was provoked by a coworker or radicalized by his wife, all of a sudden became mean and angry, a radicalized terrorist.  But that’s not who he really was.  Just a young guy running around living his life and then something or a series of things happened to radicalize him, as if there were no doctrine, as if there were no body of thought that was inducing the radicalization.

It’s so absurd. I can understand some of you think that this makes no sense.  It doesn’t make any sense.  That’s the point, folks.  It doesn’t make any sense.  So here you have peaceful, blending into the background, cheap, poor little beard people, making fun of a little guy named Syed Farook, and all of a sudden he becomes radical.  Radicalized by what?  Not just by who, but by what?  What radicalized him?  Well, it isn’t Islam.  No, because Islam’s the religion of peace.  So it must be ISIS.  Yes.

So the news today that this guy was influenced by ISIS is not the administration getting close to calling this terrorism.  This is a classic example of the government taking the occasion to say it isn’t, because Islam is as opposed to ISIS as you and I are.  Because Islam is the religion of peace, ISIS is bastardizing Islam, and if this little guy has been radicalized by his wife or by ISIS or whatever, it’s further proof that Muslims, slash, Islamic terrorism is not at play here.  And it ultimately leads to the decree or the belief that terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, therefore, are not Islamic.

You have to conclude that they’re either just bad people. They’re just wanton murderers or they’re mentally deranged or they’re sick or they’ve been hijacked or perverted or whatever, but they have perverted and they have hijacked Islam.  ‘Cause Islam’s the religion of peace.  I’m telling you what our government’s position is, and it has been since prior to Obama, by the way.  Islam as a religion of peace can have nothing to do with these acts of terror.  So if the cops come upon a mass murder attack that is clearly instigated by Islamic doctrine, they are not permitted to conclude that it is terrorism because they have been directed by their superiors in law enforcement to maintain that Islam is against terrorism.

It’s part of the propaganda that your kids are taught, part of the propaganda the media spreads that Islam is a religion of peace and is against terrorism, not sponsoring it, not doing it.  Thus the law enforcement agents believe they cannot call terrorism “terrorism” unless and until they uncover evidence proving that the Muslim mass murderers have some tie to a designated non-Islamic terror group like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, and bingo, bingo.  What do we get today?  “There’s an ISIS connection,” and once again none of this has anything to do with Islam.  That’s how it works at the highest levels of our government.

RUSH:  Okay, so now the next thing to happen since this ISIS connection has been magically discovered, now it will slowly be called “terrorism.” Slowly but surely, you will see law enforcement now acknowledge that it is terrorism, but not “Islamic terrorism” because there’s no such thing.  The Islamic religion is a religion of peace!  The agents investigating now have what they claim is a provable link between the jihadists in San Bernardino and ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

And our government has decreed that ISIS and Al-Qaeda are non-Islamic. Therefore, we can call it terrorism.  I don’t think that’s happened yet.  They’re very, very cautious about this.  They need enough time to go by for people to absorb the fact that ISIS inspired this.  ISIS is not Islam.  ISIS is pure evil bastardizing this, and therefore they are indeed terrorists. But Syed Farook was not.  He was radicalized by Islam or his wife.

Here’s Jake in San Bernardino.  Jake, glad you called.  Great to have you up first today.  Hello, sir.

CALLER:  Hey, how you doing today, Rush?

RUSH:  I’m great.  Thank you.

CALLER:  I’m good.  I’m a student on the campus of Cal State San Bernardino.  I’ve been going here for three years now.  And with the shootings that have taken place a couple days ago, it’s just sickening for me that teachers on the liberal left are saying this is still not terrorism.

RUSH:  Did you say your professors are saying that?

CALLER:  Yes, sir.  They’re still saying it.  And if you add up to all the facts with, you know, the type of ammunition they used, the type of gun, the planning, the pipe bomb, how is this still work-related violence?  I mean, it’s just a bunch of crap to me, here, that they’re still saying this.

RUSH:  Well, I’m sorry you missed the first hour.  That’s what I just spent 50 minutes explaining, but let me give it to you briefly again. The reason… Your professors are leftists.  Leftists support Obama.  Obama is the United States government at the moment.  The official position of the US government is that Islam is a religion of peace and is as anti-terror as you and I are, and therefore whatever this guy did is a bastardization of Islam because he was radicalized by, say, ISIS.

ISIS is the bad actor here now.  ISIS radicalized him. But ISIS is anti-Islam.  ISIS is not Islam.  ISIS is a bunch of horrible, rotten, mean people terrorizing people, but that’s not what Islam is.  But you’re soon gonna see this now called terrorism since they can link this guy to ISIS.  The effort here and the reason why so much time has gone by… Nothing has changed from the first moment we heard of this event until now. The events, details, all the same. Nothing’s changed.

But now they’ve got this ISIS link, and so now they will be able to say it’s terrorism.  Because, in their structure, Islam is not in any way associated with terrorism.  There is no militant Islam.  Islam is the religion of peace.  Al-Qaeda, ISIS, their offshoots, are bastardizing Islam.  And that’s why we worry about a backlash against innocent Muslims who have no relationship to this, no tie to this, and they are just as opposed to it as you and I.  That’s why we worry about the backlash.

Now, I know that makes no sense to you.  It doesn’t make any sense.  It is a fantasy version of Islam that our government created some time ago to avoid having to deal with the reality of Islam.  Now, the reasons for that, they’re up for grabs. Is it their Islamic sensibilities, sympathies, is their fear there are so many that we don’t want to go to war. We don’t want to provoke, we don’t want to irritate, we don’t want to…

I don’t have the answer to why the reluctance, other than to say it’s the left and the left considers conservatives and Republicans to be their number one enemy, not Islam.  Certainly not Islam! We conservatives and Republicans are a greater enemy that even Al-Qaeda or ISIS.  And, by the way, this is not just our government.  Folks, this is the way the Brits look at it.  This is the way the United Nations looks at it.  This is why Israel is isolated in the Middle East.

This… Call it a Fantasy Island version of Islam or any other term you want to describe it. But it is a manufactured version of Islam that permits the government to exempt Muslims from any association with these acts from 9/11 on. You name it.  But, Jake, you keep a sharp eye, because your professors, now that the ISIS link has been made, are going to start calling it terrorism.  But they’re gonna make sure you understand it’s not Islamic terrorism, because there’s no such thing.

RUSH:  Okay, you still think that I’m wrong about this?  Well, then, get this.  Criticism of Islam equals Islamophobia, and the attorney general of the United States, Loretta Lynch, has just warned that people will be prosecuted for criticism of Islam — i.e., telling the truth that Islamic terrorism exists.  You can be prosecuted if you tell the truth about Islam.

RUSH:  What a banner day for your host. Right on cue, folks — right on schedule — the FBI agent in San Bernardino just went to the microphones in the latest press conference and said that they can now admit/announce that they are investigating the shooting in San Bernardino as an act of terrorism.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Yes.  Yes, they called it right on the money. But do not be confused.  This is not Obama and the FBI admitting “Islamic terrorism.” What has happened here is, they found this link to ISIS.

They found the possibility that this innocent young man who believed in the religion of peace somehow got radicalized either by this mysterious wife of his, or some contact with ISIS, and that turned him into a wild madman, a madman gunning down coworkers.  This is not Islamic terrorism, because there isn’t any such thing.  Islam is a religious of peace.  And for your purposes, what you need to understand is that Islam and practicing Muslims are as opposed to terrorism as you and I are.  So after all of this, they can now say it’s terrorism, ’cause they’ve got their link to this ISIS group, which is not Islamic.

Make no mistake.

Don’t doubt me.

RUSH: It is terrorism, but if it’s inspired by ISIS, then it isn’t Islam. If it’s inspired by an out-of-control, radicalized wife who poisoned the guy’s mind, that’s not Islam.  If it’s workplace violence, that’s not Islam.  And they weren’t gonna call this terrorism until they had a scenario such as that set up to explain this Islam. As far as our government’s concerned — political correctness and all — it’s a religion of peace.  It does not sponsor terrorism.

It opposes it, much as we do. It does not create terrorism, it doesn’t preach terrorism, and this government…  It’s why the Democrats are going to pray at mosques today to show solidarity with Muslims to show that we don’t blame them.  This is ISIS, which is not Muslim, or it’s not Islam. Or it’s the wife, not Islam. Or it’s workplace violence, not Islam.  That’s the takeaway that you have. It’s still gonna be terrorism.

It can be terrorism and they can still find a way to blame it on mean Americans such as workplace violence if they want to.  That’s my only point here, and it’s why you’ve got to be… The point is here is that your government is lying about this, making all this stuff up and exempting Islam as a religion of peace for whatever politically correct reasons or sympathetic reasons they have or what have you.  This is a long way around of telling you they’re lying, is the point.


Rush Limbaugh: Obama Dismisses Notion of US Victory; Comes to Life When Defending Refugees

RUSH:  No, no.  It’s really very simple.  If you were looking for the United States, if you were looking for the president of the United States to say, “We are not going to tolerate this kind of behavior,” if you were looking for the president of the United States to say that we are gonna go to the end of the earth to find these people and take them out and do everything we can to wipe out the kind of terrorism taking place, this was not the speech for you.

If you were looking for the president of the United States to provide the world confidence and leadership that ISIS and other groups like it could be dealt with and taken out, this was not the speech for you because none of that was said.  There wasn’t even an attitude that conveyed those thoughts.  Do you know the only time Obama came alive during that speech today?  Did you watch any of it?  The only time he came alive, the only time Obama got passionate was when what?  When he started talking about the migrants.  When he started talking about the migrants and how we must keep our doors open.  He started condemning people who think we need to keep Syrian refugees out of here, we need to keep Muslim refugees out of here, we only should let in Christians, he blew up.

He got passionate. He took out after Republicans, Republican presidential candidates.  He was tougher and more critical on Republicans than he was on ISIS in this speech, but it was clear.  Folks, does anybody doubt that we’re in a war, that we’ve been in a war since before 9/11. We have been in a war with the Islamists — well, you could say back to Thomas Jefferson days, but in the modern era, the first World Trade Center bombing in ’93.  We have been at war.  There have been repeated terrorism attacks, hijackings, you name it. We have been at war and way too many administrations have sought to ignore it and look the other way and downplay it, including the Clinton administration, including the Obama Regime, you name it, look the other way, it isn’t happening, because in no way, shape, manner, or form were they prepared to take any of the responsibility of dealing with it, much less acknowledge they had anything to do with it.

Clinton had everything to do with it by making us look like a phony paper tiger, by cutting-and-running out of Somalia, Black Hawk Down incident, there’s any number of historical events I could give you, but the fact of the matter is we have made it clear we can be had.  And after 9/11 what did we do?  From the highest levels of the State Department we started conducting seminars asking, “What’s wrong with us? What do we do? Why did we make them so mad? What have we done to so infuriate them?”  We took it all on ourselves.  It was our fault.  College kids today have picked up that refrain in terms of political correctness.  It must be something we’ve done to offend them.  We’ve gotta find out what it is and assure them we mean them no harm.

But if you were looking for tough leadership, if you were looking for a president make it clear that he was gonna defend his country and other Western civilization countries, western democracies, if you were hoping that you were gonna get a president who was looking the world in the eye and saying that they were not going to be able to continue with this, this was not the speech for you because you didn’t get that.  What you got from this president was you’re a bigot if you think we should stop helping these refugees.

He wants a hundred thousand a year.  And I’ll guarantee you this, too.  Whether Congress defunds the whole program, don’t bet on that, he’s gonna do it anyway.  Folks, this last year coming up, I’m telling you, I don’t think people still have any idea what’s gonna go on, one year to go, one year to fully transform this country, one year to do whatever he has in mind, vis-a-vis the United States of America, one year.  If he wants to keep those borders open and he wants — you know, southern border immigration is a much different thing than taking in these refugees.  Don’t equate the two.  They’re two separate entities.  They’ve got different objectives.

Illegal immigration is one thing. We already have a set of laws on the books. All we’d have to do is enforce them but nobody wants to, we’re not doing so.  But the southern border immigration problem is not at all similar to what Obama is doing with the expanded refuge importation program.  But you will hear, he just comes alive when admonishing the bigots in this country.  He even went so far as to say (imitating Obama), “We got people who think it’s okay to let in Christians but they don’t want the Muslims.  That’s not who we are.  That’s not American values.  That’s not the America I know.  That’s not the values that we have.”  Blows his stack practically.


RUSH: Now to the Obama sound bites from his speech today.  Right off the bat, this is Obama and his coming alive. This is the most energetic and passionate he was during the whole thing, by saying rejecting refugees — this is after what happened in Paris — rejecting refugees would be a betrayal of our values.

OBAMA:  As we accept more refugees, including Syrians, we do so only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks.  We also have to remember that many of these refugees are the victims of terrorism themselves.  That’s what they’re fleeing.  Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values.

RUSH:  Right.  Now, this is a theme, by the way, that’s being picked up by the international left.  And I’ve seen it in a number of leftist websites publications, and that is, “Come on, the refugees are not the terrorists.  The refugees are fleeing what happened in Paris.  They’re not the people causing it.”  When we have discovered that one of the terrorists in Paris on Friday night was indeed carrying a Syrian passport.  Now, we think that’s the case.  It could have been one of the victims.  It could have been a forged passport or what have you, but nevertheless it was found.

But the bottom line is with all of this happening, with all of these young men, able-bodied, military age fleeing — Bernie Sanders says ’cause it’s hot where they live because of climate change — Obama says, oh, yeah, we’ll check ’em out.  Really?  Who has confidence that we’re gonna do that?  We can’t even find the illegals in this country, supposedly.  What do you mean we’re gonna check ’em out?  How many Fort Hoods is it gonna take?  How many one-off terrorism acts, attempted terrorism acts by lone wolves or whatever in this country is it gonna take?

Why in the world would you want to commit suicide?  This is what people don’t understand.  You know, reasonable people who don’t define themselves politically.  These are the people I’m talking about I wish we could teach to spot liberalism everywhere it is.  We would be so far ahead of the game.  But people that doesn’t want to think they’re watching politics, don’t want to see politics, don’t want to think politics is part of anything, even they are beginning to say, “Wait a minute.  We just had another ISIS attack. They’re beheading people left and right. They’re making videos of it. They’re killing people left and right. People are fleeing everywhere.

We want to let people into this country during a period of time like this?  Why would we commit suicide?  Why would America take the risk?  Even nonpolitical people are beginning to ask the question.  Like what I heard today driving in to work.  “Well, I’m really worried out there, Mark. I’m really, really worried. It might be the worst time in the world for my kids to be growing up.”  You know, I’m flabbergasted listening to this.  He’s talking about the Paris attack.  And they’re worried, they were talking about sleeper cells here and how many might be planning attacks here in the United States, and I said, “Have you guys noticed what’s happening to the economy?” They hadn’t.  It’s asking empty questions. (interruption) That’s what I mean, Fort Hood was not workplace violence.  Well, I know they said it was.  That’s why people don’t trust them now.

They’re asking us to not believe exactly what we see.  They’re asking us to deny common sense.  They’re asking us to deny what’s rational.  They want us to believe them.  “Ah, it’s workplace violent.”  Really?  Allahu Akbar.  It happens every day.  Snerdley shouts every other day last week, Allahu Akbar, got mad his computer, right, workplace violence.  Okay, so there’s Obama making the case, he’s in Turkey, “We can’t shut down the refugees, we gotta let ’em in, that’s who we are, that’s how we open ’em up.”  And this is when Obama, his critics are bellicose, and they pop off with tough talk.  This is Obama tougher on Republicans than he ever is on ISIS.  This is a press conference at the G20 summit, and White House correspondent Jim Avila.  “Mr. President, if I could ask, I’d like you to address your critics who say your reluctance to enter another Middle East war and your preference of diplomacy over using the military makes the US weaker and emboldens our enemies.”

OBAMA:  Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference, because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing is talking as if they’re tough.  Folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan.  What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually gonna work to protect the American people and to protect people in the region.

RUSH:  Did I just hear what I just heard?  Did we all just hear that?  Did he just say that he’s not gonna pursue some notion, he’s not interested in pursuing some notion of American leadership or of America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with. It has no relationship to what’s actually gonna work?  If America winning doesn’t have any relationship to what’s gonna work, then what the hell are we working on?  What’s the point?  This is not the first time he has said this.  This is not the first time he has questioned the whole concept of America winning as a phony premise.  Gosh, I wish I could remember.  It seems like it was early on in the first term.  It might have been about Iraq.  But this is the second, maybe the third time I have heard Obama denigrate the concept of America winning as somehow insignificant or beneath us intellectually within that it’s just a slogan.  America winning is just a slogan.  And what I guess is real is all these hashtags, #bringbackourgirls. Let’s drop some candles here for the victims of whatever happened and think we’re doing something.  That’s what people on his side do.

But he really makes the case here, makes the point here that this is bitter clinger rabble-rousing.  It’s just insignificant.  This idea of America winning, it’s so backwards.  We intellectuals are so far beyond the concept of America winning.  That’s not what this is about.  We’re not in this to win.  That’s not why we’re doing what we’re doing.  That’s his point of view here.  American leadership, America winning, other slogans we can come up with.  I’m not interested in that.  That has no relationship to what’s actually gonna work to protect the American people.  America winning has no relationship to protecting the American people?

This is arrogant condescension and the whole idea here about winning and victory, intellectuals, in their world, that is blue-collar stuff, that’s hayseed, hick stuff, talking about winning and this and that.  The intellectuals know there is no winning.  There’s just containment.  There’s appeasement, there’s cooperation, coalition.  Winning?  Come on, don’t waste my time.  We’re so beyond winning.  In his vaunted world of superior intelligence and being, winning is such a passe thing.  Leadership, it’s so irrelevant to the real world today.  But he wasn’t finished.  He then lectured everybody on how we have to accept Muslims as well as Christians or we’re all just a bunch of bigots.

OBAMA:  When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims.  When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful.  That’s not American.  It’s not who we are.  We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

RUSH:  Oh, really?  You know, it’s a common line that Obama uses all the time to make everybody think he’s an American traditionalist.  Now, whatever he is, he’s not an American traditionalist.  By that I mean traditional American values.  He abhors them.  They’re old, they’re out of date, they were never that good anyway.  But when he comes out, “That’s not America.  That’s not who we are,” that’s Obama trying to make you think that he thinks like you do.  But he doesn’t.

RUSH:  By the way, can anybody tell me who is it, he says “political leaders suggesting that there should be a religious test for these refugees, we should admit the Christians, not the Muslims,” who said that?  Do you know anybody who said it?  Well, I can’t think of anybody.  And then he says “Some of these folks themselves come from families who’ve benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution.”  Who’s he talking about?  You know, I wish he would name names when he starts alleging all of these bigots are out there, I want to know who he’s talking about.

But I’ll guarantee you this, the low-information crowd and the Democrat Party thinks he’s talking about Republicans, and that’s the whole purpose of the comment, but he won’t name names.  All these imaginary bigots out there.  That’s not America, that’s not who we are.  Really?  We aren’t who we are the last seven years, if you ask me.  We are not who we are.  We’ve been doing things not the way we normally do them the last seven years, if you ask me.

RUSH:  Okay.  I have been informed that Obama was probably referring to Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, because apparently Jeb Bush and Cruz suggested that Muslim refugees from Syria not be admitted to the US right now, refugees, and Rubio has said that we shouldn’t take in any Syrian refugees.  Well, that’s fine.  I don’t mind missing that.  I must have missed that Friday night.  No big deal.  Fact of the matter is that Obama, that’s what jazzed him.  Obama got more irritated as those guys than he is at ISIS.

Now, before you people go off half-cocked out there, I’m just telling you, that’s how he sounded.  In this press conference today, Obama got animated and got passionate, energetic, when talking about that.  When talking about ISIS, it was — what’s the word for it?  It was impersonal. It was detached.  It was as though he was talking theory and philosophy in the faculty lounge.  He wasn’t talking about specifics, and there was no condemnation, to speak of, of ISIS.  There was an acknowledgement that they’re bad guys, but there was no condemnation.  Not like there was condemnation of these Republicans who think it would be wise to keep Syrian refugees out of America right now.

What do you think, folks?  Given what’s happening, given what we see happening in Europe, Europe is being overrun.  And there are a lot of people in Europe who are starting to wake up to the idea that this is not just a natural flow of people fleeing poverty or war or global warming heat or whatever, that it is part of a plan.  People in Europe, because it’s so massive, because of the demands these refugees are making, because of the demographics of the refugees, even some wuss Europeans are beginning to get suspicious.

To me this is just common sense, we are at war.  We have a terror group which is much more violent than Al-Qaeda, which we seem totally vexed by.  If you listen to our own president, we’re vexed about how to deal with them.  They were the JV team, then last Friday we had ’em contained.  Obama even today said that despite this incident, they’re on the run.  Those are not his exact words, but despite this incident that happened, we still have the upper hand with these people.  And we don’t.

But you couple what’s happening on the Southern border with endless illegal immigration, sponsored by the Democrat Party. Well, we can’t leave the Republicans out of that one, either.  This country’s being flooded and overrun.  And forget the religion, forget terror.  How about the US economy?  How much does our compassion cost?  We are $19 trillion in debt.  We don’t have the money for all of this compassion.  You know, that’s the thing that nobody is talking about here, except on our side.

We continue to import all these people wherever they come from, the Southern border or war torn refugees from wherever in the Middle East.  They’re incapable of providing for themselves.  We’re settling them and locating them.  And, by the way, Syrian refugees are already here in overwhelming numbers and they’re in practically every major city in the country.  I have a graphic that I printed that I could show you on the Dittocam.  I’m not sure how well it would show up, though.  Whoever put the graphic together used very light shades of — well, I would say ink.  Let me show it to you.  I gotta turn the Dittocam off and I’m gonna zoom in here.  Yeah, that’ll work.

Okay, what you’re gonna see when I turn the Dittocam back on is where Syrian refugees were placed.  What you’re not gonna be able to see, probably, is the outline of the United States, the continental 48.  It’s very, very faint here.  So imagine that you are looking at the continental United States with New York in the Northeast in the upper right-hand corner, and LA in the lower-left hand corner, and Florida, Miami, in lower right-hand corner, and Seattle, upper left, and you will see, this is where Syrian refugees have been placed.  The size of the circle matters.  The bigger the circle, the more refugees.  And in every major city here, folks, LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle, New York, Washington, Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Atlanta, St. Louis, Louisville, Memphis, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth.

Let me show it to you here.  And there you go.  That’s where Syrian refugees already have been placed in the country.  Now, we’ll grab a screenshot of this, put it up on the Dittocam, and I’ll send the graphic up to Koko so we can get a clean version of this up on the website so that you can see it.  Dittocam coming off now, have to reposition it.  But given what we know, just the common-sense aspect of this and what we see happening in Europe and the demands being made and the events taking place, what about the American value of self-preservation?  What about the Constitution? What about the oath of office, defend and protect the people of the United States?

The president wants to provide all kinds of leadership in terms of our welfare state, but he does not want to provide leadership in vanquishing our enemies, or so it seems to me.  If you want to come here and become a freeloader for the Democrat Party, the doors are open.  Wherever you are in the world and the more dependent you are, the less capable of providing for yourself, the better.  But when it comes to leadership around the world, vanquishing enemies of a free people, the United States doesn’t seem to be eager to get on that battlefield.  The United States doesn’t seem to think that it’s our responsibility anymore, even to ourselves, much less our allies.

RUSH:  “The mother of a Paris suicide bomber says her son ‘did not mean to kill anyone’ – and claims he may have blown himself up because of stress.” His name is Ibrahim Abdeslam. He blew himself up in the attack outside the cafe.  He was one of three brothers said to be at the heart of the ISIS terror cell.  The family has since claimed that Ibrahim, 31, may have been stressed.  Stressed?  What US college did he attend?  (interruption)  Well, they keep telling us that they’re stressed out on campus, that they’re worried, that they’re feeling unsafe and so forth.  Just asking.

“Obama advisor: President Obama still plans to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country over the next year, despite the terrorist attacks in Paris.”  This is Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor. “We have very robust vetting procedures for those refugees.” That’s a blatant lie, by the way.  Congressman Peter King of New York rebuffed the Regime’s claim that there are robust vetting procedures in place.  He was on Fox News Sunday.  He said (paraphrasing): “I was listening to Ben Rhodes and what he just said about this robust vetting of refugees is untrue.  There’s virtually no vetting.  There aren’t any databases in Syria.  There are no government records.  We don’t know who these people are.”  And that makes all the sense in the world.

What are we vetting them against?  Okay, here is Amir Sahib Skyhook, he wants into the country.  “Wait a minute, Amir, we’re gonna check you out.”

“Well, very good, you check me out but there are no records of me anywhere. I come from Syria, everybody has been blown up. There is no government building there.  There are no records of me,” and he’s probably right.  Where do we go to find out who Amir Sahib Skyhook is?  (interruption)  Why am I in trouble?  (interruption)  I just did an impersonation, for crying out.  What am I in trouble for?  Amir Sahib Skyhook?  (interruption)  Oh, come on.  That’s just a take-off on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.


Rush Limbaugh on ISIS and Obama’s refugee program

“I’m really appalled that there are so many people surprised that something like this could happen. Something like this happens every day in the world to one degree or another. ISIS is out murdering people. Boko Haram is out kidnapping and murdering people. The fact that it happened in Paris is what has people all bent out of shape and shocked and unbelieving? Why has it been so difficult to accept this enemy?”

“Do you know what the big narrative in the Drive-By Media is today? What impact will what happened in Paris have on Obama’s refugee program! I kid you not. That refugee program needs to be shut down right now because we have proven to ourselves over and over again that nowhere in the world can we vet these people.”

Rush Limbaugh: Democrats: The Party of the Past

RUSH: It’s a story at “Dem[ocrat]s Search for Fountain of Youth — Democrats lean heavily on young voters to win elections, but their leading candidates for the White House are 68-year-old Hillary Clinton and 74-year-old [dinosaur] Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).  The two other Democrats who were often implored to enter the race are Vice President Biden, 72, and Sen. Elizabeth [Pocahontas] Warren (D-MA), 66.  Democrats are led on Capitol Hill by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Minority Leader [Dingy] Harry Reid (NV) — who are both 75.

“Pelosi’s top two lieutenants are 76-year-old Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (MD) and 75-year-old Rep. James Clyburn (SC). In comparison, [Dingy Harry] expected successor as Democratic leader in the next Congress is … Sen. Charles Schumer (NY) is [a spry] 64.  The age of the Democratic Party’s lynchpins is a sensitive subject as the party prepares for life after 54-year-old [Barack Hussein O].  Since Obama’s election in 2008, Democrats have wracked up net losses amounting to more than [1,000] seats in state legislatures, almost 70 House seats, 13 Senate seats and 12 governors’ mansions.”

So the Hill has a story here: How can this be?  The Democrat Party is the favorite party of the youth; the Democrat Party doesn’t have any youthful people running it.  The Democrat Party is Jurassic Park.  How can this be?  And you may think it’s a legitimate question, and you may wonder: Why is it not an issue?  The Democrats really are nothing but a bunch of old people.  The Democrat Party really is a bunch of guys, “get off my lawn” type of guys.

The Democrat Party is literally a bunch of gummers.  So, ask yourself, why are they the go-to party for the American youth?  Why are they the go-to party for the millennials?  Why are they the go-to party for young journalists?  Why are they the go-to party for Silicon Valley, Hollywood?  Seriously, why?  Why are they?  (interruption)  Well, what do you mean by media branding?  (interruption)  I don’t think that’s what it is.  Snerdley just said it is because of media branding. That the Democrat Party has been branded as the party of youthful, exuberance and young, exciting, futuristic ideas, and I don’t think that’s it at all.

In fact, I know what it is.  And you know why I know what it is?  ‘Cause I read these little minions.  I read the Millennials and what they write.  I go to their blogs and their websites.  They hate Republicans.  They make fun. You ought to read what these youthful, young people are writing about Ben Carson.  He’s just the latest lunatic to come along and headline the Republican Party which is nothing but a bunch of lunatics and invariably in the litany of criticism you’ll find rabid Christian or some reference to some degree of devoutness in Christianity.

I don’t believe the Democrat Party has support because people love it.  I think the Democrat Party has support because the people we’re talking about here are either afraid of or hate or don’t take seriously the Republican Party, and in large part it’s because of conservatism, but even more important than that I think that there is an absolute hatred and distrust and fear of people who are religious.  Those people are unusually pretty sure of themselves, which is off-putting to people like this. They’re pretty confident. They’re pretty sedate. They’re gentle. They don’t seem to have a whole lot of doubts about the unknown, and these people we’re talking about, they’re living lives in total abject fear and panic because they don’t have any religion in their lives.

They’re looking for a replacement for God so they go to environmentalism, or they go to any other aspect of racism, bigotry, wherever they can find a belief in something larger than themselves, but it isn’t gonna be religion because they associate Christianity with legitimate fools.  To them, Christians and religious people are dangerous kooks.  They have a distorted view of Christianity, because that’s how it’s been explained to them.  And so it’s not that the Democrat Party offers them anything.  The Democrat Party doesn’t.  Where is the youth at the top of the Democrats?  Where is the hip in the Democrat Party?

There really isn’t any hip.  You ever watch the White House Correspondents Dinner?  They have to import hip.  They have to import Hollywood people.  The Democrat Party proves better than anybody ever has that politics is show biz for the ugly.  That politics is show biz for the aging and the decrepit and the ugly.  There is no youthful leader in the Democrat Party.  There is no JFK anymore.  There’s no JFK Jr., there’s nobody.  I’m not altogether convinced that a majority of youth actually oppose conservatism anyway.  It’s just that it’s fashionable to say so, just like it’s fashionable to join the protests at Mizzou.  It’s the path of least friction.


Rush Limbaugh: Democrats Promise Free Everything

RUSH: First up is a montage here from the debate last night.  Bernie Sanders, Hillary, Lincoln Chafee, and they’re all talking about all the free stuff.  College and health care and whatever you want. If you’re an illegal immigrant, it’s all yours.  All you have to do is show up.

SANDERS:  Make every public college and university in this country tuition-free.

HILLARY:  Anyone to go to a public college or university tuition-free.

SANDERS:  We’re all gonna have medical and family paid leave.

HILLARY:  Make sure every child gets health care, including undocumented children and others.

CHAFEE:  Funding education, funding infrastructure, funding health care.

HILLARY:  Enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security.

SANDERS:  We should be putting money into education.  I want Wall Street now to help kids in this country go to college, public colleges and universities.

HILLARY:  I know we can afford it because we’re gonna make the wealthy pay for it.

RUSH:  (laughing)  We can afford it ’cause we’re gonna make the wealthy pay. We are $18 trillion in debt.  Now, you can afford anything if you ignore that, and if you don’t think that’s a problem and if that number is irrelevant, the money never has to even be serviced or paid back, then of course you can afford anything.  But the truth is, we can’t afford anything.  We can afford maybe, what, what’s the number that we drag in by tax revenue every year?  The numbers are confusing, but $3 trillion whatever we can afford every year, but we so exceed that.  We have exceeded it for so long. We’re already paying for things we can’t afford.  And these people just want to lap more and more on top of it.

You know, one of the biggest misdirections in public dialogue and politics is?  The taxpayers’ expense.  Taxpayers have to pay. The taxpayers don’t pay anything.  The reason is they’re not conscious of it.  Everybody’s taxes are withheld from their paychecks, those who work.  Very few people are independent contractors that actually pay their taxes themselves.  The vast majority of people never see the money they pay in taxes, any kind.  Property tax is part of the homeowners, the mortgage payment every month, very little tax do you ever see, particularly income and payroll taxes.

So people come along, “This is gonna cost the taxpayers X, and that’s gonna cost the taxpayer Y.” It doesn’t cost you anything.  We build a battleship, you don’t think it’s cost you anything.  What’s your share of it?  Whoever sent you a bill for your portion of a B-2 bomber?  So the idea of a taxpayers expense doesn’t mean anything because it has no basis in relatability.  So you can run around and talk about we’re gonna pay for this, we’re gonna do this, we can afford this, and the taxpayers are not gonna worry about it.  They’ve never gotten a bill for anything.  So the idea that it’s costing them something is totally over their head, totally escapes them without any consciousness or any awareness of an annual deficit and an accumulating national debt and what it actually means.  And I venture to say 90% of the population doesn’t have the slightest clue what it means. It can’t be a negative used against the Democrats.

For 50 years people on our side have been trying to prove and establish that the Democrats can be beaten by talking about all the excessive spending. But the fact is it doesn’t work, it doesn’t persuade anybody to not support or vote Democrat because they’re never aware of having to pay for any of it, be they taxpayers or recipients.  They’re not aware of having to pay for any of it.  They never see the tax revenue that’s collected from them in the first place, and they certainly aren’t aware how it’s allocated.

RUSH: Here’s Lee in Gilroy, California.  Great to have you on the program, Lee.  I’m glad you waited.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hey, Rush.  Longtime listener.  Last night when I was watching the debate last night, was watching all the clowns debate each other, when they got to especially Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, when they got to the part where they promised all the free handouts, you know, I sat there and I really contemplated that. And I felt, just in my gut, I’m like, wow, you know, Republicans are really in trouble here.

RUSH:  Well, is your question, how do you compete with that?

CALLER:  Exactly.  How do you compete with all those handouts, especially —

RUSH:  See, that’s the scary thing.  This is the scary thing from the standpoint of whatever percentage you want to say supports this stuff, that we have to conclude we’ve lost that percentage of the country.  When you have what was on that stage last night, all these promises for a much bigger warfare state, free this, free that, you have to realize that there’s a portion of the population that does applaud it, think it’s great, think it’s cool, thinks that is the purpose of government, is to take care of people and to help people.

And what’s wrong with it, they will say?  What’s wrong with free college?  What’s wrong with food stamps?  What’s wrong with helping people?  What’s wrong with bringing illegals in so they can make something of themselves?  And that begins an entire education process of trying to explain to people how it’s hurting the people you’re trying to help.  It’s denying them their dignity.  It’s denying them their opportunity to be totally self-sufficient and to find out how good and capable they are.  And sometimes people look at that whole effort as a lost cause waste of time.  So, yeah, I mean, it’s my assessment following the 2004 election.  American people voted for Santa Claus.  Other 2008, I’m sorry.


Rush Limbaugh: Pope Squishes Out on Kim Davis

RUSH: In addition to that, the pope, the Vatican, they’re walking back the fact that they met with Kim Davis.  This is unheard of.  I have never heard of anything like this.
The Vatican is like, “Whoa, whoa, whoa wait a minute, maybe we didn’t meet with Kim Davis. Well, we did, but we didn’t. No, no, no, don’t we’re not necessarily — no don’t think that we are.”  I have never seen this kind of squishiness.  I’m telling you, folks, the left is corrupting everything it touches.  It’s not uplifting anything. It isn’t fixing anything. It isn’t strengthening anything. It is corrupting and destroying everything it touches…


Rush Limbaugh: Putin Seizes Leadership of the World

RUSH: Everett Rosenfeld, CNBC yesterday.  I’m reading to you from a news story.  “Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday admonished those who supported democratic revolutions in the Middle East, telling the United Nations they led to the rise of a globally ambitious Islamic State.”

What happened yesterday at the United Nations is that Vladimir Putin just walked in and took over the role of leader of the world. Not leader of the free world, but leader of the world, and he was able to do it because we handed off, essentially, by virtue of our own country’s policies as orchestrated by President Obama, we’ve thrown it away.

We have abandoned our role as leader of the free world or any other part of the world because, in Obama’s view, it’s not our job, it’s not our responsibility, it’s not our right. We have no business doing anything that we’ve done in the past. It’s time for us to just leave it all alone.  We’ve committed too many mistakes. We’re responsible for too much of the strife and the poverty around the world.  It’s time that we got out.  Putin recognized this and marched right in and is now running as much of the show as he can.

Here is what he said.  This is through a translator.  This is at the UN, Vladimir Putin, former KGB.  And remember, folks, once you are KGB, you are always KGB.  No one ever leaves the KGB.  Here’s what Putin said: “Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster — and nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.” Putin said through a translator. “I cannot help asking those who have forced that situation: Do you realize what you have done?”…


Rush Limbaugh: The Media Declares Trumpmania Over

RUSH:  I think one thing that’s become obvious during the campaign is that the news media try to pick our candidates long before even the first primary vote is cast.  And that’s just not new.  I say it’s becoming more and more obvious here.  And you can watch it here in the aftermath of all of these debates.  The donor class sometimes is in harmony with the media; sometimes they’re not.  This case is more harmony than not.  But the way the media does it is with their coverage, fawning or negative pieces.

And of course, they do it via their polls, never forget that, which are often the result of their fawning or negative coverage so that the coverage feeds the poll result that they want to get.  And we are witnessing this in the current GOP race.  The coverage of Carly Fiorina being the latest example.  It is more than obvious that the Drive-Bys and the rest of the ruling class inside the Beltway have decided based on Wednesday night that Carly Fiorina now represents the best chance to knock off Trump.

That is the overarching objective.  And they’d hoped Jeb was gonna be able to do it.  They wanted Jeb, the donors did; then they tried the news media to do it. That hasn’t quite worked. So now it’s Fiorina.  It’s not that they love Carly.  Do not misunderstand this.  See, this is the mistake that everybody makes on our side.  One of the tricks here is when the media goes gushing about somebody, a lot of unsuspecting Republican say:

“Wait, wait! The media likes one of ours? Maybe she can actually win! Oh, my God!” Because so many on our side still — despite their best instincts, still — crave media approval.  Remember that dinner party of my own that I walked out of, because I had some guests there telling me they were ready to throw Palin overboard because the media hated her?  Same thing here in reverse.  Now we’ve got people saying, “Wow, Carly! Hey, the media loves her! Hey, man, she may be the ticket,” and that’s how it goes.

The media is very much aware of this…


error: Content is protected !!