Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 18, 2015 - The Ben Shapiro Show

31:16

Ep. 28 - The Left's Agenda Is ISIS' Agenda

Leftists claim that Republican rhetoric helps ISIS, and also say we shouldn’t "overreact" to Paris. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Howdy howdy, it is a Wednesday and we have a full-stack show for you today.
	President Obama has outdone himself over Syrian Muslim refugees and the status of his ISIS fight.
	There's so much to get to, so let's just get to it.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	You tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings.
	One day, folks, we will all remember where we were, the moment that Barack Obama defeated ISIS by accepting 10,000 Syrian Muslim refugees into the United States.
	He announced he would do that today.
	He launched what he called the refugees welcome hashtag.
	And as we know, all of our hashtag campaigns here in the West have been incredibly successful.
	bring back our girls against Boko Haram, wildly successful, free Ukraine, wildly successful.
	Every hashtag campaign we've launched has been unbelievably successful.
	The president of the United States, the entire left, they've launched two narratives today.
	There are two narratives that they've launched today, and both of them are unbelievably stupid and terrible.
	The first narrative that they've launched today is that if you are in any way against thousands and thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees pouring into the West, You are a racist, right?
	There's something wrong with you.
	You're racist.
	You're exaggerating.
	And in fact, you're exaggerating the threat of terror.
	The threat of terror is not that big a deal.
	And that's one strain.
	And then the other strain that we're hearing today is the strain that if you don't do what Barack Obama says, if you don't agree with Barack Obama, then you side with ISIS, right?
	If you ride with the opponents of Barack Obama, you ride with ISIS.
	This is literally what they are trotting out today.
	We've heard this over and over and over.
	This is the new narrative, and it's being repeated everywhere.
	I mean, just to give you a hint, high-ranking Democrats, including Hillary, say that if you call ISIS Muslim, that gives them exactly what they want.
	There's a headline at the Huffington Post today.
	It says, the West is giving ISIS exactly what it wants.
	Salon.com says, quote, the right's bloodlust plays into the terrorists' hands.
	Vox.com says, turning back Syrian refugees isn't just wrong, it's exactly what ISIS wants.
	Sally Cohen at CNN says, y'all realize ISIS wants to provoke a war, right?
	If we go to war, we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.
	So everybody's on message.
	They're all singing from the same hymnal.
	They've got the same playbook, right?
	If you don't agree with Barack Obama that we ought to basically leave ISIS alone in the Middle East and accept tons of Syrian Muslim refugees into the West, then you side with ISIS.
	Because apparently what ISIS desperately wants, what they desperately want more than anything, is for us to reject the Syrian Muslim refugee population They are currently infiltrating, and they really don't want us to avoid bombing them.
	They want us to bomb the living hell out of them.
	These are their two most expressed wishes.
	Okay, so these two competing narratives, and really they're not competing, they're both going out at the same time.
	Right-wingers are racist, right-wingers are panicking, they're overstating the threat of terrorism, and also They're doing exactly what ISIS wants, right?
	So their panic is not actually frightening ISIS.
	What they're doing instead is just driving ISIS to greater and greater success.
	And President Obama put out both of these narratives today and yesterday.
	So we'll start off with that first narrative, that this is all just exaggerated.
	This is wildly exaggerated.
	There's no reason that anybody should be panicked.
	Everybody has gone crazy, and there's no reason to go crazy.
	Here's President Obama today ripping Republicans and saying that Really, they're just chickens.
	They're really just cowards.
	These are the same folks oftentimes who suggest that they're so tough that just talking to Putin or staring down ISIL or using some additional rhetoric somehow is going to solve the problems out there.
	But apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion.
	At first they were worried about the press being too tough on them during debates.
	Now they're worried about three-year-old orphans.
	That doesn't sound very tough to me.
	He's a salon.com internet troll, the President of the United States.
	He's as far left as you can be possible to be.
	He is a commenter in Huffington Post's section.
	That's what he is, right?
	This, by the way, is all rhetoric that he's used before.
	He's used it in campaign speeches against Republicans.
	There was a terror attack on Friday that killed 129 people in France by Muslims.
	The President of the United States is busy attacking Republicans as cowards.
	This is what he does.
	And he says that what they're doing—his second narrative, which we'll get to in a minute—is that it plays into the hands of ISIS.
	But let's stick with the, this is all exaggerated routine.
	So the president of the United States right there, he says, first of all, that, you know, they fear widows and they fear orphans.
	They fear widows.
	President Obama has a nasty habit of stepping directly onto the reality rake.
	He says things, and then two hours later, reality just hits him directly in the face.
	So last week, last Thursday, President Obama came out and said ISIS was contained.
	12 hours later, they were shooting up a nightclub in the middle of Paris.
	President Obama this morning says, last night, this morning, Turkey time, the President of the United States says that the Republicans clearly, they fear widows and orphans.
	And then today, today, There is this report out of France that a widow, well a woman, a female suicide bomber just blew herself up.
	Here's what it looked like from France.
	A woman wearing an explosive suicide vest blew herself up in a standoff between police in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis.
	She came close to the apartment police were targeting in a raid, hoping to find 27-year-old Abdelhamid Aboud, the alleged mastermind in Friday's attack.
	Investigators believe the Islamic militant is holed up inside of the apartment.
	Okay, so Obama says that, you know, the Republicans are chicken, they fear widows.
	First of all, Islamic terrorists who are female are known as black widows.
	This is actually what they're called.
	So Obama's too ignorant to know this.
	And then literally hours, maybe minutes within him saying this, a female suicide bomber blows herself up in Paris, right?
	So President Obama, he said, but don't worry, the threat is just exaggerated.
	And the threat of Syrian Muslim refugees is exaggerated.
	So John Kerry, yesterday, he said, you know, people shouldn't be hysterical.
	But I think people shouldn't be rushing to judgment here.
	Kerry, the Secretary of State, he said that people should not be hysterical about Syrian refugees.
	And here's what he said about the Syrian refugees.
	But I think people shouldn't be rushing to judgment here.
	We have the ability to be able to keep faith with our values of providing refuge for legitimate refugees and to determine through an appropriate vetting process using the FBI, Homeland Security, the counterterrorism capacity, other people in other the counterterrorism capacity, other people in other countries, to be able to determine whether some – you
	Okay, first of all, he says we shouldn't be hysterical, we should be able to determine whether these people are threats to the United States.
	If you've been watching what's going on in Israel, there are legitimately women who have kids who are pulling knives out of purses and trying to stab Israeli soldiers.
	If you think this isn't coming to the West, gang, you're wrong.
	Everything that has ever happened to Israel ends up coming to the West sooner or later, and it's typically sooner.
	But again, the idea here is that Republicans, conservatives, they're exaggerating the whole threat, and all this really is, in the end, is just a way for Republicans to overreact.
	We mustn't overreact.
	No matter what, we must not overreact under any circumstances.
	So today, There's a column from Paul Krugman in the New York Times.
	Paul Krugman is an absolutely worthless thinker.
	But he's won a Pulitzer Prize, he did so, actually he won a Nobel Prize for Economics, but it had nothing to do with his political commentary, so naturally, the New York Times does what it always does, it takes somebody who's an expert in one field, or a supposed expert in one field, and then dumps them into the political realm.
	So Frank Rich, who used to be their foreign affairs commentator, Frank Rich was their theater commentator.
	And they decided, he's great at reviewing Tony-nominated musicals, clearly he'll know what to do about Russia.
	They do the same thing with Paul Krugman.
	Paul Krugman had a column yesterday called Fearing Fear Itself.
	And it's worth going through because, again, the contention on the left is that we really shouldn't worry too much about this whole terror thing.
	It's just Republicans are overreacting, and they're overreacting to the threat of Syrian Muslim refugees.
	Yesterday, I asked the question on the show, and I reiterate, how many Westerners will the left allow to die because of Syrian Muslim refugees?
	Because if the answer is zero, then you can't let anybody in, right?
	Because the vetting is just not that good.
	We've seen that refugees have bitten terrorists before.
	The Tarnium brothers in Boston got in originally on a refugee visa.
	That's originally how they got into the country.
	We've seen terrorists in the United States get in through student visa, through business visa, through tourist visa.
	We've seen them overstay those visas.
	We've seen people cross in through the northern border, through Canada.
	We've seen people naturalized in the United States, like the Chattanooga, Tennessee shooter, We've seen the Fort Hood Muslim shooter, who was a workplace violence advocate, who was naturalized as an American citizen.
	In other words, terrorists come across our borders on a fairly regular basis.
	The idea that we're going to vet all these people down to the ground and so we should stop worrying, it's ridiculous.
	It's insane.
	But, according to the left, the real reason they don't care that much about this is because they don't think terrorism is that great a threat.
	Now, pause for a moment and take stock of the fact that every time there's a mass shooting in the United States, every single time, there's a call to confiscate 300 million guns from legitimate American gun owners.
	Sandy Hook happens.
	Take every gun in the United States if we can just save one life.
	And there's actually a countervailing right there.
	I have a right to own a gun under the Constitution, and there's a countervailing good there.
	It's good that I have the ability to defend myself and defend my nation and defend my values.
	This is a good thing.
	There is no right for Syrian Muslim refugees to be in the United States.
	There's no right.
	Okay, there is no right, there's no human right.
	In order to have a right to enter the United States, at the very least, you should agree with basic American philosophy, but there's no indicator that any of these folks do.
	But, you put that aside, that, you know, when a black shooter shoots, when a white shooter shoots up a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, we're supposed to have a mass debate over banning Confederate flags, but when a Muslim shoots up a Paris nightclub, we're supposed to have debates over Islamophobia.
	Focus in on the fact that for the pseudo-intellectuals on the left, they're very fond of saying things like, Well, you're more likely to die in a car accident than you are in a terrorist attack.
	Right?
	You hear this actually on a fairly regular basis.
	You're more likely to die drowning than you are to die in a terrorist attack.
	That doesn't change the fact the government doesn't have an obligation to protect me from drowning.
	It does have an obligation to protect me from terrorist attack, right?
	That's the whole point of government, is to prevent humans hurting other humans.
	But the idea here is that we should worry about the things the left wants us to worry about, and they don't want us to worry about Islamic terror.
	So, Paul Krugman in the New York Times, he says, Like millions of people, I've been obsessively following the news from Paris, putting aside other things to focus on the horror.
	It's the natural human reaction.
	But let's be clear, it's also the reaction the terrorists want.
	So this will bring us to our second argument in a second, which is, we're just doing stuff the terrorists want.
	We overreact, we're doing stuff the terrorists want.
	He talks about Syrian Muslim refugees, and then finally he gets to his point right at the very end of this idiotic column.
	Here's what he says.
	He says, let's see, here it is.
	He says, finally, terrorism is just one of the many dangers in the world and shouldn't be allowed to divert our attention from other issues.
	Sorry, conservatives.
	When President Obama describes climate change as the greatest threat we face, he's exactly right.
	Terrorism can't and won't destroy our civilization, but global warming could and might.
	And he's writing this days after Paris.
	Islamic civilization can't destroy us.
	Global warming could.
	The rise of 1% of a degree Celsius over the next century will destroy all of us.
	Let's worry about that and cripple our economy.
	Let's not worry about the Muslim bad guys who are trying to kill us in the here and now.
	It's a distraction.
	All of this is just a distraction from the real issues, like income inequality.
	And this is what Bernie Sanders tried to do in the Democratic debate.
	He was asked about ISIS, and he immediately swiveled to campaign finance reform.
	For the left, all of this is inconvenient and a distraction from the real issues, because after all, if you rectified global income inequality, you wouldn't have to worry about these Islamic crazy people.
	By the way, if you extend this logic, if you extend the logic of the left, more people die in car accidents than died in X, then we would have had to ignore Pearl Harbor.
	Right?
	Because, after all, more people died in car accidents that year in the United States than died in Pearl Harbor.
	We'd have to ignore 9-11.
	We probably would have had to ignore the Revolutionary War.
	I mean, certainly the Revolutionary War we would have had to ignore, given that very few people died in the run-up to the Revolutionary War before we actually declared war on the British oppressors.
	So, what's amazing about all of this is that there are no principles for the left when it comes to fighting the principles of the right, such as keeping Americans safe.
	And this brings us to the second argument that the left has been using.
	So the first argument is, we're exaggerating, it's not that big of a deal, it's not that big of a threat.
	This ignores, by the way, the fact that even if Syrian Muslim refugees come here and don't become terrorists, if they don't adopt and assimilate into American culture, This is not something that's good for the United States, right?
	Mass immigration from various countries, illegal immigration from various countries without assimilation has dramatically increased crime rates in particular communities.
	It's driven people apart.
	It's polarized our politics.
	It's moved us to the left.
	People generally come here and they vote Democrat, so they vote for bigger government, overthrowing American values.
	And then there's a second point that the left has been pushing, and that is this-this common point.
	You're helping ISIS.
	You're doing what ISIS wants you to do.
	Right?
	If you side against President Obama, you're doing what ISIS wants you to do.
	Trevor Noah tried to play this card on Comedy Central, and Trevor Noah is getting more viewers from my podcast than he has gotten live on television ever.
	Um, but here's Trevor Noah, who is just awful at his job, going crazy over Republican comments on refugees.
	Just say something really bat-shit crazy.
	If we displace people who are used to a desert climate, living in the Middle East, speaking a language that is not common to America, and essentially living in a culture and amidst a religion that is not that common here, we really are creating a disruption.
	If we're serious about wanting to protect them, then let's do it in a climate with a language, with a culture, and with a religion they're more comfortable with.
	You know, Mike Huckabee makes a good point.
	Can you imagine if people started coming to America from all over the world, bringing their different languages, cultures, and religions, mixing and changing the culture that's already here until it becomes something totally new?
	What kind of country would this be?
	But you know what, Mike Huckabee, I understand you.
	As someone whose family has been here for generations, as a... I guess a Native American, you can say, I can see why this idea would frighten you.
	Western culture doesn't matter at all to these people.
	Of course, the point that he's making is asinine, because the truth is, American culture has been changed over time in very negative ways over the last 50 or 60 years, because of an influx of people from other countries who don't have American values.
	It used to be that people came over, they dropped whatever value system they held, or they had left it behind where they were from, and then they bought into the basic American notion of values.
	They don't do that anymore.
	So the ISIS wants this point, as I mentioned, has been pushed now all over the place.
	And they're apparently Three particular things, maybe four.
	There are really four particular things that ISIS wants, that conservatives are giving them, according to the left today.
	And this is the common argument that we keep hearing.
	So, number one, we keep hearing from the left that every time, every time Republicans talk about radical Islam, they're giving the terrorists what they want.
	They're giving the terrorists what they want.
	So, we've heard this actually from Hillary Clinton in the last debate, she said this.
	She said that every time you mention radical Islam, you're giving ISIS what they want in life.
	Okay, this is ridiculous and stupid.
	Barack Obama's been using this sort of idea for a long time.
	George W. Bush liked to use this idea.
	That if you legitimize them as actual Muslims, then you are giving them what they want.
	ISIS is not looking for us to green light their level of Islam.
	ISIS is not sitting around going, God, I wonder what President Obama, how he interprets that hadith.
	I'm really interested in how he interprets the Quran.
	That Quranic interpretation by President Obama, do I fit within it?
	Does he recognize me as a Muslim?
	There's not a Muslim anywhere in the world who cares whether President Obama identifies them as a Muslim.
	Muslims, like most religious people, believe they are Muslims because they believe they are Muslims.
	If somebody were to say to me, you know, Shapiro, he's not really a Jew, right?
	What?
	Why would that possibly register with me?
	Particularly if you're not even Jewish saying that.
	If you have no practice of Judaism and you say that.
	You know, Jonathan is a religious Christian.
	If Jonathan were to come to me and say, you know, you're not a real Jew, I'd go, wait, what are you talking about?
	It's stupid.
	It's a stupid argument.
	That by saying that ISIS is not Islamic, somehow we're defeating them.
	We're not giving them what they want.
	They don't care whether we recognize them as Islamic.
	What they do care about, what they do care about is whether we become Islamic like them.
	That is their goal.
	Okay, so the second thing that we do supposedly as conservatives to help ISIS, and this is the newfangled argument they're trotting out today, is we alienate moderate Muslims.
	We alienate them.
	We make them feel bad.
	Because when we use the language of ISIS is radical Islam, Then we get ourselves into all sorts of trouble with the people who could be on our side but might shift over to the other side because we alienate them.
	Daniel Morans, who's a reporter for the Huffington Post.
	I mean, this is what the reporters write at the Huffington Post.
	"Characterizing the fight with the Islamic State as a clash of civilizations strengthens ISIS in another key way.
	That's exactly the framing the group depends upon.
	One of the goals of attacks like the one in Paris is to provoke an overreaction that will make some Muslims in the West feel that Islam is inherently irreconcilable with the culture of the countries they live in." In other words, ISIS is going to provoke us, and then we'll say that radical Islam is bad, and then we'll take measures against radical Islam, and the innocents will get caught in the center, and then they will turn to ISIS.
	This is stupid.
	It really is.
	If somebody is on the borderline of joining ISIS, there's not much you can do to drag them back from that.
	I mean, seriously.
	In the United States during World War II, we literally interned American citizens of Japanese descent.
	We literally sent them to camps.
	How many of them went and joined the Imperial Army?
	Any?
	Right?
	We actually had internment camps for Germans.
	How many Germans went back to the fatherland and fought for Nazi Germany who weren't already going to do that specifically because America was mean to the Germans in the aftermath of the declaration of war by Hitler?
	The answer is not many.
	The idea that people are existing on this kind of knife's edge, and if you just shove them a little bit, if you say things like radical Islam, that they are going to immediately then go join the radical Muslims, this is nuts.
	By the way, it's also worthwhile noting that people who are quote-unquote moderate Muslims, you know, even people who are radical Muslims, who consider themselves moderate Muslims, they'll find a reason not to be part of ISIS so they don't get killed.
	Right?
	People routinely relabel themselves so as not to be part of the targeted group.
	During World War II, we openly declared, this is a war on dictatorship and tyranny and fascism.
	Right?
	That's what it was.
	Stalin was a dictator, a tyrant, and a fascist.
	What did Stalin do?
	He said, no, I'm fighting for liberty now.
	He didn't turn around and say, oh, well, now that you've used the words fascist and dictator and tyrant, I guess I better resign that Hitler-Stalin pact and we better go back in on the side of the Nazis.
	He didn't do that because it wasn't in his interest.
	Politics is not a game of feelings.
	Politics is a game of interests.
	And the fact is that if you have an interest in not joining ISIS, you won't join ISIS no matter what I say.
	Third thing that the left keeps saying that we're helping ISIS with.
	Now they're arguing, they're arguing that if we ban Syrian Muslim refugees, that somehow this helps ISIS.
	This is the argument put forward by Ezra Klein's Vox.com.
	The columnist is Zach Beauchamp, and he says, quote, if refugees do make it out, ISIS wants them to be treated badly.
	The more the West treats them with suspicion and fear, the more it supports ISIS's narrative of a West that is hostile to Muslims and bolsters ISIS's efforts to recruit from migrant communities in Europe.
	In other words, if we're mean to Muslims in Europe or in the United States, it makes ISIS's recruitment efforts that much easier.
	So, a couple answers to this.
	First of all, so the hell what?
	Why do I care what ISIS thinks about what the West should do about its own security?
	If it's in my security interest, I don't care what ISIS thinks of that.
	I don't care if ISIS thinks... Let's say that they're a Muslim guy who parked himself on my front porch, and then he proceeded to not move ever, and I went out and I beat him bloody.
	Right?
	Because he wouldn't move, and he was threatening my kid, and he was sitting on my front porch.
	ISIS, would that benefit ISIS?
	Why in the world would I care?
	The guy's on my front porch threatening my kid.
	You think I care that it benefits ISIS?
	That they're gonna have a video of it and use it as propaganda?
	Am I supposed to let him continue threatening my child?
	Is this the idea now?
	The West is supposed to throw itself at the feet of unvetted Syrian Muslim refugees that may include terrorists and certainly include a lot of people who don't stand for Western values.
	We're supposed to throw ourselves at their feet because ISIS would otherwise use the propaganda to push itself?
	What kind of nonsense is this?
	It's like saying that the American invasion of Normandy benefited Hitler because it gave Hitler propaganda to use on his own people.
	Right, but it also benefited us.
	It also gave us the ability to defeat him.
	I'm much more interested in defeating the bad guys than their feelings about whether or not they're going to be defeated or whether it's a propaganda victory for them.
	Absolutely ridiculous.
	Also, are we now suggesting that the brilliant geniuses over at ISIS are manipulating events specifically so that there aren't more Muslims in Europe, so that they can't take advantage of Muslim terror cells in Europe?
	So in other words, if there were less Muslims in Europe, would this make ISIS happier or less happy?
	Is there any doubt it would make ISIS much less happy if there were no Muslims in Europe?
	ISIS would be very sad if there were no Muslims in Europe.
	They wouldn't have terror hotbeds from which to recruit.
	They wouldn't have places from which to spring.
	If there were no Muslims in Paris, it would be a lot easier to identify Muslims like the ones that you saw there infiltrating Paris and then killing people.
	So the idea that it helps ISIS to bar more refugees is just, it's nonsense.
	And this is not a case that there shouldn't be any Muslim immigrants at all to the West, but this is a case that the idea that ISIS stands in favor of us banning Muslim immigrants is nonsensical.
	Finally, there's the Sally Cohn point, that we help ISIS if we declare war, right?
	If we go to war against ISIS, that's just what ISIS wants.
	They want this clash of civilization.
	Well, lady, they got it.
	I mean, if they, this is so, What ISIS wants, what ISIS really wants, she's right, they do want a war.
	What they want is a war with President Obama.
	They want a war with President Obama because President Obama loses wars.
	Really, I mean, it's as simple as that.
	If this were somebody in office, Winston Churchill in office, and Winston Churchill said, the gloves are off, we are now going to bomb you forward into the Stone Age.
	If that were the case, they wouldn't want the war, but they're perfectly happy to have a war because they know Obama won't take the gloves off.
	They want a war because they know that every time Obama opens his fat yap, every single time, they end up winning.
	Now, President Obama made an unbelievable comment yesterday.
	He actually said he couldn't think of a, quote, more potent recruitment tool for ISIS than the GOP.
	He couldn't think of anything more potent for recruiting ISIS members than Republican rhetoric.
	Right?
	So he's part of this whole, you're helping ISIS routine.
	I can think of a couple things that are more potent recruitment tools for ISIS than saying the words radical Islam and barring Syrian Muslim refugees out of concern that you can't vet them.
	Let's see.
	Let's think back.
	It might be a potent recruitment tool for ISIS if, for example, you said, we will never allow Bashar Assad to use gas on his own citizens without there being significant repercussions.
	In fact, I'll draw a red line right here.
	And then Bashar Assad did that, and then you didn't do anything, and then ISIS came in and said, the West isn't protecting you, join us.
	That might be a good potent recruitment tool for ISIS.
	Another idea for a potent recruitment tool for ISIS.
	Let's say that you had a startup terrorist group, and there were a bunch of American troops just across the border, the most well-trained, well-armed military force on planet Earth.
	And they were just across the border.
	There were like 10,000 of them.
	And they were just sitting there, waiting for you to cross the border.
	That probably would be a problem, right?
	It'd probably be a good recruitment tool if, say, All those people left.
	Let's just say they all left for no real reason.
	They just kind of took off.
	And they left that entire space open.
	Wouldn't that be a pretty good recruitment tool?
	Because now you've beat the Americans and now they've run.
	Wouldn't that be a good recruitment tool?
	Maybe it would be a recruitment tool, a great recruitment tool for ISIS, a Sunni terrorist group.
	For the President of the United States, for example, to tell the Iranians that they can take over half of Iraq and that they can develop a nuclear weapon and use all resources we give to them through loosening their economy to pursue their Shia goals.
	Maybe that's a good way of recruiting to a Sunni terrorist group.
	That might be a potent tool for recruiting people to ISIS.
	So I can think of a few more potent recruitment tools for ISIS than me saying radical Islam and then saying that radical Muslims shouldn't get into the West.
	I can think of a few more potent recruitment tools.
	It just turns out.
	But none of these arguments make any sense, and this is where we come to the radical disconnect between reality and what's being pushed by the left.
	I said yesterday that the real question for the American voter, and it has been for probably a hundred years at this point, is who do you think is a greater threat to you?
	The American right, or something foreign?
	Or a foreign threat?
	Now, when the Soviet Union was around, most people thought the Soviet Union was a greater threat, and so they elected people who were hardcore on foreign policy, except for Jimmy Carter, and then they quickly rectified that by electing Ronald Reagan.
	Right now in America, we've gotten so fat and happy that we've forgotten about 9-11, it didn't really happen, it was just something that we watch on TV now and then, and pretend to care, and then we go back to the let's cut the military budget routine, and let's sign Iranian nuclear deals, and let's elect Barack Obama on the basis of he'll give us free crap.
	And so we've bought into the idea that the left is, the right is the real threat to America.
	That's what Obama is saying in that clip, right?
	The right is the real threat to the United States.
	Not ISIS, the right.
	Because the right is even helping ISIS.
	And the right says, no, ISIS is the great threat.
	The American people are going to have to decide which of those two things is true.
	I would recommend, I would recommend that people on the right do something different from now on.
	And that is, they should not just say that ISIS is the greatest threat to the United States or Russia, which you remember Romney said that and Obama laughed it off.
	Or China?
	Or Al Qaeda?
	The greatest threat to the United States and to the West is the left.
	The left is the great threat.
	Let's make this a symmetric political war.
	The left thinks the right is the great threat.
	I think the left is the great threat.
	Because without the left, Islamists can't succeed.
	Without the left, Vladimir Putin can't run roughshod.
	We're the most powerful country in the history of planet Earth by an exponential factor.
	And the idea that we can't take out our enemies is nonsense.
	The question is, do we have the willingness to do so?
	And clearly the answer is, no, we actually don't.
	Not under the American left, which seeks to hamper us and then blame us for ISIS every time.
	Worth noting, President Obama says the right is responsible for ISIS.
	According to his own CIA director today, ISIS did not exist under George W. Bush.
	It has grown 4,400% under President Obama.
	In the last year, deaths from terrorism have increased around the world 80%.
	Barack Obama says the world's worst thing is climate change.
	Bernie Sanders says terrorism is caused by climate change, not radical Islam.
	This is a battle for sanity, folks.
	All you have to do is look at the world around you and realize that reality is going to set in sooner or later.
	The question is how many dead bodies will it take for the left And unfortunately, the answer may be an infinite number.
	Because for the left, they'll never let go of their utopias.
	They didn't let go of their utopias when it was the Soviet Union.
	They don't let go of their utopias when it is the American and European left, insisting that a multicultural society without absorption, without assimilation, and without a set of common values will continue to be powerful and not threatened by outside forces.
	All this is very scary.
	And we finished today with Donald Trump, who really gets it right.
	And, you know, I never use Donald Trump as my moral authority.
	But the fact is, even Democrats are now beginning to agree with Donald Trump.
	Here's Donald Trump talking about President Obama's sanity level at this point in time.
	Refugees are pouring into our great country from Syria.
	We don't even know who they are.
	They could be ISIS.
	They could be anybody.
	What's our president doing?
	Is he insane?
	Okay, so that exactly is right.
	You know what's amazing?
	There's Donald Trump.
	Now listen to Chris Matthews.
	He goes after a Democratic governor, a Democratic governor on the same exact issue.
	At some point, reality sets in, folks.
	This Democratic governor is, who is this Delaware governor, Jack Markle, who is saying that he wants to accept Syrian refugees.
	And here is Chris Matthews beating him about the ears.
	Suppose one of the people that come into your state under your support, Uh, does go terrorist, does become a recruit, becomes a cell member.
	Would you feel responsible for their actions?
	Well, I mean, I think we would all feel... No, you personally, would you personally be responsible as Chief Executive, having advocated the admission of these Syrian refugees into Delaware, would you personally accept responsibility for their behavior?
	Well, yes, and let's remember, this is a federal program.
	And so all these governors can pretend, can say... But you're advocating it.
	You're saying bring them on.
	You're saying yes.
	You're coming on TV to say it's a good thing.
	Because, look, these are people who are fleeing persecution.
	And, you know, I know that everybody likes to believe these are all able-bodied, able-minded men who are young and ready for... Who said that?
	I didn't say all of them.
	I said the ones that aren't should be fighting.
	- Yeah, and I'm not saying that you did, and I understand your point. - And it just goes on like that.
	You know, I keep saying I'm gonna finish with this, but this one I actually will finish with.
	We keep saying here, and we keep saying here that, you know, all the people who are coming across that Islam, radical Islam is just a small minority, we really shouldn't worry about it.
	Over in Turkey, President Obama was just in Turkey and he talked about how the wonderful Turkish people are accepting Syrian Muslim refugees.
	And the Syrian people are accepting all of these refugees and it's just wonderful and it's just great.
	Can we grab the video of these Turkish Muslims?
	Mathis, the Turkish Muslims, what happened at the soccer match?
	Yes.
	Okay, so here are Turkish Muslims Reacting to a moment of silence at a soccer match in Turkey.
	These are the moderates.
	This is supposed to be a moment of silence, gang.
	Thank you. .
	Thank you. .
	I didn't cut it off.
	This goes on like this for the full moment of silence.
	The moment of silence is these people booing and whistling at a memorial.
	A moment of silence before a soccer match for 129 dead innocents at the hands of Muslims.
	These are so-called moderates.
	These are the people who are supposed to not alienate.
	These are the people who are supposed to, people like this, people we're supposed to take as refugees.
	You know, this idea that this is not a clash of civilizations is just not true.
	And eventually that truth is going to hit home.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲