All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
May 2, 2008, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You are tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in America.
Heard at over six hundred great radio stations, hosted by me, Rush Limboy.
It's Friday, live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Again a reminder when we get to the phones, ladies and gentlemen, the show and the programming content are all yours.
Monday through Thursday, we only talk about that which interests me.
I refuse to sit here and be bored.
On Friday, whatever you want to talk about.
800-282-2882 is the number.
The email address, L Rushball at EIB net.com.
Now, as you know, folks, we don't do too many interviews here.
We we're not on the author circuit.
Uh friends of mine, however, do write books, uh, and I try to uh have them on with especially uh in this most recent example.
Andrew McCarthy has written a book entitled Willful Blindness, Memoir of the Jihad, and its timing is is uh beautiful because we we have been so successful in in uh in thwarting another attack terrorist attack on our country that it is easy for people to assume the threat has subsided when it really hasn't.
I'd welcome to the program, Andy McCarthy.
Good friend, how are you, sir?
Is is this the Sink Usock?
This is Sink Usock, Commander in Chief US Operation Chaos.
Happy to talk to you, sir.
Uh it's great to have you here.
Now let's get started with this because there's a lot to discuss with you.
Uh three themes uh in Andy's book, uh, folks.
The first theme is that uh a foreign threat to national security is fundamentally a political issue of self-defense that would involve military, it's not a legal issue involving lawyers and criminal law.
The second theme is that we have been at war with these people, declared by them uh since the late eighties, early nineties, and it wasn't taken seriously until nine eleven.
Uh and the third, the the the third one is is what's fascinating to me, and I can't wait till we get to that portion.
It's you can't take the Islam out of Islamic terrorism.
Andy uh tried the blind sheikh, uh, and I'll let him tell you the story when we get there about preparing to cross-examine the blind sheikh.
He expected to find that this guy was just a fringe nut making things up.
And nothing he said was made up about Islam.
So let's let's start where you think we need to start for people to understand uh the threat that we still face, and maybe you want to do that by starting at the beginning of how you became aware of it.
Well, I knew nothing more about radical Islam Rush in 1993 when I got brought into this than you know, anyone who's had a fairly good education in the United States, which is to say, you know, m maybe the barest headlines, but not a whole lot of substance underneath that.
Uh and uh the the whole experience was really an eye-opener for me in many ways.
Um, probably most basically um by realizing that the people who founded our country uh had a much more humble and better idea about how the country uh would need to de to be defended.
They didn't assume that America would be forever, uh, and they certainly were not under a delusion that we could be protected by our legal system from foreign threats to our security.
Uh they had a very strong conviction that there had to be an accountability nexus between the people who made national security decisions and the people whose lives were at stake.
And what that meant was that the courts essentially were going to have no role in national security.
They had an important role in our system, uh, but not in protecting our nation from foreign threats.
And I guess what my battle scars are about is uh trying to basically square that circle, trying to use our criminal justice system uh as a means from protecting us from people who actually mean us an existential threat to this system.
All right, so what are the numbers?
I mean, we've we've uh through the Clinton years and even prior to that, we we uh uh sought to deal with this threat uh via the courts, indictments.
How successful have we been?
Well, if you're if your point of reference is national security, it's an abysmal failure.
Uh most of the time when I talk to about this, it turns out to be at law schools where what they're interested in is national uh is due process.
Uh and they look at it and say, but look, you convicted everyone.
You know, you batted a thousand, which you obviously you can't do better than that.
But in point of fact, in eight years we took out twenty nine people, which when you consider the fact that um you know between the time the Trade Center was bombed in ninety three, which I think is the declaration of war, and the time it was destroyed on nine eleven, uh, we had an enemy that was growing bigger and bolder,
attacking us about once a year, um and our response to it, even as the attacks became more ferocious, was essentially to add more counts to the indictment, which is really not impressive to people who are willing to immolate themselves in terrorist attacks.
We we identify uh indicted Bin Laden, right, nineteen ninety eight uh this was before all the the embassy bombings and the uh the millennium plot, the USS COL in nine eleven uh we indicted Bin Laden and yet we don't have Bin Laden.
So tell me so why why is it is this a political issue, is it ideological?
Isn't most of the people uh that want to use the legal system to go after these people are they liberals?
Are they on the left?
What is their philosophy behind this is the best way to go about it?
Well, I think there's a variety of different explanations for it, but I think the predominant one is mainly a human nature type element, which is that we'd like to believe we're in more control of this than we are.
And one way that you can convince yourself of that is that you take it on in court, which really does not require you to go to a war footing.
And then you look at the bottom line,
you seem to be convicting people and as I try to explain in the book um you know with all the appearances that you have in court and all the proceedings pretrial post trial sentencing etcetera you know four people can look like forty or four hundred people pretty soon you know and it it's a real opportunity if you want to use it that way and I think a lot of our politicians have wanted to use it that way to make it look like you're doing more than you are actually doing at a low cost.
But you can't you can't put the cost off forever and I think we found that out on nine eleven and the reason that it's so obvious I think that the that the criminal justice approach is too paltry a way to respond to this is, you know, why haven't we had another attack in seven years?
Now, some of it is unquestionably luck, but a lot of it is the fact that we're killing and capturing terrorists.
In a single day of combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, we will often take out more people that we took out in the eight years between the bombing of the Trade Center and the destruction of it.
And, you know, that is very meaningful in terms of confronting people who mean you real harm.
Explain something to me, if you would.
How is it that some people think that, like, the legal system, the...
the the foundation of it is the presumption of innocence.
Right.
Resume everybody that comes to court is innocent in our domestic legal system how can anybody think that will apply to armed militants under declared hostilities against the country, not individuals.
How can anybody think that that would apply they can't if they actually sit down and and think it through logically but that's not the way it works and it certainly is not the ethos of government when I was in it.
Um what what people think instead of the logic of the point that you've just made is that it is important in terms of not only our self-esteem which is generally speaking their self-esteem but our quote unquote image in the world which you hear a lot of uh you hear a lot about that we need to bring terrorists into our system,
give them the full flower of due process that we would give to a tax cheat um and get them convicted under all those presumptions that you just uh described uh and then that way we can feel good about ourselves.
Yeah but they wouldn't be convicted.
By the time you let the you let the defense bar at these guys they won't know that they wouldn't they wouldn't be convicted.
That's the whole point.
And I I you know some people are are are of the opinion that there is a group of people in this country that would love to have the enemy win by hook or by crook.
Close Guantanamo bring those prisoners here.
Make them subject to U.S. constitutional rights when they're not even citizens, all for the purposes of embarrassing the country, primarily due to a hatred of George W. Bush.
Yeah, it's hard to argue with that because that's exactly what we're seeing.
And as you pointed out a second ago, you know, the Bin Laden himself is case in point of this, of the you know, of the limitations uh of the criminal justice system if what you really wanted to do was take on this threat.
I mean, he's you know, uh I've heard non stop about how, you know, we went to Afghanistan and we did a lot of damage and broke a lot of things, but we didn't get him.
Well, you know, I mean, i he it's not like he just started in two thousand and one.
He had something of a career before then, uh and we did indict him in the spring of the yeah.
Yeah, I'll bet he was quaking in his boots too.
Yeah, well, it hasn't seemed to do much to him.
I mean, we actually indicted him even before the embassy bombings, and there's probably about six weeks' time between the time we indicted him and the time that uh and the time the embassies were were taken out.
So, you know, look, if you are if what you're trying to do uh is is stop this enemy from having an ability to project power on the scale of a nation, you're never ever going to do it by indicting it in the criminal justice system.
It just can't work.
Talking to Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness Memoir of the Jihad will continue right after this.
Don't go away.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Rush Limbaugh, the commander in chief U.S. Operation Chaos.
And we're talking with uh good friend of mine, Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness Memoir of the uh of the jihad.
Andy, let's explain to people your direct involvement with this.
You were at the uh U.S. Attorney's Office uh S D N Y, for those of us who don't know, Southern District New York.
You're you you prepared for trial.
You're on the prosecution team, I think with Pat Fitzgerald, correct?
That's right.
Uh actually I we like to say he was with me back then.
Yeah, well, I like the way that sounds so uh who were they who were the suspects, who were who were the defendants in this case?
Well, the World Trade Center had been bombed when I got brought into the uh case.
Um there was already four people under arrest for that, and trial is being prepared by another group of prosecutors.
But what we found right after the Trade Center bombing was that uh this same organization was plotting something that was uh even more ambitious and horrifying, which was uh an attack that would be simultaneous against the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the United Nations complex on the east side of Manhattan, and possibly also the FBI's down count downtown Manhattan headquarters.
Uh and they were going to try to hit them all at the same time.
Uh but we had the fortuity of actually having an informant uh who had infiltrated the organization uh regrettably he had infiltrated it before the Trade Center bombing, but in a dispute with the FBI he left the investigation and then was brought back in after the Trade Center bombing.
So um we managed to stop that attack.
I was brought in at the investigative stage, and I think the interesting thing about that is not so much my participation in it as the fact that there really is no uh substitute for human intelligence.
It's really the only terrorism attack that we stop by anything other than dumb luck, uh, which I think is sort of a lesson we should have learned by now.
Um but I was brought in basically to run that investigation and then try to bring an indictment uh that was going to target uh the organization that had carried out not only the Trade Center attack but this other attack, uh, and really kind of bring it back to where it first began here in America.
And this is where you first came into contact in a legal sense with uh Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman.
He was the mastermind, the leader, the guru of this b of this of this gang.
Yes, and he actually had a considerable history before he ever got here.
He has taken credit for it, I think credibly, uh having issued the fatwa for uh the murder of President Anwar Sadat in nineteen eighty one, the Egyptian president who committed the great crime of making peace with Israel.
Um he was murdered and uh the murder was carried out by Egyptian terrorist organizations.
Uh Abdul Rahman, the blind sheikh, was uh a major mover and shaker in those circles.
And then he gets himself basically to Afghanistan, uh where he hooks up with people like uh Bin Laden and Zawahiri and you know the other names that were not household names like he was back then, but um have become that way for us, uh, and ultimately came to America in nineteen ninety.
And the way he got here basically is a unfortunate comedy of errors, which seems to be a a running theme in my book, but um you know basically we didn't put him on the terrorist watch list when uh we should have.
But we knew he was a terrorist and we let him in.
Correct.
Did he come into JFK and ask for asylum?
Did he use that method?
What did it be?
No, well he came in uh a variety of different ways, and he didn't have to ask for asylum until the end because we just let him in.
It w it really was awful.
I mean, uh he was he was on the list, but we didn't read the list, and then when he got here, it turned out that you know one office is investigating him and the other one's giving him a green card as a religious instructor.
Um, you know, not our finest hour.
But unfortunately uh a sort of a steady theme of all this.
I mean, we you know, if you look back at the ninety-three attack, we had very good reason to know that it was coming.
We had um the FBI conducting surveillance in the late nineteen eighties of these guys as they were conducting paramilitary training uh out in Long Island.
Um we had uh, you know, CIA angle to this because they were basically funding large parts of the Mujahideen in Pakistan and uh I'm sorry, in Afghanistan, and they were doing it through the Pakistanis who were very sympathetic to the most anti-American uh elements of the Mujahideen.
And then we had this murder of Meyer Kahani, the founder of the Jewish Defense League uh in nineteen ninety, where uh that murder was committed by a guy named Saeed Nasser, who was actually reporting to the blind sheikh even while the blind sheik was over in Egypt.
Uh and though it was quite clear from the stuff that was seized from him that he was part of something that was much bigger and had much more ambitious uh designs than just the murder of Kahani, uh there was a decision made at that time uh to treat that murder like it was the work of a lone gunman uh in order to prevent any religious element from getting into the case, which I think was a a big mistake, unfortunately.
No, there you go.
The legal situation again, the legal circumstance seemed seems to be uh present in this in misjudging uh uh the way to actually go about this and assessing the threat.
But ca I can't help but go back to say you only learned all this because you had an informant.
Uh it was it was this is a little bit in its it's it's beyond dumb luck, uh but you you human intel.
How you learned about all this, and that of course helped you prepare your case.
You what was your role in the trial against the blind sheikh?
Well, I was the lead prosecutor, and that uh informant turned out to be the main witness in the case, and and he was my witness, so I spent uh you know quite a bit of time uh studying what he had done and also you know, having to do the other odds and ends you do when you do a case like this, one of which was to try to get prepared in the event the blind sheikh uh decided to testify, which you know ultimately he didn't do, but uh that didn't mean that we didn't have to prepare for it.
And that was an eye-opener.
In fact, the whole experience and watching the dynamic uh of him and other people in the Muslim community throughout the trial uh was a real eye opener for me.
I wanted to believe in nineteen ninety-three the stuff that we were putting out that uh you know he had basically perverted what was otherwise a peaceful doctrine.
But what I found was going through all of his thousands of pages of uh transcripts and statements, was that when he cited scripture to justify acts of terrorism, uh to the extent he was quoting scripture or referring to it, he did it accurately, which shouldn't be a surprise.
He was a doctor.
So you went in thinking this guy might be fringe a little kooky and perverting Islam, and you were stunned to find out that everything he said or proclaimed had a root basis.
That's correct.
I mean there's no other way of putting it.
And it shouldn't have been a surprise.
I mean, he was a doctor of Islamic jurisprudence, graduated from Al Azar University in Egypt.
Why in the world I would have thought that I or the Justice Department would know more about Islam than he would uh is is beyond me now that I look back on it.
But you know, back then I was pretty confident that we must have been right when we said uh, you know, he was basically perverting the doctrine.
Uh look at what we I've got less than forty-five seconds here, and I want to ask you spend a little time on the second theme.
We've jumped from one to number three here, but I want to the second theme about the we have touched on it a little bit.
We're at war, they've declared it, we haven't really accepted it.
I want to ask if you think you can ponder this during our Profit Center timeout and the obscene Prophet Center break coming up.
You can ponder whether or not we have gone soft again, and I'm I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the um the time in your book I think gives me some indication of the uh of the answer.
We're talking to Andrew McCarthy, author of the Important and Timely Willful Blindness memoir of the Jihad.
And we got one more segment with him when we come if I'm sure you have the time.
I didn't ask if you could go longer and a half hour.
Do you have the time?
I'd be delighted.
Right.
We'll be right back and continue after this.
Stay with us.
And we resume our conversation with Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness Memoir of the uh Jihad.
We just it just missed it.
We just finished the discussion of uh the Andy being a lead prosecutor on the conviction of the blind Sheikh 1993 World Trade Center.
And I want to repeat this point, Annie, because I think it's it's it's crucial in preparing for the prosecution and possible uh witness testimony on the stand of the blind shake who ended up not taking stand.
You had to prepare for it.
And you assumed him to be a fruit a fruit cake.
Nobody, nobody's religion could actually have the things in scripture that he was citing and you found out everything he said was there.
This is that that that and it opened your eyes and I think it's this this is the kind of thing we're in the middle of a presidential campaign and you've talked about the um the notion here that they declared war on us, you cite 1993, we didn't take it seriously until 2001.
Do you think we still take it seriously?
We're taking it less seriously I think there was a time right after nine eleven uh probably I I put it about eighteen months probably into the Iraq operation, so longer than that, uh, that I think we really were taking it seriously and we certainly changed our enforcement method.
The Justice Department still had a role but it was much more subordinate.
The military was out front which it needed to be in that phase but there was a realization that it needed to be a wholesale government approach.
But when I read things like you know what we've heard in the last few days about how we're getting guidance inside the government about purging our lexicon of saying things like jihadism and mujahideen and uh and the like and wait wait wait wait who's getting what guidance who the who in the government's sending this out to who?
Well the reporting that's uh come out since I guess it was about April twenty fourth is that the internal thinking at least in parts of the administration and this is something the State Department has pushed for a long time is that we make a mistake calling jihadism jihadism because there are all kinds of jihad uh not just forcible jihad this is uh so the thinking goes and and by the way while there may be all kinds of jihad jihad is a military concept.
That's how it grew up that's the reason there is a Muslim world in the first place.
But secondly the idea is that when you call them jihadists you are somehow emboldening them as if what they were relying relying on is how we regard them rather than how they see themselves.
So what are we supposed to call them?
Well you know I I'm I'm down to thinking as I wrote in a piece the National Review a couple years ago, I think maybe we should just call it Mabel or or something, you know uh because it seems like everything that you um say that that touches on this we're so we're so intimidated by the idea that there's a religious label on this and everybody is so afraid of their shadow to talk about it that whenever you say um what is obvious,
which is that you can't take the Islam out of Islamic terror, and that the main cause of this is not democracy or lack of democracy or ancient hatreds or the economy, poverty, or whatever our excuse is this week.
This is driven by doctrine.
We have poor people all over the world.
They're not all committing terrorism.
Are the leaders of this movement people...
We know bin Laden's a man of great wealth.
His family was.
I don't know about Zawahiri, but but he was a doctor in Egypt.
What about Rahman uh are the are the leaders of this movement who are getting hold of these young kids very impressionable ages and turning them into hate missiles.
Are they wealthy people?
I mean that so many people in this country believe that it is our usurpation and s and and uh uh actual stealing of the world's resources, leaving these poor people, these nomads with nothing and they just hate us for that reason.
You know that's a great point.
The the ideology that we're talking about here is fourteenth centuries old.
It existed and thrived before there was a United States.
Uh it has commanded the allegiance of the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the educated and uneducated, to some extent Sunnis and Shiites, princes and paupers, um i you know, you can't pigeonhole one rationale for why it exists,
other than the obvious one, which is that i it's a matter of doctrine, and the people who believe it believe it's a divine injunction, uh, and that mankind doesn't have a right to make laws um which run afoul of what they believe is uh the law that was handed down uh by Allah directly to Muhammad fourteen centuries ago.
You know, we live in the United States of America and and uh the the people who live here, many of them have not traveled abroad, uh, and as a result, there are many things that they take for granted, and one of the things I think a lot of people take for granted is that we're pretty much like the rest of the world, uh, except they're very impressionable and they are told that uh the rest of the world hates us,
they despise us because of our affluence, because of our productivity, because we uh are a small portion of the world's population, we use a majority of the world's resources, all these things, and they uh the education system ladles guilt throughout our society.
You go to you you mentioned these people in the 14th century, and one of the one of the things I constantly try to tell people is that to demonstrate the true greatness of Western democracies, uh representative republics and a and a Western civilization, a culture.
You know, we are all born as little savages.
If we were not raised by parents, if we were not instructed in right and wrong morality and so forth, we would turn out, however, we did, these people remind me of just that.
They're being raised to behave and think as they do.
I'm talking about the jihadists, these this uh culture that's fourteen hundred years old.
Uh human beings are not by instinct, not by nature, good.
That has to be programmed into them.
That has to be raised in and and these people, of course, have a different definition.
They think they are good.
They're doing everything in the name of God, and yet their crimes are against humanity.
You know, Rush, that that's exactly right.
And it it actually brings me to another memory of uh of of the dynamic between the blind shake and the community, which was an eye-opener and a frightening one to me.
We had a very long defense case in the in the case.
It actually went on for about two months.
And during the course of it, any number of moderate people came in, and they really were authentic, moderate people.
There's no way on God screen earth they ever would have crossed into terrorism activity.
But every now and then when they were on the stand, a question of theology would come up, a doctrine, you know, what is jihad mean?
What is this concept mean?
And at least three different times, uh they answered, I wouldn't be competent to say you'd have to um ask someone like him about that.
Meaning uh him was the the homicidal maniac sitting in the corner of my courtroom.
And what it what it flagged for me was even though these people were very moderate, uh and and peaceful people, you'd never see them be terrorists, they were willing, in a matter of importance in in their own doctrine, to rely on his viewpoint of it.
And the second thing is the world is exactly as you've described it, and every place is not America, when you go overseas, and particularly when you go to uh it to parts of the Muslim world where there's rampant uh illiteracy, and where they think that learning the Quran is really the kit and caboodle of what you need in in the way of education.
These fiery clerics, whatever we may think of them, are powerfully influential uh in those parts of the world.
And it's not an accident that when you have uh, you know, the the cartoons, the Dutch cartoons come out, or you had this woman in the Sudan who uh you know named the teddy bear Muhammad.
Uh it it's not a big surprise that you get riot on demand.
Uh when these guys say Islam has been insulted, uh when they say Islam is under siege, um i you know, a a lot of people snap too, and they're they're very Influential.
I mean, it's uh it's frightening, and I think that we we underestimated our at our peril how much influence they have.
We're in the middle of a presidential campaign, and the sum total of discussion on this focuses on distorting McCain's statement that if we have to stay in Iraq a hundred years, we'll do it.
Talking about ending torture, of course, we're the guilty ones, closing Guantanamo, getting out of Iraq.
There literally is hardly any discussion about the war on terror, other than the Democrats promising, just as they promised a lower gas prices after they won the House in 2006 that they're gonna get bin Laden.
It's not part of the presidential campaign.
Granted, there are there there are more pressing issues daily that people face and see now with the economic circumstances as they are.
What's it gonna take?
I I I almost hate to hear the answer to this.
What's it gonna take to wake people up again to the existence of this threat?
And just because we've thwarted one on our soil for seven years, however we've done it, uh doesn't mean the threat's gone away or is any less intense.
What's gonna take?
Well, I hope it doesn't take another attack, but uh it it's probably going to take at least a sense that we could be attacked that that certainly isn't present for us now.
And in terms of what you're talking about now, you know, I I haven't been uh the biggest McCain fan on the planet, but let me give him this much of his due.
Um he wants to get the job done in Iraq, at least insofar as it means defeating Al Qaeda there.
And I can't stress to people how important that is.
Even if you don't agree with why we went to Iraq in the first place and you know, say we should never have been there.
The fact is that the worst thing we ever did was pull out of Lebanon in 1983 when the marine barracks got hit.
The next worst thing we probably ever did was pull out of Somalia when that got ugly.
These people, and when I talk about these people, I mean people like bin Laden and the blind sheikh have used to a fairly well as a recruiting tool, this notion that they're the strong horse, we're the weak horse, and if they make it ugly enough and bloody enough for us, uh that we will pull out.
And you know, it's like when a it's like when a very strong team plays a very weak team in in sports.
The strong team can never give the weak team a sniff.
Because the minute you do, and they start to think they can win, and they start to believe in themselves, uh, they become much more efficient.
It becomes much more easy for them to recruit, to raise money, to do all the things they have to do to take on a superpower.
And what they have going for them that we don't is they have basically eradicated our threshold idea of what is civilized behavior.
They are willing to do anything to win, and they're absolutely sure that history is on their side.
And unless we become more sure than we are now that we're right, uh and that we have a need to show them that however long it takes, we're gonna we're gonna do what has to be done to win.
Um, we can't rely on the fact that we're a superpower and that it's inevitable that we'll win this thing.
Andy McCarthy, thanks so much for your time.
This is uh a book that uh if you don't want to get scared too much, you should read.
It's uh it's timely and it's important, and this we've just scratched the surface.
Title of the book, Willful Blindness, Memoir of the Jihad.
Best of luck with it, Andy, and thanks so much for your time here today.
Rush, thank you.
I appreciate it.
You bet.
Andrew McCarthy, we'll take a brief time out and come back after this, my friend.
Stay with us.
And welcome back, folks.
Great to have you with us.
We resume open line Friday.
One comment I wanted to make during the interview with Andrew McCarthy about his book Willful Blindness.
Uh when he's talking about all during the nineties of all these missteps and all these mistakes that were being made.
I kept wanting to say, well, Andy, who was running the government back then, but I didn't want to get him into the political arena that's the that's not really the uh purpose of his book.
But you look at this was when Al Gore had reinvented government.
This is Hillary Clinton who's trying to create nostalgia for the peaceful nineties, uh, and trying to tell us she can lead on day one.
She has got the confidence.
Neither of these two, Obama nor Hillary have the slightest business being anywhere near the Oval Office.
Zilk Zero Nada, and this this book of Andy McCarthy's is uh read in that context.
If you understand during the timeline that he writes, who was running the show and making the decisions that we're gonna try these people in court rather than go after them as enemy combatants.
This good old Jamie Corellic, a Justice Department, Bill Clinton creating that famous wall that prevented intelligence agencies and the courts from sharing information because a lot of the testimony took place in the grand jury, which of course by law is secret.
Bloomington, Indiana, as we go back to the phones, uh big Operation Chaos operation coming up on Tuesday there.
Mike, welcome to the program, sir.
Yeah, it's the Wolverine unit checking in down here in Bloomington, Indiana.
Sir, ready for your report, Commander.
Well, I've been on the radio and been very vocal, like all the other Operation Chaos members have been.
And I've got an IU law professor telling the public that I am a felon if I go through with what I'm going to do in voting for Hillary next week.
A Indiana University professor of law is is telling the public you are a felon?
Yes, I'm Mike the felon.
They've actually taken some of my statements on the radio and put them on the internet, is using me as an example of the crazies that are out there.
Okay, what have you done?
I've just told people that I'm voting for Hillary to prevent Obama from destroying this country.
But wait a second.
Have you registered were you a Republican registering as a Democrat?
In Indiana, all you have to do is when you go in to vote is declare if you're voting in the primary for Republican or Democrat.
I'm going to request to vote in the Democrat side of the primary.
Okay, but now as I understand it, the Democrat Party is going to be manning various precinct polling places.
Yes.
People like you show up.
And they know who I am.
Well, but then okay, even if they don't know who people are.
They're gonna be, okay, you're vote- you want a Democrat ballot fine.
They're gonna check to see how often you voted Democrat.
Right.
And then and then if you haven't, they're gonna nothing can do to you at that point.
I don't think they can, because you once you vote, the only person knows how you voted is you, and unless you turn yourself in.
But even at that, this wouldn't stand.
I don't know what this law professor is talking about.
They cannot do this kind of thing.
They cannot control how people vote.
He's he's quoting some law as if the government knows how I voted in the last election.
Yes, I voted Republican, the last primary.
Well, it doesn't tell them anything.
You go in there and ask for Republican in the general election, you ask for you get a ballot.
You can vote for anybody.
They don't know who you vote for until you tell them.
They might know how they might know how you're registered.
I'm registered as a let me put it this way.
When I go to vote in the primary, I either get an R card or a D card.
Understand that.
And that affects what I can vote on.
Right.
But they'll ch I'm expected to be challenged.
I'm expecting my son to be challenged, my wife to be challenged, and my daughter to be challenged.
Because we're a mini platoon with an operation called.
Okay, so they challenge you.
Can they stop you from can they stop you from going in and voting?
Pardon?
Can they stop you from going in and voting?
No, but they could challenge me.
And they could pull my vote aside, and it would not count in the total.
Unless they know how you voted.
And you got many chances.
You got Hillary, you got Obama.
You know, this is this is uh I think I think uh this is the enemy using intimidating tactics, getting voted.
Well, I'm not intimidated.
Well, I can tell that, and I don't think you should be.
I think you're very courageous and brave.
You're typical of an Operation Chaos volunteer.
Seeing the mission through, not giving up your buddies in the foxhole, making sure they get out too.
That's what we're all about here.
And and my my son, who's eighteen, is proud to be voting for the first time in Operation Chaos, and we we should create quite a controversy down here.
Democrats' heads are exploding, hearing me again on the radio.
You know, this I'll tell you well, uh, I'm sure it's a big ego thrill for you.
Democrats' heads explode all the time.
Democrat heads are exploding all all over the place with Operation Chaos.
What I find funny about this is no whether what state we've done this in, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, now Indiana, and North Carolina.
While the Democrats in these states are without doubt, without question, reacting to Operation Chaos.
At the same time, they have people pollsters drive by accomplices trying to say it's no effect.
We can't even we can't even measure it.
We got there's no quantitative way to make and yet they're all up in arms and in Tizzies and now threatening Operation Chaos soldiers with being felons.
Obama says the public is tired of hearing about his former pastor.
After what, a month?
We have at least nineteen point eleven years left before we approach getting tired of Reverend Wright's pastor.
▲
Export Selection