All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
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 600 great radio stations, hosted by me, Rushlin Boy.
It's Friday, live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live 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, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Now, as you know, folks, we don't do too many interviews here.
We're not on the author circuit.
Friends of mine, however, do write books, and I try to have them on, especially in this most recent example.
Andrew McCarthy has written a book entitled Willful Blindness, Memoir of the Jihad.
And its timing is beautiful because we have been so successful in thwarting another terrorist attack on our country that it is easy for people to assume the threat has subsided when it really hasn't.
Welcome to the program, Andy McCarthy.
Good friend, how are you, sir?
Is this the Cink Usock?
This is Cink Usuk, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Operation Chaos.
Happy to talk to you, sir.
It's great to have you here.
Now, let's get started with this because there's a lot to discuss with you.
Three themes in Andy's book, folks.
The first theme is that 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 since the late 80s, early 90s, and it wasn't taken seriously until 9-11.
And the third one 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 tried the blind shake, and I'll let him tell you the story when we get there about preparing to cross-examine the blind shake.
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 start where you think we need to start for people to understand the threat that we still face.
And maybe you want to do that by starting at the beginning and how you became aware of it.
Well, I knew nothing more about radical Islam Rush in 1993 when I got brought into this than anyone who's had a fairly good education in the United States, which is to say, maybe the barest headlines, but not a whole lot of substance underneath that.
And the whole experience was really an eye-opener for me in many ways.
Probably most basically by realizing that the people who founded our country had a much more humble and better idea about how the country would need to be defended.
They didn't assume that America would be forever.
And they certainly were not under a delusion that we could be protected by our legal system from foreign threats to our security.
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, but not in protecting our nation from foreign threats.
And I guess what my battle scars are about is trying to basically square that circle, trying to use our criminal justice system 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, through the Clinton years and even prior to that, we sought to deal with this threat via the courts, indictments.
How successful have we been?
Well, if your point of reference is national security, it's an abysmal failure.
Most of the time when I talk about this, it turns out to be at law schools where what they're interested in is national due process.
And they look at it and say, but look, you convicted everyone.
You batted 1,000, which obviously you can't do better than that.
But in point of fact, in eight years, we took out 29 people, which when you consider the fact that between the time the trade center was bombed in 1993, which I think is the declaration of war, and the time it was destroyed on 9-11, we had an enemy that was growing bigger and bolder, attacking us about once a year.
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 indicted bin Laden, right, in 1998.
This was before all the embassy bombings and the Millennium Plot, the USS Colon 9-11.
We indicted bin Laden, and yet we don't have bin Laden.
So tell me, so why is it, is this a political issue?
Is it ideological?
Is it most of the people 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 it's a 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 and you seem to be convicting people.
And as I try to explain in the book, with all the appearances that you have in court and all the proceedings, pretrial, post-trial, sentencing, et cetera, four people can look like 40 or 400 people pretty soon.
And 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 put the cost off forever.
And I think we found that out on 9-11.
And the reason that it's so obvious, I think, 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 than 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 the legal system, 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 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.
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, 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, and get them convicted under all those presumptions that you just described,
and then that way we can feel good about ourselves.
Yeah, but they wouldn't be convicted by the time you let the defense bar at these guys.
They wouldn't be convicted.
That's the whole point.
And some people 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, bin Laden himself is case in point of this, of the limitations of the criminal justice system if what you really wanted to do was take on this threat.
I mean, he's, you know, 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, it's not like he just started in 2001.
He had something of a career before then, and we did indict him in the spring of...
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 the embassies were taken out.
So, you know, look, if what you're trying to do 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.
We'll 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 a good friend of mine, Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness, Memoir of the Jihad.
Andy, let's explain to people your direct involvement in this.
You were at the U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, for those of us who know Southern District New York.
You prepared for trial.
You're on the prosecution team, I think, with Pat Fitzgerald, correct?
That's right.
Actually, we like to say he was with me back then.
Yeah, well, I like the way that sounds.
So who were the suspects?
Who were the defendants in this case?
Well, the World Trade Center had been bombed when I got brought into the case.
There was already four people under arrest for that, and trial was being prepared by another group of prosecutors.
But what we found right after the Trade Center bombing was that this same organization was plotting something that was even more ambitious and horrifying, which was 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 downtown Manhattan headquarters.
And they were going to try to hit them all at the same time.
But we had the fortuity of actually having an informant who had infiltrated the organization.
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 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 substitute for human intelligence.
It's really the only terrorism attack that we stop by anything other than dumb luck, which I think is sort of a lesson we should have learned by now.
But I was brought in basically to run that investigation and then try to bring an indictment that was going to target the organization that had carried out not only the trade center attack, but this other attack, 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 the legal sense with Sheikh Omar Abdulrahman.
He was the mastermind, the leader, the guru 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, having issued the fatwa for the murder of President Anwar Sadat in 1981, the Egyptian president who committed the great crime of making peace with Israel.
He was murdered, and the murder was carried out by Egyptian terrorist organizations.
Abdul Rahman, the blind sheikh, was a major mover and shaker in those circles.
And then he gets himself basically to Afghanistan, where he hooks up with people like Bin Laden and Zawahiri and the other names that were not household names like he was back then, but have become that way for us, and ultimately came to America in 1990.
And the way he got here basically is an unfortunate comedy of errors, which seems to be a running theme in my book.
But basically, we didn't put him on the terrorist watch list when we should have.
But we knew he was a terrorist, we let him in.
Correct.
Did he come into JFK and ask for asylum?
Did he use that method?
Well, he came in a variety of different ways, and he didn't have to ask for asylum until the end because we just let him in.
It really was awful.
I mean, 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.
You know, not our finest hour, but unfortunately, a sort of a steady theme of all this.
I mean, if you look back at the 93 attack, we had very good reason to know that it was coming.
We had the FBI conducting surveillance in the late 1980s of these guys as they were conducting paramilitary training out in Long Island.
We had CIA angled to this because they were basically funding large parts of the mujahideen in Pakistan and I'm sorry, in Afghanistan, Afghanistan, and they were doing it through the Pakistanis who were very sympathetic to the most anti-American elements of the Mujahideen.
And then we had this murder of Meyer Kahani, the founder of the Jewish Defense League in 1990, where that murder was committed by a guy named Saeed Nasir, who was actually reporting to the blind sheikh even while the blind sheikh was over in Egypt.
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 designs than just the murder of Kahani, there was a decision made at that time to treat that murder like it was the work of a lone gunman in order to prevent any religious element from getting into the case, which I think was a big mistake, unfortunately.
No, there you go.
The legal situation again.
The legal circumstance seems to be present in this and misjudging the way to actually go about this and assessing the threat.
But I can't help but go back to say you only learned all this because you had an informant.
This is a little bit, it's beyond dumb luck, but you say human intel is how you learned about all this.
And that, of course, helped you prepare your case.
What was your role in the trial against the blind sheikh?
Well, I was the lead prosecutor, and that informant turned out to be the main witness in the case, and he was my witness.
So I spent quite a bit of time studying what he had done and also 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 decided to testify, which ultimately he didn't do, but 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 of him and other people in the Muslim community throughout the trial was a real eye-opener for me.
I wanted to believe in 1993 the stuff that we were putting out, that he had basically perverted what was otherwise a peaceful doctrine.
But what I found was going through all of his thousands of pages of transcripts and statements was that when he cited scripture to justify acts of terrorism, 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.
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-Azhar 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 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 he was basically perverting the doctrine.
Look, I've got less than 45 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've 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 Prophet Center timeout and there's an obscene prophet center break coming up.
You can ponder whether or not we have gone soft again.
And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the time in your book, I think, gives me some indication of the answer.
We're talking to Andrew McCarthy, author of the important and timely willful blindness memoir of the jihad.
And we've got one more segment with him when we come.
I'm sure you have the time.
I didn't ask if you could go longer than a half hour.
You have the time.
I'd be delighted.
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 Jihad.
We just missed it.
We just finished the discussion of Andy being the lead prosecutor on the conviction of the blind sheikh, 1993 World Trade Center.
And I want to repeat this point, Andy, because I think it's crucial in preparing for the prosecution and possible witness testimony on the stand of the blind sheikh who ended up not taking the stand.
You had to prepare for it.
And you assumed him to be a fruitcake.
Nobody, nobody's religion could actually have the things in scripture that he was citing.
And you found out everything he said was there.
And it opened your eyes.
And I think this is the kind of thing.
We're in the middle of a presidential campaign.
And you've talked about 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 9-11, probably I put it about 18 months, probably into the Iraq operation, so longer than that, 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 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 the like.
Wait, Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Who's getting what?
Well, the who in the government's sending this out to who?
Well, the reporting that's come out since I guess it was about April 24th 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, not just forcible jihad.
This is so the thinking goes.
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 on is how we regard them rather than how they see themselves.
And that you are.
So what are we supposed to call them?
Well, you know, I'm down to thinking, as I wrote in a piece of the National Review a couple of years ago, I think maybe we should just call it Mabel or something, you know, because it seems like everything that you say that touches on this, 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 what is obvious,
which is that you can 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 like we know bin Laden's a man of great wealth, his family was.
I don't know about Zawahiri, but he was a doctor in Egypt.
What about Rahman?
Are the leaders of this movement who are getting hold of these young kids, very impressionable ages, and turning them into little hate missiles?
Are they wealthy people?
I mean, so many people in this country believe that it is our usurpation and 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 ideology that we're talking about here is 14 centuries old.
It existed and thrived before there was a United States.
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.
You know, you can't pigeonhole one rationale for why it exists other than the obvious one, which is that it's a matter of doctrine, and the people who believe it believe it's a divine injunction, and that mankind doesn't have a right to make laws which run afoul of what they believe is the law that was handed down by Allah directly to Muhammad 14 centuries ago.
You know, we live in the United States of America, and the people who live here, many of them have not traveled abroad.
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, except they're very impressionable, and they are told that the rest of the world hates us.
They despise us because of our affluence, because of our productivity, because we are a small portion of the world's population.
We use a majority of the world's resources, all these things.
And the education system ladles guilt throughout our society.
You mentioned these people in the 14th century.
One of the things I constantly try to tell people is that to demonstrate the true greatness of Western democracies, representative republics, 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, this culture that's 1,400 years old.
Human beings are not by instinct, not by nature, good.
That has to be programmed into them.
That has to be raised.
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's exactly right.
And it actually brings me to another memory of the dynamic between the blind sheikh and the community, which was an eye-opener and a frightening one to me.
We had a very long defense case 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's green 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 does jihad mean?
What does this concept mean?
And at least three different times, they answered, I wouldn't be competent to say you'd have to ask someone like him about that.
Meaning him was the homicidal maniac sitting in the corner of my courtroom.
And what it flagged for me was even though these people were very moderate and peaceful people, you'd never see them be terrorists, they were willing in a matter of importance 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 parts of the Muslim world where there's rampant illiteracy and where they think that learning the Quran is really the kit and caboodle of what you need in the way of education, these fiery clerics, whatever we may think of them, are powerfully influential in those parts of the world.
And it's not an accident that when you have the cartoons, the Dutch cartoons come out, or you had this woman in the Sudan who named the teddy bear Muhammad.
It's not a big surprise that you get riot on demand.
When these guys say Islam has been insulted, when they say Islam is under siege, a lot of people snap too, and they're very influential.
I mean, it's frightening, and I think that we underestimate it at our peril and 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 100 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 to lower gas prices after they won the House in 2006, that they're going to get bin Laden.
It's not part of the presidential campaign.
Granted, there are more pressing issues daily that people face and see now with the economic circumstances as they are.
What's it going to take?
I almost hate to hear the answer to this.
What's it going to 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, doesn't mean the threat's gone away or is any less intense.
What's it going to take?
Well, I hope it doesn't take another attack, but it's probably going to take at least a sense that we could be attacked that certainly isn't present for us now.
And in terms of what you're talking about now, you know, I haven't been the biggest McCain fan on the planet, but let me give him this much of his due.
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 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, that we will pull out.
And, you know, it's like when a very strong team plays a very weak team 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, 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 and that we have a need to show them that however long it takes, we're going to do what has to be done to win, you know, 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 a book that if you don't want to get scared too much, you should read.
It's timely and it's important.
And 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 friends.
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.
When he's talking about during the 90s, 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 not really the purpose of his book.
But look at, this was when Al Gore had reinvented government.
This is Hillary Clinton who's trying to create nostalgia for the peaceful 90s and trying to tell us she can lead on day one.
She's got the confidence.
Neither of these two, Obama nor Hillary, have the slightest business being anywhere near the Oval Office.
Zilt Zero Nada.
And this book of Andy McCarthy's is 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 going to try these people in court rather than go after them as enemy combatants.
There's good old Jamie Karelik, 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, 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 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 register, 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, okay, even if they don't know who people are, they're going to be, okay, you want a Democrat ballot?
Fine.
They're going to check to see how often you voted Democrat.
Right.
And then if you haven't, nothing can do to you at that point, I don't think.
Because once you vote, the only person that 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 quoting some law as if the government knows how I voted in the last election.
Yes, I voted Republican the last primary.
It doesn't tell them anything.
You go in there and ask for Republican in the general election.
You ask for it, 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 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 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 within Operation Chaos.
Okay, so they challenge you.
Can they stop you from voting?
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.
You got many chances.
You got Hillary, you got Obama.
You know, this is this is, I think, I think this is the enemy using intimidating tactics, getting lost.
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 my son, who's 18, is proud to be voting the first time in Operation Chaos.
And 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, I'm sure it's a big ego thrill for you.
Democrats' heads explode all the time.
Democrat heads are exploding all over the place with Operation Chaos.
What I find funny about this is no matter 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 measure it.
It's no quantitative way to make it.
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 19.11 years left before we approach getting tired of Reverend Wright's pastor.
didn't take Obama.
▲
Export Selection