All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 25, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:07
August 25, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I was not making it up.
We are begging the United Nations to tell us how to improve the human rights of our fellow citizens.
Specifically, I mean, I read a report here, folks.
Specifically, we are asking for advice from the Human Rights Council members, Britain, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Pakistan, and Zambia.
That's who we're asking for help to advise us on human rights violations.
No, no, I'm not making it up.
And I mean, it's preposterous.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Happy to have you here.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address L.Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Straight to the audio soundbites.
I, ladies and gentlemen, being blamed for the Hamask flap, as you can well imagine, by those in the state-controlled media.
We'll start with Morning Joe on Mess NBC.
Wait a second.
Sorry.
Wrong soundbite.
We're going to start last Monday night on Mess NBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews.
He and Howard Feynman are blaming me for the poll.
That shows, which poll is this?
Oh, the Obama Muslim poll.
They're blaming me for the fact that about 25, 20, 25% of the American people think Obama is a Muslim.
And that fewer and fewer Americans believe that Obama is a Christian.
Rush Limbaugh on this topic.
What is the only proof we have that Obama's a Christian?
Well, okay, his word.
His word, but Jeremiah Wright is the only proof that we have that he's a Christian.
Obama described Wright as his spiritual mentor.
Well, we, sorry, Needham, we've heard Jeremiah Wright.
We know what Jeremiah Wright said.
We know what he thinks of America.
Does everybody know what's happening here?
He didn't answer the question.
Rushkova has an IQ probably as high as anybody's around.
He's a smart guy.
He knows exactly what he's doing here.
He switched the topic from what a man says his religion is to how much do we hate Jeremiah Wright.
Well, that's not what I was doing.
I mean, these guys are outthinking me by half here.
I was, you know, to put this back in context, I was trying to explain to these people why the poll was what it was.
Don't forget, it's not us that took the poll.
I'm in the wake of this.
I had nothing to do with the shaping of opinion on this poll.
I have the only time I have referenced Obama being a Muslim is when I was quoting Qaddafi.
I've never put it out there myself that Obama's a Muslim.
I quoted Muamamu Qaddafi for saying so.
Then I asked, how do we know?
I'm trying to explain to these people in the media.
You want to know why the American people think this.
Let me help you.
What do we know about Obama being a Christian?
The only thing we know is that he has said so, but we don't see him going to church.
We don't hear him talk about it like other presidents have.
But we do know that his pastor for 20 years was Jeremiah Wright.
And the American people have heard what Jeremiah Wright said.
And America's chickens are come home to roost and all of that.
And we also have heard Obama say he never heard Wright say any of these things.
Well, that's sorry, media.
We just don't believe that a parishioner does not hear the pastor for 20 years.
Sorry, we may be rubes, but that doesn't compute with us.
I mean, those of us that go to church know what the pastor says.
And one of the reasons we go is to hear what the priest or what the pastor says.
This Pew Poll was taken back in July.
I never said anything about Obama being a Muslim until the last few days.
Here's another question.
If the Pew people want to do another poll, I got the question for you.
Who is it that hates the United States more?
Muslim clerics or Jeremiah Wright?
Well, I mean, where it's, you know, the I don't know should probably be pretty high in that poll.
So Howard Feynman chipped in with his thoughts on what Matthews had just said.
Everybody who watches this show knows exactly what's going on because we're explaining it to them.
And this has a deep history of fearing the other, of fearing the outsider.
Look, Barack Obama came in as a president representing something new.
This scares the heck out of these people, and they'll use any element of fear they can.
Sometimes I think Rush Limbaugh is amusing.
Sometimes I think he's useful in the conversation.
This is wrong.
I'm useful in the conversation sometimes.
Yeah, Obama came in as a president representing something new, but he didn't.
You told us he represented something new.
You told us he was something we'd never seen before in American politics.
You told us there was going to be post-partisanship, post-racial, post-all this sort of thing.
We were told he was going to be the great unifier, but none of it's shaken out.
My question, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Feynman, a question for you.
How can America be Islamophobic?
We elected Obama, didn't we?
If this is a nation that is Islamophobic, how do we elect a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama?
Don't give me this Islamophobic business.
Remember, this poll was done back in July, long before.
I mean, I'm in the wake of this story.
Not often that I say this.
Normally, I'm on the cutting edge.
But on this, you know, I'm at the back of the boat.
Obama told us he was a committed Christian, a moderate.
And after he does this, he goes out and insults the bitter clingers, people who cling to their religion and their guns and so forth when times get tough.
But, I mean, people in the country simply listen to what they hear, and they're not rubes.
Now, yesterday morning on Scarborough's program on MSNBC, the guest was Time Magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin, who said this about the mosque story.
The story's gotten a little bit underground.
It's not on the network news in the evening, every night.
It's not on the front page of the papers to counteract what's going on on talk radio every day on Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio and on the internet.
So what often happens in these stories is talk radio starts it, it migrates the old media, all sides get in, then it disappears from the old media, but it continues below the radar.
So I think it's incredibly important for shows like this to talk about it in a way that doesn't just have the disinformation and the hate.
What disinformation and what hate?
We're simply telling about the Imam, Alger Hiss 2.0, Imam Faisal Abdul Raouf.
What is the disinformation here?
We've played videotape, audio tape of Mr. Raouf saying that there's more American blood in the world than there is al-Qaeda blood.
We've played his own words.
This is Mark Halperin.
This is the guy who advised the Republicans to avoid the 9-11 Hamas battle for their own good.
Stay out of it.
Don't get anywhere near it.
It's going to harm the Republican Party.
But I don't assume that Mr. Halperin or Mr. Feynman or Mr. Matthews are interested in Republican Party success.
So when they warn us to stay away from this for our own good, I said, well, what?
They're not interested in our own good.
I mean, these guys are on the political left.
They're out to defeat us.
Conservatives, new media, what have you.
You know, Obama, Obama, if all we've got to go on with Obama is that he said he's not a socialist.
So he's not a socialist, right?
There's any socialism going on here because Obama has said that he's not a socialist.
For Fox News, State Department officials say they are aware of the controversial remarks Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf made in a 2005 conference in Australia.
We played the audio of this on Monday in where the Imam said we tend to forget in the West that the U.S. has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims.
You remembered that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over a half million Iraqi children.
This has been documented by the United Nations.
Wait a minute, I thought we went to Bosnia, Serbia in defense of Muslims.
Somehow we're Islamophobic.
P.J. Crowley, State Department spokes and said, yeah, we're aware of the Imam's remarks.
I would just caution any of you that choose to write on this that the, once again, you have a case where a blogger has pulled out one passage from a very lengthy speech.
If you read the entire speech, you will discover exactly why we think he's rightfully participating in this international speaking tour.
Now, Crowley, as usual, is misinformed.
These remarks probably carry even more weight because they were off-text.
They were not on the prompter.
They were not part of his prepared remarks.
These remarks about blood and Iraq and al-Qaeda and so forth, the United Nations agreeing, those are off the cuff.
So he really didn't mean to say those things.
They weren't on his prepared text.
In fact, if you read the rest of his remarks, you'll be further convinced that he's the wrong man to be speaking for the U.S. and the Middle East.
He's an emissary who sent him out there as an envoy.
On the substance of Raouf's 2005 accusations, none other, than former President Clinton has defended the sanctions, some of which took place during his years in the White House.
These are the Iraqi sanctions that said to have resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqi children.
Clinton and other diplomats assert that Saddam Hussein's regime corrupted the sanctions and denied humanitarian aid to his own people.
Crowley also revealed that Raouf's activities over the next few days, which the State Department had been reluctant to do before Tuesday, Imam Faisal has arrived in Doha Qatar.
He'll be giving remarks and attending a traditional event of handing out gifts and treats to children at the Doha Youth Center.
He has a full range of other private events, including a lecture at a university, meetings with government officials, non-governmental organizations, and participation in services at mosques and Ramadan activities.
Wow, wonderful.
And we have Asra Q Nomani, the Daily Beast, asking, is the mosque story one that doesn't even really exist?
Is it the new balloon boy story of the summer?
With less than $9,000 raised and a chaotic PR strategy, the Ground Zero mosque is nowhere close to becoming a reality.
As debate rages over the mosque, the media has once again whipped itself into a frenzy over a story that doesn't really exist.
Without money, a non-profit organizational structure, or a coherent PR strategy, the plan to build an Islamic center in Hamas near ground zero remains nothing more than a pipe dream.
And the growing media brouhaha is a little reminiscent of last year's storm over balloon boy, Fort Collins, Colorado kid, whose parents claimed he had drifted away in a helium balloon.
The truth is, the Park 51 plan is much more nascent than the story has been played in the media, and that's nobody's fault.
It's just the hallmark of any fledgling operation.
Yet it continues to be controversial.
Now, Andy McCarthy, National Review Online, one of the editors over there, I mean, this is a piece, brave, brave piece.
His headline, inventing moderate Muslim or Islam, he says, inventing moderate Muslim, it can't be done without confronting mainstream Islam and its Sharia agenda.
And it's a long piece, but McCarthy says we're being force-fed the idea that there are moderate Muslims.
Pouring this idea pouring out of our elite, totally bought off universities.
And McCarthy explains here there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
Now, wait till the drive-bys get hold of this piece.
I mean, they're going to literally freak out.
It is a long, long piece.
But the point is, there's no such thing as moderate Islam.
You know, one of the things McCarthy says that taught him this, he was, as we've discussed countless times in the program, Andy McCarthy was on the U.S. Attorney's staff, the U.S. Attorney's Office, prosecuting the blind sheikh.
And in preparing for the trials, he listened and read to what the blind sheikh Omar Abdelrahman had said, some of the most incendiary, provocative, violence-inducing things he had said.
And McCarthy said, we're obviously dealing with a cook here.
So I want to find out just how far off the reservation of Islam this guy is.
So he took some of the most outrageous things that Omar Abdelrahman had said and went looking for what a counterpart could be in the Quran.
And he said, McCarthy said, that he was bowled over.
He was shocked that there wasn't any exaggeration that everything the Imam said or the Sheikh was saying, all these claims, all these threats, he could find every one of them in the Quran.
He said, my gosh, we're not dealing with a cook here.
This is a mainstream Islamist who wanted to blow up subways and so forth in New York, World Trade Center back in the 90s.
So there's a wide disparity here between, once again, the ruling class and everybody else over who these people are.
This is why I believe we're looking here at almost a reincarnation of the Cold War.
We've got the Russians, Soviets, and the American elite, the academics and everybody else thinking, oh, they're harmless people.
In fact, it's a great system if we just get the right people running it.
It's all about fairness and equality.
Meanwhile, the rest of the people say or see that people are slaughtered in communist countries.
They build walls to keep them in, and they kill them and they put them in jail if they don't toe the party line.
And we're saying, how can our elites look at this and find anything admirable in it, anything they want to emulate?
And we're at a loss that Ronald Reagan comes along and starts calling the evil empire, and the people in the ruling class literally start having cows.
Reagan makes jokes before taping a Saturday radio address.
Tell the Russians a bombing starts in five minutes.
They literally had a coward.
Reagan was going to start a nuclear war with these people.
Gorbachev was the savior.
Gorbachev was the man who was going to save the world from nuclear disaster.
Reagan was going to cause it.
He was the cowboy.
So you have this great divide, and you've got the same thing now.
You've got Bloomberg and the pro-Mosque people thinking that this is nothing more than a freedom of worship issue, a freedom of religion issue, when they don't care about that in the first place anyway, versus the rest of the country.
It's a wait a minute now.
2,700 Americans died on that site.
Something here doesn't compute with those of us who live in the world of common sense.
Okay, it's time to go to the phones if people have been patiently waiting here on the rush.
Limbaugh program is: We serve humanity simply by being here to Pearland, Texas, or Pearland, Texas.
It's Craig, and it's great to have you, sir.
Hi.
Thank you.
Make it to those verse.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
It's Pearland, Texas.
Hey, I was just listening to that last segment.
I was in my car and I heard that guy say that the ideas were off the radar.
Did you talk about them on the radio?
I almost drove off the road because it's like you have more people listening to you than a lot of these liberal programs combined.
How could anything you say be off the radar?
Well, exactly, right.
You're talking about Feynman and Chris Matthews.
Right.
Right.
These ideas exist off the radar, off their radar, maybe.
Well, if you look, go back and grab somebody number five.
Soundbite number five, and this is Feynman.
This sums it up.
If you want to know how they look at themselves, everybody who watches this show knows exactly what's going on because we're explaining it to them.
And this has a deep history of fearing the other, of fearing the outsider.
Look, Barack Obama came in as a president representing something new.
This scares the heck out of these people, and they'll use any element of fear they can.
Sometimes I think Rush Limbaugh is amusing.
Sometimes I think he's useful in the conversation.
This is wrong.
All right, now he's talking about the Chris Matthews show, which forget commenting on its audience sizes.
Everybody who watches this show knows exactly what's going on because we're explaining it to them.
Now, the implication is that you don't know anything going on because I'm lying to you or because I'm propagandizing you or something.
But if you listen to MSNBC, you know what's going on because they're the smart people and they are explaining what's going on.
There's a giant disconnect because that's the last thing most Americans think they're getting from the media.
Most Americans think they're getting, if anybody's off the radar, it's these people.
Most people think they're getting propaganda.
When we say that we are scared, Obama came in as a president representing something new and this scares the heck out of it.
What scares us about Obama is his policy for crying out loud: do these people not see what's happening to this country's economy?
Do they not see what is happening to the country?
Do they not see the fundamental negative change that is occurring precisely because of the policies of Barack Obama?
They're the ones that are ostriches.
They have their heads in the sand.
They got one of their guys in, and that's it.
There are no questions.
There's no curiosity.
There's just this demand that we all toe the line and go along.
We're bigots.
We're afraid of change.
We are opposed to this kind of change.
And by the way, the people that voted for Obama were not told that this was going to be the kind of change they were going to get.
So to say that the opposition to Obama is unbalanced or unjustified or irrational is just the, it is the blindful continuing support, the unquestioned support for Obama that is off the radar and unbalanced and inexplicable.
Back to Miss NBC yesterday morning in the Scarborough show, they're talking to BBC news correspondent Kathy Kaye, the co-host Mikob Zhazhinski.
I have to tell you, when I see and hear what the Republicans have had to say on when it comes to kind of taking this mosque business to a vitriotic level, all I can see is that they're purposefully damaging our society in order to gain politically.
Now, how in the world can a reasonable people see it, a person see it that way?
The Republicans are purposefully damaging our society in order to gain.
We are trying to damage the society.
We're trying to save it.
Anyway, here is what the BBC correspondent, the Brit, Kathy Kay, had to say about Republicans purposefully damaging American society.
Muslims start hearing the kind of talk that has come out of some public officials and some leading Republicans, and they start becoming more radicalized.
And I think that is a real risk for this country.
You want to try and protect your moderate Muslim population, and you've got to have outspoken public defenders of moderate Muslims and of Muslims in general in America.
And where are they here?
That's what I find alarming is that as this debate has gone on, and as Marcus said on, you know, conservative talk radio, you're hearing this, there are not very many outspoken public voices saying this is not acceptable.
All right, so Kathy Kay of the BBC says that America should protect its moderate Muslims.
So I guess moderate Muslims are victims.
Moderate Muslims are lesser people who need to be protected by the ruling class.
I was just going to say, the Brits are overrun here.
Let me give you a thought.
This is a good point from a friend of mine who just flashed me a quick email.
Put aside the subjective term moderate Islam.
Just put it aside for a moment and let's focus on an uncontested fact.
There is no separation of church and state in Islam.
Now, as you know, to the American ruling class, the American left, separation of church and state is one of the most important things they believe exists in this country.
They don't want any religious person having one damn thing to say about anything political in this country.
And all of these people from Catty Kay on up or down, depending on where you want to put her in the scale here, look at religious people with slanted eyes, distrust.
They look at them through grimaces.
They just, there's a suspicion of religious pity.
They don't like separation of church and state.
They've even defined that in a way it was never meant constitutionally.
Separation of church and state.
And yet here they are supporting moderate Islam.
Ms. Kaye, do you realize there is no separation of church and state in Islam?
It's one and the same.
Are you going to demand separation of church and state among Muslims or Islamists in this country or in your own country of the UK?
Every religious building in action in Islam is political.
That's how they look at it.
It's the core reason there should not be a mosque built at ground zero.
There's no separation of church and state here with this bunch.
And yet, with the ruling class in this country, the American left, separation of churches say, well, that's fundamental.
We've got to have separation.
We can't have any Pat Robertsons running around.
We can't have any Billy Grahams running around impacting policy.
We can't have it.
We can't elect these rabid right-wing Christians.
We can't have this.
But Islamists are not separated from the church anyway.
I mean, the defining thing is the religion.
Some might say the religion is the government.
Mike in Washington, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, bro.
I'm thinking to myself that if McCarthy is right and there's no such thing as moderate Islam, then we know Obama's not a Muslim because he hasn't honor-killed his wife for showing too much skin yet or either of his daughters for any of the naughty things that I'm sure they've done.
So that settles the whole Barack Obama is a Muslim issue.
No, no, no.
Wait a minute.
You've got to start here at the beginning.
I'm not sure I was able to follow your brilliance on this.
You said you're thinking to yourself that McCarthy is right.
Andy McCarthy.
There are no moderate Muslims.
All right.
Then by now, Barack Obama surely would have had his wife honor killed for showing too much skin in some of those dresses she wears or wearing a bikini or something like that, right?
Well, if that's how you want to interpret it.
I frankly hadn't looked at it that way.
I mean, you're looking at this through a prism that not even I, El Rushmore, looking at it through.
Well, anyway, let's get to the Cordoba House because I heard you say yesterday that, of course, they have the right, just as the West Baptist ministers have the right to shout their foolery at the soldiers' funerals.
But are you going to come out and defend them for it?
Well, I think the difference here is that there, the West Baptist ministers, are the bad guys.
Here, liberals like myself argue that Muslims that are trying to reach across the divide and that regret that 9-11 ever happened, they're the good guys.
They're the guys we need on our team.
So I guess my question to you would be, is there any Muslim anywhere on earth that you would feel okay opening up the mosque near Ground Zero?
And if you can't identify a Muslim, should we deny Christians the right to go to Oswitz?
The Christians, the burden of proof is not on me.
The question really needs to be asked of people like you.
What are the Westboro protesters doing wrong?
The people that show up at soldiers' funerals and say they deserve to die or whatever.
What are they doing wrong?
They're screaming outrageously offensive things and elevating the problem.
Isn't the problem that they're agenda over West Family Street?
Isn't the problem that they are being insensitive to the dead soldiers?
When they show up at military funerals and say they deserve to die, not only aren't the problem they're being insensitive to the dead soldiers?
I wouldn't characterize it as that.
I would say they're being very, very selfish in elevating their own political, religious agenda.
But the point is, they've got the right.
But the point is they have the right to do it.
I simply ask, is it proper?
Is it sensitive?
Does it make sense?
How is that any different?
What I'm saying to you is that my problem with the West Baptist, I have a problem with those folks, although I do see that they have the right.
I think it's wrong, but what they are doing is wrong.
I don't think what the Ralph guy is doing is wrong.
He's trying to bridge a divide between Americans that were hurt by 9-11 and the Muslims.
Let me tell you something.
This is, you know, Mike, this is, you are epitomizing the real fundamental problem we have in this country.
You are a leftist, and you want to side every chance you get against your country.
If they were really interested in bridging a divide, they would not build the mosque.
They can see the polling data.
They can see that most of the Americans whom they want to build a bridge to do not want the mosque at ground zero.
They're not opposed to the mosque anywhere in the country.
They don't want it there.
Now, if they're really interested in bridging a divide, then they would listen and not do it there.
The fact that they are not listening means they are purposely trying to provoke.
There's no difference in these guys and carrying signs, the Westboro gang at dead soldiers' funerals, mocking it.
There's no difference whatsoever.
The fact that you, as an American liberal, somehow don't see this is the epitome of the problem our country faces.
You pose a much bigger threat to this country's future as it exists than this imam ever will.
And we'll be back after that.
A quick question, ladies and gentlemen.
Can anybody recall for me, anyone, anybody anywhere, somebody help me out with this.
Can anybody anywhere recall for me the last time the American left stood up for the right of any other religion?
When have they stood up for Catholicism?
When has the American left stood up for Judaism?
When has the American left stood up for Mormons?
The last I heard, they're trying to tear down Mitt Romney and Mormons.
Can anybody name for me anywhere anytime the American left has stood up for the right of any other religion?
I can't.
Now, is that because Islam is the first anti-American, anti-Western religion?
Could it be that the American left and liberals like our caller stand up for Islam because it is an anti-American, anti-Western religion?
And they identify with it.
And they look at them as a minority, as victims, oppressed by Western civilization.
Howard Feynman called Mitt Romney a backstabbing throat cutter.
Now, there's also another possibility to explain the American left's newfound love of religion.
Because it is the American left's newfound devotion to religion, specifically Islam.
Because as I have just illustrated, the American left really doesn't like any religion.
But they hate conservatism more.
The American left hates conservatives more than they hate religion generically.
And so in the Hamas issue, the American left sees conservatives opposed to it.
And therefore, since they hate us more than they hate anybody else, they have to support the mosque.
Because frankly, I don't think they care.
This is the first time I've ever heard the American left be so devoted to defending a religion.
I don't remember it.
I can't think of a time.
Mostly the American left acts scared to death of it.
Separation, church, and stuff.
What the hell is the purpose of the ACLU?
What's the purpose of Barry Lynn?
The purpose is to wipe out religion.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, all of these groups exist basically attacking right-wing religious people.
They do it under the guise of racism, bigotry, being opposed to all that.
But now, all of a sudden, out of the blue, the biggest supporters of a mosque in Islam are the American left.
Even if you were to tell them, you know, hey, AAA, you know, there's no separation of church and state in Islam, it wouldn't matter.
They oppose us.
They hate us more than they hate anything else.
The American left, let's be honest about it, the American left considers us a greater threat than al-Qaeda.
Well, now that's that's a question that's always puzzled me.
How can the leftist females in this country, the nags, the now gang, how in the world can they intellectually, honestly support Islam with what happens to women in Islamic countries?
And yet, not a word.
Because conservatives to them pose a greater threat.
They hate us.
And I don't, this notion that Islam is a minority, it's the largest religion in the world, but yet they look at Islam as an oppressed minority because they consider America the world's greatest oppressor and conservatives part and parcel of that.
Paul and Buffalo, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello, sir.
Oh, hi, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
God bless you and your work, sir.
Thank you, sir, very much.
When I heard there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim, my ears perked up because I've long thought that, but you never ever hear it when you compared it to the Cold War.
I know what you're saying, and I don't disagree with you.
I think that could be nuanced a little bit because I think that it is infinitely more dangerous than the Cold War.
How's that?
Because primarily because of the fundamental ideology of Islam versus a Judeo-Christian mindset.
Even though many communist people were suppressed for years and years with their religion, it still didn't change what's in their hearts and minds as right and wrong and how to go about achieving their worldview.
They saw communism, they saw the falseness of communism after a while.
And yeah, Gorbachev was a big help in this.
But I think it's infinitely more dangerous because that ideology, I don't know how they can be reconciled, the Judeo-Christian ideology and the Islam ideology.
But wait a minute.
You couldn't reconcile communism.
Communism has to get rid of all religion.
The communists.
Let me tell you something.
If you take them outside of the United States, communists hate Muslims too because they're religious.
I mean, who was it that was battling the mujahideen in Afghanistan?
It was the Soviets.
Who was it that was causing trouble for the Muslim Serbs and so forth?
The Soviet Union behind all this.
Communists.
The communists have to wipe out all of it.
The communists have to wipe out God.
The state replaces God in communism.
Right, but the people that were suppressed by communism, they are different than the people who are suppressed by Islam.
Oh, yeah.
And basically, their basic ideology is different.
Okay.
So you're basically.
I think they lost you there for a second.
No, no, no, no.
I get it.
No.
You're basically, because the people who follow communism are not following a religion.
They're oppressed and really would like to get out of it.
The people following Islam are big, they're believers.
The mindset is different.
I mean, it's to proselytize the world.
There's no building bridges.
Your last caller talked about building bridges, and I agree with you.
When are some people going to get it through their sick heads that they don't view it as building a bridge?
They can talk about breaking down divisions, but in reality, whether it's active or whether it's under the table and quiet and kind of stealth, there are no building bridges.
The basic ideology is to just convert the world.
And that's not getting along with other people.
You know, you see other faiths doing that.
They disagree on many things, but they try to get along.
I don't think that's not their basic premise here.
And I don't remember anything on a wide scale where it's not.
I understand what you're doing.
You're separating leadership from a rank and file.
And I understand your point here, but in terms of communism leaders versus Islam leaders, the communists are trying to convert everybody.
The communists are trying to defeat all opposition.
And that's what Sharia law is all about at Islam.
Anyway, here we are, up to it again.
The constraints of time necessitate an obscene prophet timeout.
Be right back after this.
I just want to clarify something Andy McCarthy said.
He did not say that there aren't any moderate Muslims.
He says in his piece that there are millions of moderate Muslims.
What he says is there's no moderate Islam, that the doctrine is not moderate for all the reasons we've been detailing, i.e. separation church and state.
For example, what does the ICLU say about all this, the Islamic Civil Liberties Union?
There isn't one.
We have an ACLU, but there is not an Islamic Civil Liberties Union getting in to help adjudicate disputes within the religion.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection