All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:19
April 18, 2014, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So we have a sense of the game plan from the Democrats, from the Dems, the left-wingers, the progressives, because they smell those midterms coming.
And while you've got some, you've got the Lindsey Grahams out there and others who are worried about the primary challenge.
Of course, the Democrats are really focused on the other side of the aisle always, because they tend to do a better job of making sure they protect their own than we give them credit for.
They really understand how it is to prevent have a unified front.
And what we see here is a pretty fascinating situation.
You've got the Democrats, for one thing, you've got their strategy, and then you've got their messaging.
Let's start, if we can, with the midterm strategy as it is unfolding right now, because the leadership, Dems and leadership are deciding which candidates to essentially let go.
This is sort of turned into Survivor or Castaway Island or one of those reality TV shows where the Democrats are now sort of standing around in a circle and one person is getting the torch and somebody else has got to head back to whatever it is they're doing beforehand.
This is like the reality TV version of American politics.
This is from Politico Alex Eisenstadt writing, House Democrats, battered by Koch brothers ads and facing a grim outlook for the midterms, are providing the clearest indication yet of how they plan to respond by shoring up imperiled incumbents and only the most promising challengers, but likely leaving some of the party's upstart hopefuls to fend for themselves.
Now, the aim of the strategy detailed in nearly two dozen interviews with party officials and strategists is a tacit acknowledgement of the ominous political environment Democrats are up against this year.
The goal is to stop Republicans from patting their 17-seat edge and keep the party within striking distance of the majority in 2016, a presidential election year that could well become more favorable to Democrats.
Okay, let's just see how this goes.
There is certainly a triage effect happening now.
There's no question about that, because the Democrats realize that the fulfillment of the promise of Obamacare and the sense that it can be something that actually is of benefit to them politically.
And I actually just saw this.
I hadn't seen this piece before, but Byron York at the Examiner is pointing out that this is just a winner's midterms may hinge on whether Obamacare losers outvote the winners.
Bingo.
This is what I've been saying.
We had that caller before.
My premiums are up $300 a month, he says.
Well, guess what?
Maybe somebody else's premiums are down $300 a month.
Or maybe a couple of people's premiums are down $150 a month.
You understand the concept.
That's all they really need here.
That's all that they really care about.
Now, people have said that President Obama won't sign a repeal of Obamacare as president, even if the Republicans were skilled and savvy enough to take the Senate in the midterms.
Well, it would certainly create an interesting situation, wouldn't it?
We know that the House has passed many, many repeals of Obamacare, and it goes nowhere in the Senate.
That's one thing.
I mean, you have divided legislature.
But imagine for a second what it looks like if President Obama all of a sudden has to keep vetoing bills to repeal at least parts of Obamacare.
It's probably going to be, if Republicans are even in the position to do so, a smarter plan to lop off aspects of this, to take away specific limbs of the Obamacare legislation, than it is to go after the whole of it at once.
That may be the case.
We'll see.
First, of course, they have to achieve the political power, the elected power, to even be in that position.
But this is the way they're doing it now.
They're hoping that the losers outvote the winners as a baseline principle of Obamacare.
Absolutely true.
100% the case.
And they're trying to make sure that they shore up only those Dems in office that have either a very high likelihood or at least a better than even likelihood of winning.
They're going to cut off some of the rest.
Now, this is because people are starting to recognize that this election cycle, this one coming up here, is, of course, not only about what's happened over the past five and a half, now going on six years, but it also begins to set the table for 2016.
A lot of the drive-by now, a lot of the drive-by-now media, they are going to try to create a perception of a smooth transition of this bold and amazing Obamacare plan,
which was just forced through through the slimy budgetary trick of reconciliation, had to go to a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, passed without a single Republican vote, in an era when we all agree that the current state of entitlements is unacceptable and unsustainable into the future.
Barack Obama's legacy is creating essentially a new vast entitlement without any bipartisan backing whatsoever.
The most divisive, ideologically, and polling shows this, the most divisive thing that President Obama has done is in fact passing this Obamacare legislation.
There's the widest divide, even on, you can include issues like guns.
You can include issues like immigration.
The widest ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats is on Obamacare.
So, yes, in a sense, the midterms are a referendum on that, but there'll be a lot of other stuff thrown in.
There'll be a nice, healthy dose of class warfare, of course, because we are talking about the Marxist impulses of the American left here.
What are we going to do?
However, there's a little advice that they're giving out now.
There's a little snippet of wisdom coming from some Democrat strategists.
And I don't know how a lot of these people, I always feel like strategists is a title, for the most part, for people that don't have other titles.
I had a friend who used to say that calling yourself either senior or strategic was like hummus or chocolate sauce.
You put it on something, it automatically sounds better or tastes better.
You just use it willy-nilly, you know?
You know, yeah, it's true.
I mean, you know, you use chocolate sauce on anything, makes it better.
Call it senior, call yourself senior or call yourself strategic or a strategist, and all of a sudden people are supposed to listen.
But I digress because the war on women meme and the class warfare meme are going to get a lot of attention here.
What's not going to get as much attention from the Dems, of course, from the left, and you're going to see this now play out throughout, because now we're really entering.
Yeah, I know we got some primaries coming up, but now we're really about to enter the big time cycle of the election season.
And this is great.
This was from the Associated Press, actually.
And it's that the advice to Democrats, don't say recovery.
Now, this is a peek at the Democrat strategy here.
It's fascinating, isn't it?
No longer do they say recovery.
Here's why.
Because they said recovery as long as they could get away with saying, don't worry, the check is in the mail.
That's effectively the way they broke down their recovery message.
Things are just about, we're in recovery and you're going to feel the recovery soon.
That's the implicit promise of this whole thing, that it will get better.
It's getting better.
You don't feel it yet.
It's going to be felt by you soon.
Just give us a chance.
Just vote Barack Obama 2012.
Just give us a little more time.
Okay.
Unfortunately, that seemed to work a little bit, or at least it was a way ideologically to stop the bleeding that was coming from the unemployment number, which, of course, dramatically dropped right before the Obama administration really needed it to get re-elected in 2012.
But that was just, like I said, it's fun to be a coincidence theorist with this administration.
You find coincidences everywhere.
Tons of coincidences.
It's just like they're falling out of the sky.
Oh, we're changing the way we count health insurance by the Census Bureau.
Oh, yeah, look at that.
Who knew?
But on this advice to Democrats and recovery, back to our premise here.
And the advice is don't say recovery.
This is sort of an admission, I think, that there's only so much twisting of reality that's possible for them.
There's only so much that they can get away with when it comes to sort of lying and manipulating the data.
And recovery at this point is starting to be something that I think will frustrate people because it hasn't happened.
They know it's not really happening.
It's not happening in a way that it benefits Americans who show up, do their jobs, pay their taxes, pay their mortgages, take care of their families.
They're not feeling it.
They know they're not feeling it.
And that's why the Democrats are like, oh, gosh, let's not talk about this.
Now, they also know, of course, that turnout in a midterm election is going to be lower than in a presidential campaign.
And so enthusiasm, and that can also be measured, of course, as negative enthusiasm, people voting against things, not for them, really matters.
That's why the war on women meme is going to be very important in these midterms.
And that's why class warfare, the 99 versus the 1%, which, as you probably know, by the way, it's not the 1% that's done so very, very well in the past couple of decades.
It's in fact the 1 100th of 1% that has really crushed it, while many of the rest of us have not felt that surge of wealth.
But on this messaging point, this is from, again, from this AP piece, in their memo for Democracy Corps and the Women's Voices, Women's Vote Action Fund, acronym Weavo Wava, I guess.
Women's Voices, Women's Vote Action, Weavow WAVA.
I like that.
We can call them a Weavova.
They propose that to boost turnout among their target groups, Democrats should back an economic agenda that puts working women first and says that incomes are soaring only for CEOs and the top 1% of the country.
Boom!
It's like a Marxist class warfare post-feminist sandwich all put together here.
Look at it.
They got the Weavawava here with Democracy Corps, and they're pushing this idea that it's about putting women first.
I don't even know what that means.
I mean, the fact that they get away with this is kind of astonishing, but President Obama's gotten away with a lot and that incomes are soaring.
What do these two things have to do?
Putting women first and incomes soaring only for CEOs.
It seems that this is literally like they have done some focus group testing and found some pressure point issues for the low information folks and decided that they're going to just hit these.
They're going to just create.
This is like a comic book crossover.
They're taking the Hulk and they're taking the thing and they're putting them together in the same comic book to see how it goes.
They're taking war on women.
They're taking class warfare.
Boom.
Let's see how this goes.
This is like how the old Hollywood days had say, you know, you take Sleeping Beauty, you take Commando, boom, it's a movie.
I mean, how that would work, I don't know, but that's kind of what they're doing.
They're putting together things that don't really have much correlation, but that doesn't really matter because it's not about a serious policy discussion.
It's not about even dealing with reality as it is.
It's about promoting a version of reality that has the intended effect at the polls.
And if this accomplishes that, then they're perfectly happy.
Great.
They'll say whatever.
They'll say, if you like your plan, you can keep it.
You know they play this game over and over.
They say there's not a submission of corruption in the IRS investigation.
They say Benghazi was, you know, what difference does it make?
We did everything we could there.
They'll say anything to you.
And the tragic part is, for Americans who actually believe in speaking the truth, liberty, the Constitution, limited government, they're getting away with it.
They are getting away with it.
No criminal sanction.
And on top of that, no political sanctions against them.
Maybe we can stop that.
Maybe it's time we stop that.
Maybe now we will start to actually see that people can't be fooled over and over again by the rapacious bureaucracy and the liars who run the whole thing.
800-282-2882 is the call-in number.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
Back in a minute.
Buck Sexton here, filling in for Rush Limbaugh on loan from the Blaze Radio Network.
So I've got this piece here from, I've got a couple of things in front of me.
Now, today's a very solemn day for liberals, for, I'm sorry, today's a very solemn day for Christians.
Pardon me.
Obviously, it's Good Friday.
It is the day of Jesus' crucifixion.
But I was just moved for a second by how in the news, we've got a few pieces of what I would call the religion of the left, religious liberals, the way that they actually view the afterlife, the way they view the here and now, and how they're going to be handling, how they're going to be handling what they think is, you know, getting into heaven, for example.
We've got here Michael Bloomberg, who actually, I guess, technically, when I worked for the NYPD Intelligence Division at some point, I worked for.
And he says, this is great.
I have earned my place in heaven.
This is from National Journal.
The former New York City mayor is confident that his latest $50 million gun control initiative has secured him a happy afterlife.
And, you know, he says, I had a dream.
Oh, wait, sorry.
We go a little longer.
He goes, I don't know your perception, what your perception is of our reputation and mine, the name Bloomberg around the country.
And it's amazing when you look at this guy, and he seems to think that this $50 million gun control initiative has secured him a happy place in the afterlife.
Now, I know he was being sort of tongue-in-cheek.
I know he was somewhat kidding about this, but Mayor Bloomberg, whom I technically worked for for a little while at the NYPD Intelligence Division, he believes in gun control as something of a moral crusade.
He actually seems to think that this is a situation in which there is a real moral imperative to abrogate and eliminate the Second Amendment.
He seems very clear on that issue.
And so he thinks that spending $50 million on gun control efforts is essentially a crusade.
Now, I know that's not a word, we don't use the word crusade because that's, you know, look what happened in the 12th century.
But it is a moral end, and in some sense, of the left, almost like a religious obligation.
Now, you don't have to take much of a jump from there to go, for example, to the next most clear example of the religious beliefs of the left.
You go for Mayor Bloomberg, who spends $50 million on gun control.
And I work for the mayor, you know, whatever.
And then you've got Al Gore, who's out at it.
He's giving a speech in Honolulu.
And there is no question.
I mean, you already know this, that global warming or climate change or, you know, whatever we're going to call it, that this is the religious, this is the religious dogma of the left, essentially.
They've replaced a belief in God with a belief in Gaia.
There's like this earth and we have to all protect her and we have to all find a way going forward for us to make sure that we drive around in a Prius and we use certain kinds of light bulbs and everything is going to be just fine.
But the man who was almost very close to being the president of the United States was in Honolulu just recently and he called global warming skeptics quote immoral, unethical, and despicable.
Global warming skeptics are immoral, unethical, and despicable.
And he cited two game changers in recent years that he thinks will help change this all around.
The first is that the growing realization from even climate change deniers is that something seems to be strange with the weather.
I don't even know what that means.
What does that even mean?
And the second is that the exponential growth in photovoltaic solar panels driven largely by consumer demand for lower prices.
So essentially, they're right because people question things about the weather and people want solar panels.
That's essentially what we have here.
They are right because these two things mean that we're going to do something very different.
Now, he cited the barriers to doing something as business and political interests that profit off of fossil fuels.
You know, people, I think, have started to have a slightly different understanding of the geostrategic implications of not going after our energy reserves with the full force and fury that we could when you look at things like, for example, the standoff in Ukraine, which I don't have much time to get into today, but the latest out of there is that there's some kind of a diplomatic agreement in which Russia has really gotten all that Russia wants.
And we're just hoping that they're going to play nice now.
They're going to be buddy-buddy.
And going forward, it's all going to be fine.
But the notion that somehow maybe we could make up for the shortfall of energy from our enormous revolution in energy from shale oil reserves that we have now, from the extraction process.
Yes, from fracking.
Dun, dun, dun.
That whole process and what that could mean for the stability of Europe, not just our own economy and our prices.
As you've seen, these things matter, matter very dramatically.
And the Obama administration's stubborn refusal to approve the Keystone XL pipeline just goes to show you the power of this religious belief of the left in Gaia, in One Earth, in the global warming religion, the climate change orthodoxy, whatever we want to call it.
It changes all the time.
That's why it's difficult to nail it down because we never really know which set of facts they're using.
They never really know what part of the IPCC report, the International Panel on Climate Change, what part of that from the UN they're going to use to justify these policies.
But when you get somebody like Gore who clearly views this as a moral crusade, just as I said, Bloomberg views taking guns out of your hands as a moral duty, and he's very happy to try to push that.
But on top of it, when you add to it that Al Gore not only thinks it's a moral duty to try to push this junk science of climate change from the perspective of making dramatic changes to the global economy, the U.S. economy, down to the regulatory level within your home, that that's a moral obligation.
And if you don't agree with him, you're a bad person.
This, I think, exposes the real religion of the left.
And it's something that we need to call out frequently and with ferocity.
Buck Saxon, Infra Rush Limbaugh.
Back in just a minute.
Very much enjoying filling in for Rush today and wish him all the best and appreciate the opportunity to speak to all of you.
Coast to coast.
This has been so much fun.
With that in mind, let's hear from some more of you.
800-282-288 to Elizabeth from Fort Lauderdale.
You've been patiently holding.
What's going on?
Well, hey, Buck.
It's so nice to talk to you.
I want to thank you for everything you do.
I had the opportunity to speak to you when you filled in for Glenn December 24th.
And we're both Sagittarius Christmas babies.
I had commented at the time how much I really enjoyed your letters to Garcia.
Letter to Garcia, something every American should read.
And unfortunately, very few didn't know.
Fabulous.
And also the best and most riveting program on television, The Real News Investigates.
Kudos to you and your research team.
It's the best show there is.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate it.
We understand how the government is really just throwing all of this stuff at once in hopes to overwhelm the people feeling there's nothing we can do.
Whether it's Common Core or digital tyranny or violation of the Constitution, all of these things.
And it always seems to come down in my mind to what would happen if half the people in this country did as Gandhi did and just stood up and said with peaceful non-resistance, we will not comply.
Well, you know, one of the fascinating things about Gandhi that I think is often overlooked is that Gandhi was only able to do what he did because he was opposing.
And now I know some particularly sort of left-wing post-colonial professors would be hair on fire at this statement.
They would completely freak out, as I used to make them freak out when I was a young conservative on campus.
But that it only worked because the British government did have some real deep-seated respect and adherence to the rule of law in some societies.
I mean, let me say, if you had tried Gandhi-esque tactics in the totalitarian, the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, for example, Stalin or Mao or Hitler in charge, you would have just seen, they would have just said thank you and marched you even more quickly to whatever camp they had in store for dissenters.
And as we know.
But people are standing up.
As you showed in your show, Digital Tyranny, the woman who stood up against the smart meter.
Right.
Now, I also refuse to let them put it on my house.
And I'm considering having a neighbor weld a metal mesh box that goes over that whole meter system and phone wire and everything so that nobody can even access it to take it off.
Just for everybody listening, the smart meter technology that's being installed in homes gives a tremendous amount of data to the public utilities, which can then be used for the purposes of deciding how much energy you're allowed to use.
Never mind paying a market rate for it, which of course already has the intrusions of regulation baked into the cake, but it will tell people much more about you, your life, and your usage of electricity, of water within your home than ever before.
Some people don't want that, and so they've stood up against it.
Elizabeth, to your point about noncompliance, and I know this is what gets people so energized and excited over the Bundy ranch standoff, which I don't think it's fair to say that's over because it's certainly not over to the federal government.
We know it's not over in Harry Reid's eyes.
He said so much, and he's now calling them domestic terrorists.
And I think that the implication there is, of course, well, domestic terrorists will be prosecuted unless they were part of the Weather Underground and have some really high up political connections in this country.
However, I think that that's very clear.
And so now it's just a question of getting the word out when someone is non-compliant because of a principle they believe in, that we don't allow them to just get silenced and pushed aside by the bureaucrats, by the federal agencies that do such a good job of this.
Does that make sense, Elizabeth?
Yes, but you know, we still have to stand up.
Yeah, we have to stand up.
And I think of people who have stood up, and thank you, Elizabeth, for your call.
I think of people who have stood up and unfortunately paid a pretty heavy price for it.
You know, some of the recent what's come to light thanks to some reporting from the Wall Street Journal on what's happening in Wisconsin and the dirty politics at play there from the people that just want to do everything they can to go after Scott Walker political aides, to go after Scott Walker in any capacity, do anything they can to besmirch Republicans, conservatives, any GOP activist or affiliate inside the state of Wisconsin, including using these so-called John Doe orders,
which prevent somebody from speaking out about what's happening to them.
That's the kind of stuff you have to really keep an eye out for.
If you're going to stand up, keep in mind that there are some tools the federal government has to silence dissenters, to essentially cordon you off as a subversive and make you an untouchable.
You are, in effect, ostracized from society as a result of that.
Ostracized in the old sense of no one's going to talk to you.
No one wants to deal with you.
Harry Reid calling the people that supported Clive and Bundy domestic terrorists seems to be exactly in line with that idea.
Ostracize them, politicize it, make them untouchable, make them not worthy of respect from citizens.
If you believe Harry Reid, which I hope you don't do, but that's clearly what he's trying to accomplish with that kind of rhetoric.
Let's take Jonathan from Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Jonathan, you're on the Rush Limboss show.
This is Buck Sexton.
Hey, Buck, it's a great pleasure speaking to you again, sir.
I spoke to you a long time ago when you were on the Glenn Beck show.
You were selling for Glenn.
You are a great, great radio host, and I love listening to you when you're on.
Thank you.
Glenn has been a mentor and a friend.
So what have you got in your mind?
Well, yeah, you know, Buck, this is, I'm sure you agree.
A lot of the talk, we're talking about the national level a lot.
And in many of the shows I'll listen to, a lot of the talk has been about the national level.
But a lot of people don't realize the thing that directly affects them the most is the local level.
You're talking about city commissioners and mayors and state reps and the governorship.
Those things directly affect those people more.
And the sovereignty of the state is really without question.
And people, they raise their hands in anxiety.
They hear all this crap and junk from the national level.
What can we do?
What can we do?
And just like Elizabeth said, segue into that, you know, we need to stand up, but don't stand up necessarily only at the national level.
They need a big turnout at the local level because that's really where the power really is.
The sovereignty of the state is without question.
It's in the Constitution.
It should be brought back.
But the federal government slowly seeps it out because that's what they want you to focus on.
They want you to focus on the federal level, not the state level.
They want you to know that the federal government is the one that's going to save you budget.
That's really not true.
Jonathan, conceptually, I understand exactly what you're saying.
I would just add this to it or put this into our discussion here, and that is that the federal government has become so omnipresent.
It thinks it's omnipotent.
Of course, it's incompetent.
But the federal government has become so present in every aspect of our lives that it has essentially crowded out governance at the local level on many, many issues.
Now, and all you have to do is look at the mission statements of the various regulatory bodies and federal agencies out there to understand that they get the final say.
And so what use really is it at the local level?
Local level is no longer any protection.
The way it's supposed to work is that anything that is not given to the states or given to the federal government in the 10th Amendment is given to the states.
Anything the state will allow to be decided at the local level will be decided that way.
Now, this, of course, means that a lot of things could be done at the local level.
And they are, by the way.
I mean, I'm in New York City right now, and it has effectively managed to abrogate and destroy the Second Amendment in this city without openly doing so.
They do it through grinding you down through bureaucratic means.
You got to get fingerprinted.
You got to pay a few hundred bucks.
You got to wait in line.
You got to take a day off from work.
And then in six months, maybe you'll get a premise permit, which means you can keep a firearm with a trigger lock in a lockbox separate from the ammunition.
That's going to be great because you can throw that lockbox at the burglar when he comes in.
It's very useful, very helpful for you, assuming you have a good arm.
However, at the local level, things can get out of hand.
But Jonathan, as you know, the local level is supposed to be more responsive to the needs, wants, and desires of the citizenry.
You can get something local change.
You can march around your neighborhood and say, look, we got to do something about this.
Try marching around your neighborhood and saying you want a flat tax and then get it done at the federal level.
It's not going to happen.
So that's why the Leviathan, the beamth, that is the federal government out of D.C. now, it has crowded out the possibility of localized tyranny, which could very well exist, but it's much worse when it happens at the federal level because your mechanisms to change it are more distant and are much harder to get those wheels turning.
Whereas at the local level, you know, you start a campaign, you get some signatures.
You know, maybe you can get a noise ordinance changed or reduced or what have you.
But there are other things that could happen, I think, and you could see them at the local level that would be problematic.
But they're not even getting the opportunity at the local level to be tyrannical because the federal government's beating them to it, is basically what I'm trying to say.
It's already all over with.
You're already done.
You know what I mean, Jonathan?
You feeling my flow on that one?
One last thing.
I think the key, and I appreciate what you sort of nailed it to the thing.
But the one thing, though, however, is that, you know, the sovereignty of the state, as we mentioned, but, you know, I really feel as if the Constitutional Congress, as a lot of talk about it, has been the states getting together to repeal federal law.
I just, again, I think if people realize that it's really, just like you said, the federal Leviathan, it's not the end-all-be-all.
And we need to really get involved in as little or local as possible and really get out there and really push it.
Right.
One of the most important things, and you're seeing this happen, and this is why the Bundy Ranch standoff has so much resonance, is that when local stories of federal tyranny get elevated into the national discourse, then there's the possibility of there being the change that any one individual cannot affect himself or herself, and that is obviously much more difficult from the get-go because you're talking about the faraway dictatorial class in D.C. Jonathan from North Carolina.
Thank you very much for your call.
The number is 800-282-2882.
I have something to talk to you about.
It's a war on religion.
It's not one you're necessarily thinking of, though.
In just a minute, we're going to talk about it.
So it is Good Friday, a very holy day indeed for Christians, a solemn day.
And it's with that in mind that I look at a piece that brings to light something that I talk about frequently.
I talk about it on the Blaze TV where I co-host a show.
I've been fortunate enough even recently to go and talk about these issues elsewhere.
And there is this Middle East war on Christians that is happening right now.
And let me just give you a little bit.
This is from a piece written by Ron Prosor in the Wall Street Journal.
This week, as Jews celebrate the Passover holiday, very holy for the Jewish faith, they are commemorating the Bible's Exodus story describing a series of plagues inflicted on ancient Egypt that freed the Israelites, allowing them to make their way to the Holy Land.
But over the past century, another exodus driven by a plague of persecution has swept across the Middle East and is emptying the region of its Christian population.
The persecution is especially virulent today.
The Middle East may be the birthplace of three monotheistic religions, but some Arab nations appear bent on making it the burial ground for one of them.
Now, the author, of course, is referring here to Christianity.
And he gives some very startling facts that do not get much play by the drive-bys, do not get much play, period.
But they're ones that you should be aware of, I think, on this weekend.
That is this week of tremendous religious observance for many faiths.
And also, of course, going into this weekend, 26% of the Middle East population at the turn of the 20th century was Christian.
That figure today is now less than 10%.
This is essentially the eradication of Christianity from its place of birth.
And it's not happening because of demographics or population shift.
It is from outright and virulent and intentional persecution.
It happened in Iraq over the course of the Iraq War.
The Christian population there went from something like 1.6 million down into the low hundreds of thousands.
In a tragic twist, many of those Christians fled to Syria.
And now in Syria, they are also facing annihilation at the hands of Islamic jihadists who view them as a threat, of course, at all times, as non-believers, people that have to be cast out and destroyed.
And I just want to say that this is happening all around us, and it's a foreign policy issue that gets almost no attention, particularly from this administration.
Now, this has been a long time coming.
This is a long-term trend.
The eradication of Christianity from the Middle East, where it, of course, was first born.
That is happening with very little outrage from many corners in this country.
And I think this administration itself, which as we've seen from its views on a number of issues, including, of course, the desire to coerce people of faith to go against their faith under the rubric of the Obamacare mandate,
the Obamacare legislation, that there is an inherent hostility of the American left to all people of actual faith, not Nancy Pelosi, I'm going to wash someone's feet and then say we need comprehensive immigration reform out of one side of my mouth after doing the other.
And what we see now, I think, is the administration just does not fundamentally care and also doesn't have the bandwidth to even raise this as an issue.
Because the left always has this hostility, this animosity towards Christianity because it elevates God and the individual over the state.
And they can't have that.
You can't be a real progressive and be down with a creator.
That's just there at cross purposes.
And I just wanted to take this moment on Good Friday to say that this issue is something that has, as I said, gotten so little coverage, is tragic, and is also, I think, very instructive.
When was the last time you heard President Obama give a speech about this or mention it?
He's got plenty of time.
He's got time to go on all sorts of comedy shows, TV shows.
He's got lots of time in his schedule.
When was the last time he even mentioned the fact that Christians in Syria are being driven from their homes, are being persecuted, are being executed, actually, very publicly?
The Christian population in Syria has dropped from 30% in the 1920s to less than 10% today.
It's not because they were getting such a great deal anywhere else.
It's because they are under assault.
And somehow this government, this country, loves to stand up for minorities around the world, loves to stand up for the so-called underdog around the world, unless it's Christian.
And then it doesn't count.
800-282-2882.
Some closing thoughts in just a minute.
Buck Sexton from the Blaze filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
Thanks to Rush and the whole staff here at EIB.
Having a great time.
Really enjoyed spending the time with all of them and getting a chance to speak to all of you.
I just had a couple of closing thoughts.
And one is this, I know I told you about the attempts to essentially eradicate Christianity from the Middle East.
And as many of us go into a very religious weekend here, or others just want to understand what's happening in the world and understand that we don't seem to stand on a universal principle of protecting those who are in danger, only if it's in a specific protected group, if they fall into sort of the politically correct classification of needing protection.
And Christians don't usually get that.
They've also managed to truncate part of my former unit where I used to work in the NYPD Intelligence Division, a part of that unit.
This is a headline from this week, has been eliminated in sort of a sort of a sacrifice to the voices of the politically correct left trying to get rid of this.
I was able, I was fortunate, to speak on Megan Kelly's show on Fox about this.
They're very nice they have me on sometimes.
And I got to say, this is going to happen more across the country.
You're going to see political correctness when it comes to Islamic extremism.
And of course, when it comes to Christian persecution abroad or at home just get handled in the most dishonest way possible unless we call it out.
This has been Buck Sexton filling in for Rush.
I'm from theblaze.com.
Thank you all so very much.
▲
Export Selection