All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 25, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:08
September 25, 2015, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Buck Sexton here, happy to be back with you now.
Thank you for joining or thank you for staying with me.
800-282-2882 here with Open Line Friday.
We'll be taking a lot of calls later on in the hour.
As you know, there's a lot going on today.
I know it's a Friday, but there's all kinds of breaking news.
Some of it we've already talked about with Speaker Boehner stepping down at the end of October.
Not before, of course, as many are assuming or being told will happen.
Boehner makes sure that the government's funded.
Once again, don't, I guess he's picked out a really cushy and comfortable K-Street job for himself and doesn't want to rock the boat even on the way out.
He figured this could be his Jerry McGuire grab the fish moment and say whatever he wants, do whatever he wants, but nope, he's not going to do it.
He wants to play the game still.
So he's going to keep on, he's going to keep on Boehnering, for lack of a better way of putting it.
But as you know, there's also a meeting between President Xi Jinping of China and President Obama today.
They had a conference in the Rose Garden.
We'll be talking about that in a little bit.
First, I want to discuss a bit of the Pope's visit, which tied into, or at least Boehner is trying to tie it into his decision to step down, which is of interest to be sure, whether you buy that or not.
I think it's a very convenient narrative for John Boehner here.
But there's a lot of frustration with the Pope right now.
I know that there's a lot of Catholics are of two minds about this.
And certainly as somebody who went to Jesuit school myself, you sort of, on the one hand, understand the power and the importance of the message.
And look, I know to some people, it's, well, aren't we told that in kindergarten?
But you can never hear about the golden rule too much.
That's true.
And a lot of what the Pope's speech yesterday and some of the Pope's speech today is clearly just boilerplate, the kind of stuff you would expect the pontiff to lay out there.
You know, love each other, be a good Christian, apologize for or confess your sins, apologize to those you've heard it, all the rest of it.
But when he gets into the policy stuff, that's where it's really frustrating for many of us.
That's where we have some issues.
I mean, as I said, I appreciate the Pope wants us all to be nice to each other.
But then when he starts to weigh in in ways that so clearly benefit people that hate not just Catholicism or Christianity, but religion in general, and honestly, just want to use it as an excuse to push their own statist agenda.
That's troubling.
That's troubling to many American Catholics.
I know it's troubling to me to hear this sort of thing.
And people are saying, is he a Peronist?
I have to say, when you talk about Perron and people say, oh, he's a Peronist, you know, if you're going to look at someone who had a cult of personality, who would sort of weigh in and was really a corporatist fascist, which is, I think, a fair description of Perrone.
It depends on who you talk to, but was built around a sort of cult of personality and believed in a very centralized government that would control much of the corporate activity, would weigh in on the side of unions.
Who else does that sound like?
I know somebody that sounds like a lot more than the pontiff, than the Pope, Pope Francis, that's for sure.
But he's here speaking about climate change, and they're already finding ways to capitalize on this for the green propaganda purposes, such as they are.
There was a TV commercial that none of you, I'm assuming, saw, because I think very few people did by the Next Gen Climate Action, which whatever that means.
It's funded by billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer.
And it shows the sort of stuff that you can expect, right?
The sort of things that we've come to know are the real talking points, the selling points now to a public that doesn't pay enough attention or just wants to socially signal to everybody that they're the right kind of person, that they're smart.
They believe in hashtag science.
Without the hashtag, it's not science.
They believe in science.
To those people, they see images, scary, spooky images of wildfires and floods.
And that's supposed to indicate climate change, right?
Because wildfires, even that are caused by, I don't know, human activity, as in somebody didn't put out their campfire, whatever it may be.
Or someone just decided to start a fire.
Arson is actually a common cause for these kinds of fires, too.
That's not the cause.
The cause is the carbon pollution, as they call it.
Carbon, as everybody who's had even an elementary school class in science or biology knows, is also CO2 is emitted from plants.
But now this is considered pollution, right?
That CO2 in the air is a pollutant.
It's one of these terrible things that they have to find a way to control.
At the end of this next-gen climate action advertisement, who shows up?
None other than the Pope.
You know, they just have the Pope pop in there.
It's fascinating to me.
This is a moment when the left seizes an actual religious symbol for the purposes of furthering the false religion of climate change.
This is a moment when people who think they're too smart for religion, who think they are too worldly for God, and so they replace that part of their spirituality, their brain, with this sort of mother earth religion of climate change, right?
Climate change is religion for people who think they're too smart for religion.
And now they're even using a religious icon in Pope Francis to try to further that message.
That's troubling to those of us who really want to believe that the Pope has a good message and want to hear it and think that there could be a lot of good done here.
And with the Obama administration, which is so blatantly and aggressively opposed to people of faith who actually believe in that faith, right?
Democrats get a dispensation.
You could also almost say papal dispensation, if you will.
They get a dispensation for pretending to believe because they know they can't win election.
They can't win power.
Progressives, statists, leftists of all kinds know that the people that they're sending to dictate to you, wherever you are in the country, wherever you're listening to this, the people that they're sending to D.C. to make those, to send those diktats to you, those people are allowed to pretend to care about all of this.
They're allowed to try to fool people into thinking that they also believe.
Or, if you want to take a more charitable, a more charitable view of this, and this was one that was shared by none other than Joe Biden, I believe, earlier in the week, who said that he believed life begins at conception and then doesn't want to, you know, doesn't want to impose that on people, though.
Well, I mean, come on.
That's just, it's just like a choice, the sort of the same way you can make any other choice of no moral importance if you're a Democrat, I suppose.
It's kind of a horrifying, it's kind of a scary thought, really.
Horrifying.
But they think that, well, even if I believe, I don't actually bring that with me, right?
Even if I have to say, oh, yes, you know, look, Democrats sometimes will say things like, oh, yes, I go to church a lot and I'm a believer.
I'm a Christian because they know they have to.
And I think that that's something that is fair game for us to talk about because when we see how Barack Obama governs and we see how the other Democrats view their role, Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, Catholics like John Kerry, who are not just opposed to church doctrine, but will fight to their last ounce on that hill of opposition to fundamental church principles.
They will fight against traditional marriage.
They will fight against life.
They will fight against all these issues.
And it is part of the base.
They won't veer at all.
And I suppose we can just expect that the Pope will only make the most oblique references to that.
Oblique references to it.
I see some others have finally figured out that this is an issue.
You had a Twitter account of U.S. Catholic bishops pointed out to John Kerry's Twitter account.
I saw this, that the Pope reassures all of us that Catholic teachings have always treasured human life from its very beginning.
And I think that that's an interesting point to make to John Kerry.
It's an interesting point to make to Nancy Pelosi and to Joe Biden and to others who call themselves Catholics, but who work.
It's not just that this is a little thing.
They work tirelessly in opposition to church teaching, to church morality.
So in what real sense can they claim to be inside the fold of the church?
Now, I know this Pope is particularly inclusive, and he's sort of, you know, all hugs and love.
Unless you take showers too long and aren't really down with electric cars, then you're a bad person.
But these are real issues.
I mean, these are things that I think the Pope needs to spend a little more time on.
And we've seen some other problems.
He went to Cuba, for example, and didn't meet with the political dissidents.
And I know that we can assume those political dissidents, no matter what deep, dark dungeon they're in, have amazing Cuban health care.
I know that that's supposed to be the case.
Of course, it's not true.
You would think that the Pope could speak about life and freedom a bit more forcefully and leave climate change science and immigration legislation to the political systems that actually deal with it.
That would have been my advice for this Pope, if I could give it to him.
That would have been what I would have hoped for.
But instead, he's allowed himself to be mobilized, his words to be mobilized for the purposes of the atheist status left.
And for many American Catholics looking at this, they say to themselves, where is the stinging rebuke of Catholic leadership in D.C., meaning not people who are part of the Catholic leadership of the church, but who are leaders who happen to be Catholic, who don't seem to care about that at all?
I want to talk to you about the immigration side of this as well.
We'll also take some calls.
800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm going to be back in just a minute.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh, 800-282-2882.
We could take some calls here in just a second.
A quick note.
Somebody told me that I was talking about plants and photosynthesis a second ago.
Obviously, plants take in CO2 and give out oxygen.
I thought I said that.
Hashtag science.
See?
Freshman biology.
You got to remember this stuff.
I think that was actually fifth-grade science.
Let's take Tim in Detroit, Michigan.
Tim, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
Megadetos.
Buck, thanks for your service.
Greatly appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
My comment real quick is, you know, John Boehner, he tries to move the ball down the field inch by inch, and the people are a little fed up.
They're all worried about the government shutting down and that they're going to get blamed.
But if we go back and look at history, last time the government was shut down, I think we gained 600 seats nationwide.
Back in the 90s, it was shut down.
I think we only lost a seat or two.
So they always come out and tell us, oh, the government's going to shut down or we're going to get blamed.
But it's just not true.
The people, we want a couple of Hal Marys.
Instead of inch by inch, give us some Statue of Liberty plays, a couple double reverses.
Let's use the power that we have given them.
And that's why Trump and I believe Carly and Ben Carson are doing well.
The people are just fed up with the establishment.
No, look, the people are definitely fed up with the establishment.
And, you know, a big part of all of this, though, is the narrative about when people talk about who's blamed for the shutdown.
Well, it always depends, of course, on the narrative, the narrative of the shutdown itself, right?
I mean, in this case, people would say that the Republicans are shutting down the government just to defund Planned Parenthood.
The corollary to that is the Democrats are letting the government be shut down because they view Planned Parenthood's taxpayer funding as a sacred and untouchable issue.
So which of the American people in the aggregate, in the majority, which one do they believe?
I mean, that's a big part of it.
And that's why having somebody who's not just somebody, having a party that speaks plainly and openly about this stuff would be such an advantage.
Yeah, Carly was correct when she mentioned in the debate that we should send a bill to Obama and let him veto this bill.
It is a shame what we're doing here in America.
I am ashamed of what Planned Parenthood is doing.
I can't believe people are that they're not rounding their pitchforks up and heading to Washington because this is a disgrace to this country.
I just can't believe that we would not send a bill to him and have him veto this.
All right, Tim, thank you very much for calling in from Detroit.
Next up, we've got Dave in Heron, New Mexico.
Dave, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
You're speaking to Buck.
Good morning, Buck.
You know, one down, one to go.
Now we've got to get McConnell out of there.
You know, a replacement for Viner is one of his arch enemies, Congressman Pierce from New Mexico, who he took out of his chairmanship because he wouldn't go along to get along.
That's the kind of man that we need there in Congress.
Now, Boehner is one.
McConnell is another.
I'd replace him with Ted Cruz.
We'd have one hell of a Senate then.
But you were talking a while back about Hillary.
Yes, sir.
You had the background where during the Clinton administration, the first two years, they found out that a lot of the staff had no security clearance.
I'm wondering, all these people that have been handling all this top security information, did they have security clearance?
Or is everybody looking the other way?
I think there's a lot of looking the other way about all of the sort of handling of classified that went on with Hillary Clinton.
I've yet to speak, and as it was said, I think it's said in my intro when I come on, I'm formerly a CIA analyst, and I've yet to speak to anybody either formally in the community, as we call the intelligence community, or still on the inside.
I have a lot of good friends who are on the inside who says that who disagrees with this very simple statement, that if a non-Clinton did what Hillary did, they would be stripped of their clearance, they would lose their job, and they would be at least in fear of a possible prosecution.
I have yet to meet a person who holds a TS clearance, who's not a political appointee, who's not like a Clinton hack fundraiser who happens to get some senior job in government and has a clearance handed to them, but I mean somebody that actually is serving their country in the intel community or serving their country in the military with a senior clearance with a top clearance or with a classified clearance and says that that's not the case for them too.
I don't, as I said, I mean, we lock people up in this country for using a phone that's their own inside a government building on government time, or at least we threaten to do that.
But what Hillary did is okay?
You got to be kidding me, Dave.
There's no way.
Is it possible to talk to you about that Pope?
It's possible to talk.
I was just talking about him.
Yeah, lay it down.
What do you got?
As a former Catholic for 35 years, I'm 77.
And I was an altar boy.
I went to Catholic school.
All through school, I never, never read the Bible.
Always catechism.
Now, all these Catholics that you got out there, this Pope came over and told you about the weather and such.
When the hell did he talk about all these Christians being as Christians and Jews being killed around the world?
Not a peep.
You're giving me, that's exactly the segue, Dave, after we took some calls.
That's where I wanted to go next, which is, you know, I talked about some of the issues the Pope has focused on.
He mentions the migrant crisis and immigration, but doesn't speak to the issue of the genocide, the extermination of Christians in Iraq and Syria right now that's going on.
And by the way, it's been going on for years.
In fact, it's been a part of one of the bad side effects of the removal of a dictator like Saddam Hussein or even the loss of control over some of his country that Assad has is that both Saddam and Assad were protecting those Christian communities from jihadists.
Believe it or this is just a historical fact.
And as soon as they've been out of power, those Christians have been left to fend for themselves and they are being exterminated.
Yeah, where is the Pope on that?
You know, people would say, oh, I'm sure he makes some reference to it, maybe an oblique reference, but I'd like more than just that.
I'd like more than a passing reference to the extermination of some of the oldest Christian communities still left in the world.
You know, this is a scandal that the church hasn't had more to say in it.
It isn't doing more to help, by the way.
And Dave, I'm with you.
I'm glad you brought that up.
We'll get into that more with the sort of migrant crisis and stuff in a second.
Thank you for calling in.
Look, it matters what the Pope spends his time and focus on.
I mean, this is something that I think is a very valid point of criticism.
He's got a very big, he's not speaking ex catheter on this stuff, thank heavens, but he's got a very big pulpit, a pope pulpit, if you will, from which to speak about these issues, and he should be using that for the most important things.
And that's why the whole climate change thing just wants me, I want to pull my hair out over that.
And then, of course, take a very short shower because that's going to save the world if we just use less water.
All right, 800-282-2882.
Open Line Friday continues.
This is Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
Much more coming.
I'll be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush, 800-282-2882.
Open Line Friday.
We'll continue in just a second here.
I want to say that some have been pointing out that it seems a bit like this Pope wants us to invite people into our house, so to speak, but his house is a very exclusive, very exclusive club, meaning that the Vatican has very strict regulations on who can become a citizen.
You know, the Vatican's its own little state.
And this has gotten some attention.
I've been saying, well, why is it so hard to become a Vatican, a citizen of the Vatican, right?
Vatican City.
Well, why should the rest of us have to deal with open borders?
How can a state be a state if it doesn't control who comes and goes?
I think that's a fair question.
I think it's one that we should spend some more time and attention on than we have recently.
Let's take Greg in Bakersfield, California.
Greg, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Yes, sir.
My comment is about this idea of McCarthy as a possible replacement there of the cryer.
He's big time in the farm lobby's pocket.
He's an open borders guy.
He's had Laraza in his office at least one occasion that I know of.
But as one of his constituents, you can't get that guy's ear for nothing.
He's a Washington elitist.
He's the wrong guy.
And I urge every conservative in this country to call their congressman and not allow that guy to become the speaker.
Well, I have to take your word for it.
I don't know.
I don't live in his district, and I know that he's the choice of the establishments.
If you're telling me he's hard to reach, I've never tried to reach him myself.
I have to believe you on that one.
And it sounds like I don't understand why McCarthy would be such a huge improvement over Boehner, quite honestly.
I've yet to see that case in a way that I would find compelling.
But I tend to have a sort of cynical view of these things.
Thanks for calling in, Greg.
Good to talk to you.
We've got Mike in Decatur, Illinois, Decatur, named for the great naval hero against the Barbary states.
Thanks for calling in.
All right.
Thank you for taking my call.
I've been trying to get through for a while now.
Listen, my question and comment, and I'd love to hear feedback from you and Rush and anybody else I could hear about, is concerning the refugee situation from Syria.
And what I've been seeing on TV and all the news feeds is a majority of these refugees are young men, you know, between 18 and 40 years old.
And I'm wondering why they're not staying and fighting for their country.
Are they expecting us to do it?
And how are we going to afford to do it when we're $18 to $20 trillion in debt?
Well, you're raising the question, Mike, or the questions that you're not supposed to.
This is what the media doesn't want you to do.
You're supposed to just see.
I've seen that.
I think that's probably why I haven't heard much about it.
Right.
Well, I was going to try to answer them as best I can.
Give me one second here.
The point about the migrant inflow and how it's a lot of young men.
It's not just men who are not necessarily refugees, especially if they're coming from a country that is not currently at war that they've already sought some sort of refugee status in.
The truth is a lot of them aren't Syrian, or a lot of them aren't Iraqi.
They're coming from all over the Middle East.
They just recognize that entry into the EU means you have access to, yeah, a much better economy and a much better future.
And that's all well and good.
It also means, though, and the reason why so many are not having, they're not stopping in Greece and saying, yeah, we're going to settle here and make a go of it.
They want Germany.
They want Sweden.
They want the states with the greatest welfare benefits.
And there are obvious motivations behind that.
A lot of them are not actually refugees.
It's been shown that they can buy forged documentation quite easily.
And the other question you ask or you raise, and I think this is something that I have not heard any good answers to myself, but I share in your befuddlement, shall we say.
How is it that the Islamic state is able to get fighters to join from all over the world?
People to leave America, people to leave Canada, people to leave, you name the country.
And there's a chance, if it's a big country, there's a good chance that somebody from there has actually gone to fight alongside ISIS if there's a Muslim population that has been infiltrated with this clarion call to jihad in Syria.
And what we see is they can get fighters from all over the world, and yet the states around Syria and Iraq are not able to mount any sort of serious and sustained anti-ISIS campaign.
The president, this country, I mean, what President Obama's pushed us to has been a completely unserious and anemic anti-ISIS campaign.
And you also don't see people from all over the world.
I mean, I know there are small groups of Americans who have gone over to fight alongside the Kurds.
You do not see Muslims from all over the world showing up to fight against ISIS.
Why is that?
Why haven't we seen a huge drive of tens of thousands to show up to defeat ISIS?
We're always told that ISIS has no connection, that ISIS is just this sort of aberrant mutation that has nothing to do with Islamic ideology.
The president himself said the Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state, which I think will go down among his more infamous comments, along with the future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.
The president all of a sudden is a theologian for Islamic studies.
But Mike, there's no good answer to that, really.
It's just worth asking the question because you're right.
Why isn't there more of an anti-ISIS movement from the community around not just around the region in the Middle East, but also around the world?
I don't have an answer for you, but I think we could start to take some guesses.
Well, you know, I think that we are a compassionate country as a whole, and there's plenty of compassion for displaced families from terrorists.
Absolutely.
You know, it absolutely has to be.
My son served two terms in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, and he's a disabled veteran.
And he lost a lot for something in my feeling is that we shouldn't have been there to begin with.
But we were, and, you know, we did what we could do.
And I'm afraid that, you know, this continuing ISIS problem is, you know, inevitably we're going to be involved in that again with troops on the ground.
I agree.
I agree.
Well, let me first say, Mike, please thank your son for his service and God bless him and thank him from everyone who's listening right now is nodding their head and saying the same thing.
Please thank him for his service.
Thank him for his honorable service and sacrifice to this country.
That's point one.
Point two, I would agree with you as a policy matter.
The president's entire, look, the president's rolled the dice, and now I'm kind of getting to the national security side of things.
It's going to do more of that in hour three, but why not now?
Mike, thank you very much, by the way.
Please thank your son for his service and thank you for calling in.
The president has gambled his entire Middle East policy.
I shouldn't say gambled.
That's not necessarily the right word.
He has put all of his eggs in the one basket of the Iran deal.
And everything else has because I wouldn't say gamble because there's really no benefit to it.
The only benefit is to President Obama.
I mean, a gamble is something that can come.
You can come up and win, right?
It can be a good thing.
But with the president, he's chosen to put his own personal legacy and his global view of how things should function in the Middle East well beyond and ahead of all other issues, Syria being a very clear and obvious manifestation of this sort of tunnel vision about getting an Iran deal.
And by the way, this is known now in the region.
You'll have Syrians and others talking to various news outlets and writing about this, saying it's clear that President Obama has just put Syria in the sort of back burner place so that some other administration is going to have to deal with it.
I mean, you look at the numbers that they've told us that have been trained by the Pentagon, the official numbers, and at one point it was 70 recently, then it was five.
Now they say there are more.
I mean, they can't be serious with this, right?
You initially read that number and you think to yourself, no, no, there's no way the Obama administration has fallen asleep on the job that much.
Remember, this is training indigenous forces to fight against ISIS.
So this is very minimal risk to U.S. troops and to U.S. policy objectives in the region.
But they failed at that because they weren't serious about it.
Because here's the dirty little secret.
They didn't want to upset the Assad regime too much.
They didn't want to get too involved in that whole mess, not because of just caution and the legacy of the Bush administration.
They didn't want to repeat that, although that's a part of it.
But because they didn't want to upset Assad because his buddies in Tehran weren't going to look favorably on that.
Hence the red line that could be crossed with impunity about using chemical weapons.
And all Assad's done now is decide, well, why use chemical weapons when you can just build these barrel bombs and other sort of low-tech IEDs from the sky that cause maximum shrapnel and damage to civilian areas, killing, wounding, maiming.
That's been going on because the president's been so focused on an Iran deal, he didn't want to disrupt that.
And that even extended to a willingness to play nicer than he should have, to be sure.
And this is at the policy level, to be nicer than he should have to Iran's various allies, proxies, puppets, and clowns.
All right.
800-8282-2882.
We'll do more Open Line Friday.
We'll talk more about this and also China and the cyber issue.
Much more show coming.
This is Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
More at meattheblaze.com slash Buck Sexton.
I'll be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today on the EIB.
Please follow me at BuckSexton on Twitter or go to facebook.com slash BuckSexton.
If you're on Facebook, click like on the page.
You can send me your thoughts and comments and concerns about today's show, suggestions, haikus, Shakespearean verse, whatever you got.
You can write it on facebook.com slash Buck Sexton.
I want to talk for a second about, we were just speaking about ISIS, and I know there's been a lot of talk about something else that sort of just got bubbling up in my mind, right?
ISIS and terrorism.
And there's this discussion going on right now about Islamophobia, Islamophobia.
We've got Imams calling on Dr. Ben Carson to resign because of his comments, which he since clarified and added to about what he thinks about a possible president who is Muslim.
And this is adding now to the sort of media narrative that's come out in the aftermath of the young guy in Irving who built what anybody would think is a bomb, but if you think it's a bomb, you're a bad person.
That's what we're now told.
That there's a tremendous amount of Islamophobia going on.
We're in an Islamophobia epidemic, if you listen to the media.
It's an epidemic.
It's just, oh, you should, you know, hide yourselves.
Don't go outside.
Islamophobia is coming for us all.
It's like some sort of a plague.
This is utter and complete nonsense.
And look, there are a lot of real phobias in the world, right?
Spiders, arachnophobia, spaces, agoraphobia, foreigners, maybe, xenophobia.
So there are real phobias.
Islamophobia is a nonsense term.
It's not a panic disorder.
This isn't a medical issue.
Islamophobia is a nonsense term used to silence people who speak openly about the threats of Islamism and jihadism.
That's its only real purpose.
I mean, Islamophobia is intended to make people think that any critique of an ideology, of a belief system, is somehow akin to or the exact same as being a racist.
That's what they want.
Because there are few things in our society more odious and more detrimental, more damaging for you, for your career, your personal life, everything than being labeled a racist.
They want it to have that same sort of bite, that same sort of destructive power.
And you'll hear this thrown around all the time.
And it gives an opportunity for leftist progressives and for Democrats to all sort of stand and pound their chests and feel tall and strong for a while because they stand against Islamophobia.
And yet I wonder how many of them, how many of them, if they had seen the so-called clock brought in that briefcase, if they had seen that, oh, at, I don't know, the airport, if they had seen, if it was their child in school and somebody showed up with this thing, this device, that could have certainly been a whole lot, it could have been a lot less bomb-like.
I think that's fair to say.
But it really just brings us back to the broader point.
Islamophobia is what they say when they don't want to talk about this.
They don't want to have a discussion.
They just want you to shut up.
That's what they want.
Because you fear for your reputation, you fear for your job, you fear for your future, your ability to pay the mortgage and feed your family.
So they use this term, and you see how it's deployed.
And you see how far the rot has actually spread as well.
I mean, after the Ford Hood shooting, you had a senior U.S. general say that he was worried that diversity would be a casualty of this.
We've got Americans in uniform dead on our soil.
We've got a general saying he's worried about diversity.
In the aftermath of the Charlie Ebno shootings, what do we hear?
Oh, well, we're so terrible.
You know, they keep telling us that Islamophobia is this crisis, and we all need to be on guard against it because every time there's a real terrorist act that kills people, that ruins lives, they say they're on guard not for the next terrorist attack and not for a real discussion of the ideology that is the precondition for these very attacks.
Okay?
You don't have suicide bombers in crowded market squares without a belief that this is part of a divinely ordained jihad.
Okay?
You don't have it.
People say, oh, but there was water.
Let's talk about the Tamil Tigers.
I'm talking about the 99%.
I'm talking about reality.
Belief is the precondition.
They don't want us to talk about that.
They want us to sort of go into a go into a retreat mode automatically.
And they always tell us to be on guard for the attacks against you.
See, the thing is, the people that want to have a discussion about the ideology that inspires these attacks don't want to go out and hurt people who don't aspire to that.
I don't aspire to that ideology of jihadism and Islamism.
We don't do that.
That's not what happens.
And the media's dominant narrative always, time and again, turns back to that.
You don't want to be Islamophobic, do you?
Islamophobia is a preposterous term.
If I think that ISIS is a sadistic death cult that is trying to expand not just across the Middle East, but around the world.
And in fact, if you believe their own writings and their own proclamations, I think they can bring about the end of the world.
Does that make me Islamophobic?
What about Al-Qaeda in Yemen?
What about Hezbollah in Lebanon?
What about Shabaab in Somalia?
What about Boko Haram in Nigeria?
What about Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Maghreb in North Africa?
What about Jama Islamiya in Indonesia?
Should we go on?
At what point am I not Islamophobic when I'm worried about these groups, when I want to talk about these groups?
What about the attacks that occur daily around the world in the name of this belief, this ideology, this religious tradition?
Can we discuss it?
No, no, don't discuss it.
If you discuss it, then you're just as bad as the people that see something that looks like a bomb and worry for a minute.
Okay.
I guess you can count me among the worried.
800-282-2882.
Buck sexing in for Rush Limbaugh.
Back in just a minute.
You know, not only is our campaign against ISIS completely, I think the best description of it of what President Obama has been doing the last few years, it's a delaying tactic, right?
He's going to hand this off to the next administration.
And then, even if it's a Democrat, they get to say, oh, well, Obama gave me this really hard situation.
I couldn't handle it.
It's like Obama's terrible economy for the years he's in office.
Oh, it was Bush's fault.
But they haven't done anything.
It's been unserious.
That's been the best way to describe the anti-ISIS air campaign thus far.
Unserious.
If you actually want to degrade and destroy, as they say.
And you can start to see what a more robust campaign to assist an ally in the region would look like, right?
A more robust campaign through the lens of, say, Vladimir Putin, who is putting advanced planes, who is building out barracks, who is doing all kinds of stuff now in Syria to try to give a little extra leverage to Assad.
And by the way, it's also complicating efforts to, if there will be efforts in the future, which I think there would be, to create a no-fly zone.
It'll hurt Israeli efforts or at least make it a little more precarious for them to do strikes against Hezbollah or convoys heading to Hezbollah.
It'll just create air traffic and the possibility of miscalculation and disaster of international proportions.
And that, my friends, that is going to prevent us from doing what we need to do over there.
▲
Export Selection