All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
December 4, 2015, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
Okay, I'm going to try to explain something today, a question that has a lot of people flummoxed.
So they just uh announced CNN led the pact, but now everybody is reporting that uh Saeed Farouk, which means global warming in Arabic, climate change, and his and his wife have been influenced by ISIS.
Okay, you've heard that.
And yet, have you noticed the government still is not calling this terrorism?
Have you noticed that?
ISIS inspired the couple, but this is not yet terrorism.
And they're now angling further down the road of workplace violence or postpartum depression.
Have you heard that one?
The wife was postpartum depressed, and she radicalized the guy, and they blew up everything.
It's Friday, folks.
Let's uh let's hit it here.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
You hadn't heard the postpartum depression theory?
CNN, Aaron Burnett up front last night, or out front or out back.
Anyway, Open Line Friday, that's where you get to talk about whatever you want when we go to the phones.
It's a great career risk I take here, turning over content portion of program to people who don't know what they're doing.
Yeah.
But I mean, that's the fun of it.
Highly trained broadcast specialists.
Let's rank amateurs run show.
Anyway, 800 282 2882, if you want to be on the program and the email address Ilrushbaugh EIBNet.com.
Since this all began, it has been apparent to you and to me and anybody with even uh Prain that we were the victims of a terror attack, that this was Islamic terror that took place in San Bernardino, California, and yet the authorities refuse even now to call it that.
And when asked why, they said, well, you know, we're still examining all the evidence.
We haven't yet figured out a motive.
We're doing everything they everything we can.
And then you finally, after a while, you get the idea here.
They don't want to call this terrorism.
And a lot of people are scratching their heads.
Why be so obtuse?
And I am here today to give you the reason.
I have been assisted in this with my good friend by my good friend Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online, who is as close to a expert we have on Islamic terrorism and Islam on our side of the aisle.
In addition to that, we have on the political news front there's a new CNN pollout that shows Trump with a 20-point lead now, and Ted Cruz is in second place, and the Republican establishment is barely keeping its grip.
They're about to lose their grip on sanity.
Because what they've figured out is that, okay, let's say that Trump does implode like they think he's going to.
Or let's say that Trump quits like they think he's going to.
Or let's say that something happens and Trump isn't there.
Who's in second place now?
Somebody they hate more.
Ted Cruz.
Establishment Republican candidates can barely be seen in this poll.
The top three are candidates, Trump, Cruz, Carson, who are most anti-establishment.
And the establishment refuses to get the message.
Both parties, but the Republican establishment in particular, refuses to see exactly, just as they can't see the handwriting on the wall right in front of them, the entire Washington political class and establishment cannot see Islamic terrorism when it happens.
Yes.
Well, they actually do see it.
They just don't want to call it that.
And they don't want anybody else calling it that.
Trump is out there taking the occasion here of the San Bernardino attack to brag that it's even going to increase his popularity.
And the thing is, he's right.
It will.
I'm watching Republican consultants actually lose it on TV.
They're actually losing it.
You should have heard what I was accused of this morning.
Not by name, by the way.
I was accused.
You ready for this?
I was accused of wanting the Clintons back in the White House because that's when I really hit it big back in the 90s.
That's when I had two books.
That's when I got rich, then I want to do it again.
And that's why I am refusing to denounce Trump is because I don't care what happens in the country.
I'm in it for me and all and none of this.
I was my name is right wing media.
My name was not used.
So from now on, when you hear them go off on right wing media, that's me.
They are losing it.
They are losing their everything.
You know, the secret memo that I promised yesterday to hold over today.
What they're gonna do, if anybody's afraid of losing what they've got, it's them.
They're worried to death that a Trump nomination will end their precious committee chairmanships.
They're worried that Hillary's an automatic lock to win the White House.
They're worried they're gonna lose their precious Senate seats or what have you.
They don't have the slightest idea what to do to hold on.
They do not get that the Republican base and probably many other voters as well, look at them as the problem, not Trump.
What is so hard to figure out about that?
Whether you agree with them or not, let's say you're a Republican establishment type, and you're watching all this happening, you just you just beside yourself because you think that these people supporting Trump are going to guarantee defeat for the Republicans or guarantee a victory for Hillary.
Why don't you do something?
Why don't you instead why does the party adopt this posture and policy that says we're gonna win the nomination without the base?
At some point you have to assess the lay of the land, and you have to assess where you are in it.
And if you want to win, you gotta make some adaptations.
You have to make some adjustments.
And they're just unwilling to do so.
They demand that we make adjustments all the time, pay higher taxes, sign on to Obamacare.
We have to adapt all the time to what they do.
But when it comes time for them to adapt to the changing seas of reality in American politics, it's inflexible and rigid on their part.
But I want to go back to the situation in San Bernardino, because this is going to answer a lot of people's questions, even now.
Government officials, from the FBI to the regime to wherever will not say that this was terrorism.
Even after linking it to ISIS.
And in fact, folks, to just give you a little hint, linking it to ISIS actually helps the government not call it terrorism.
Because ISIS is not Islam.
No, I'm not saying that.
The government says that.
The left, the media says it.
ISIS is not Islam.
You've heard Obama say that.
ISIS is making a mockery of Islam.
In fact, what you really need to understand about the way our government looks at Islam, they look at Islam as anti-terror as well.
Islam is anti-terrorism, therefore, no terrorism Can actually be Islamic.
Islam is the religion of peace.
We say that jokingly, that's actually the position of the U.S. government.
It's rooted in political correctness and fear and a number of other convoluted things.
The religion of peace can't possibly engage in terrorism.
Therefore, ISIS is not Islam.
And what happened in San Bernardino is not terrorism because it's these were Muslims.
And Muslims are the religion of peace.
And they were influenced by ISIS, but ISIS is not Islam, and therefore there was no official terrorism.
Instead, we have, oh, another word you can bank on hearing, radicalized.
What does that mean the way our government is using it and the media?
Radicalized means we had this nice guy and his lovely wife.
But has anybody seen a picture of her?
She'd been vetted.
She had a K1 fiance type visa.
Has anybody ever seen a picture of this babe?
I haven't.
Have you?
I don't think they put one out.
I wonder why.
Anyway, uh old Saeed running around having a grand old time collecting pipe bombs and stuff for his garage and his car.
And but he's just a decent guy going to holiday party, gets into an argument here with a messianic Jew.
That could be confusing for those of you in real Linda.
A messianic Jew is a Jewish person who believes Jesus Christ is the Savior.
I think you may think that's contradictory, but what just for the purposes of understanding here, just accept that.
Farid, uh Saeed Farouk, GPS, whatever, got into an argument with.
And apparently the Messianic Jew provoked poor old Saeed.
He was running around minding his own business, and this messianic Jew started talking about Islam and a religion of peace and just set the poor guy off.
He ended up being radicalized by that and by his wife.
And by the way, a soundbite coming up about how Islamic Muslim women are far more radical than the men.
And it's our media saying this.
I thought there was a Republican war on women going on here.
Instead, the drivebys in the Democrat Party are just attacking Islamic women.
So this woman takes this innocent young Saeed Farooq.
As I say, he's minding his own business, going about his day, enjoying the American dream.
He's come back from a couple trips to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
He went to the Hajj in Mecca.
He's done it all, and now he's living his life, and he's loving it and can't.
And then all of a sudden, his co-worker starts talking about religion to him, and they get into his big argument.
His wife starts radicalizing him, and he snaps.
It was radicalized.
Radicalized is another key word for you to understand that allows our government to say this is not terrorism.
It's just a nice guy.
He wasn't bothering anybody.
He was going about his business, living the American dream.
Then he got radicalized.
It doesn't matter who.
Radicalized by a co-worker.
Radicalized by his wife, radicalized by ISIS, whatever.
And he lost it.
Workplace violence.
He couldn't help himself.
It was workplace violence.
He was provoked.
Damn it.
Damn it, the workplace made him do it.
That's what is evolving as we sit here at this moment.
That, all stuff in the garage.
Well, that's just that's part of the, that's part of the radicalization.
That's part of the being radical of it.
The point you have to understand our government's official position.
This is why they have been waiting and waiting, hoping that some circumstance or series of circumstances could be discovered to allow them to construct a scenario whereby this man is not a terrorist.
And this was not terrorism.
Why don't I know?
Well, whether they think we believe it or not, that's why they're doing what they're doing.
The real question is, why are they so afraid of identifying Islamic terrorism for what it is?
Remember, you you might think I'm saying some crazy things.
Don't forget immediately after 9-11, the whole posture of our government was what did we do to make them so mad?
What did we do to cause this?
And the religion of peace line.
And Obama says we can't use the word terrorism.
We can't use the word foreign.
We can't use any of these provocative words that insult them.
Islamic terrorism is a phrase not permitted to be used by the U.S. government.
I mean, it's don't don't doubt me on this, folks.
It's what it is.
And it's a, it's a, I can't explain why.
The logic here escapes me a bit.
I could just speculate.
Fear of billions of Muslims.
Umpathy.
Some other form of identification with Muslims.
I don't know.
The fact that the United States is who's really guilty.
The fact that the United States is responsible for all this that's happening to us, that we sort of brought it on ourselves, maybe even deserve it.
Washington Examiner has a story, report scale of Islamic state recruitment in U.S. unprecedented.
Have you heard, by the way, that one of the places Obama wants to relocate these arriving Syrian refugees is Redlands, California, where Saeed Farouk climate change lived.
That's where Obama wants to put these new Syrian refugees.
And now we have scale of Islamic State recruitment in U.S. unprecedented.
But that doesn't mean we're importing terrorists.
Islam is different than ISIS.
Yeah, they've got Islamic in their name, but they're not.
See, Islam's a religion of peace.
Therefore, ISIS cannot be Islamic.
I don't care what they call themselves.
Our official position is they are not Islamic.
Take a break here, we'll come back and continue after this.
Damn right.
I tell you, I predicted it yesterday.
I predicted three things on this program.
I predicted the media would start to humanize the perpetrators.
Humanize them and make victims out of them.
I predicted yesterday that would cookie, I want you to go find these.
I want you to go find these in the transcripts and actually roll the audio off so I can document these predictions I made yesterday.
I just not remembered this.
I predicted that a possible excuse for Saeed Farouk climate change would be that he was radicalized by his wife.
I predicted that somebody would come blame the woman for it.
And I also predicted that he would that that some people would claim that Saeed Farouk was forced into this because he was so outraged over something that happened at work.
And then people said, well, what could that be?
I said, well, he had to attend a Christmas party.
And you watch, I said the media can easily take that.
I mean, the media and the Democrat Party has led the effort to get Christmas canceled, to get Christmas public eliminated, any public display, prayer, no prayer in public, no prayer before high school ceremonies or football games, basketball games, whatever.
Moments of silence are now under attack by Nancy Pelosi.
Wait till you hear this.
Nancy Pelosi, no right to moments of silence in the House until Republicans take action on guns.
No more is there a right to a moment of silence.
So there has been an attack on prayer.
Now there's an attack on moments of silence.
You remember the attacks on prayer yesterday, the New York Daily News throughout the media.
You remember all the attacks on nativity scenes and anything to do with public displays of Christmas.
So it was easy to predict yesterday that at this holiday party, Christmas party, that Islamic individual, a Muslim, could really feel marginalized and put upon.
I mean, here's a majority of co-workers and they're celebrating something he doesn't believe in.
Christianity and his Christmas tree and all this would be enough to send him over the edge.
And the media would say it's understandable how public displays of Christmas could be seen as offensive and make him feel unsafe and threatened, and then force him to go home and grab one of those 12 pipe bombs and AK-47s and come back with the wife who radicalized him and start shooting up the place.
But I predicted that we would be told that Saeed Farouk was forced into jihad by the anti-Moslim comments from conservatives and from the public display of Christianity and Christmas.
And now we find out that the co-worker with whom he was arguing was a messianic Jew.
And we are told this person did try to persuade poor old Saeed that Islam was a mistake.
I'm telling you, they're going to every length they can, folks, to not call this what you and I know that it is terrorism.
More.
Much more coming up.
Ah, yes, it's uh December 4th, and that means, for all intents and purposes here on the EIB network, it's Christmas time.
And that's because we love it.
And so it doesn't come too soon for us.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program, open line Friday.
Okay, here's how it works, folks.
And I uh I mentioned uh in the first half hour that much of this comes from Andrew McCarthy, who's written extensively about Islam.
He's tried cases against noted figures such as the blind sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, put him away, in fact.
The United States attorney.
So Rudy Giuliani goes on television the day after San Bernardino says, Well, if you can't see this as an act of terror, you're a moron.
And yet, even as we sit here at this very moment, our government still will not call it an act of terror.
They will not even call it terrorism.
They're looking, as I've just previously discussed, for any other number of alternative explanations.
Why?
What's going on here?
Well, it goes like this.
Our government denies that terrorism is caused by Islamic doctrine.
Now that is true, and it is a declarative statement.
It's not arguable.
This administration and even in prior administration, the Bush administration went to great lengths to exempt Islam from terrorism.
They say Islam is a religion of peace, and terrorism is not really Islam.
It's it's a weird way out bastardization of it, but it's not Islam.
McCarthy decided to read the Quran as part of his preparation for trial because he couldn't believe this guy, the blind sheikh, some of the stuff he was saying.
It had to be victory, it had to be wacko extremism, and it wasn't, he found out it was right from the scripture.
That the blind sheikh and all that he was discussing and promoting was right from the book.
But our government refuses to see that and instead claims that terrorism is not part of Islamic doctrine.
Islam, the religion of peace, and any terrorism that happens is not really Islamic or Islamic inspired.
This is called a willful blindness.
It's also political correctness.
Our government is in denial of radical Islam as written unrighteous.
Unwilling to deal with Islam as it is, the government has to make up an Islam of its very own, regardless of the abundance of evidence to the contrary.
The United States government holds that Islam is a religion of peace case closed.
They have made up their own version of Islam to avoid having to deal with the reality of Islam because it's just too daunting, frightening, scary, whatever, and they don't want to deal with it.
Therefore, to the government, terrorism committed by people who happen to be Muslim is not in any way a reflection of legitimate interpretation of Islam.
You might find this hard to believe, but if you if if you're doubting any of this, just go research your own memory.
All the times that we here have heard that Islam's religion of peace, and that uh we can't use the word terrorism to describe it.
And Obama will not use it.
And then remember all the times that this administration actually claims that violence by white right-wing white Christians poses a greater threat, people of this country than Islam.
Islam's a religion of peace.
And anybody conducting terrorism in the name of Islam is a liar and a fraud.
They are bastardizing the religion of peace.
So again, to the government, terrorism committed by people who are Muslim is not a reflection on the legitimate interpretation of Islam, even if Islamic supremacist ideology, which endorses jihad violence.
Islam, standard mainstream Islam endorses jihad violence, but our government doesn't want to admit that or deal with it.
Here in America, as in Western Europe, this is the key to understand.
The violence is deemed anti-Islamic.
Meaning Al-Qaeda, ISIS.
They can't be Islamic.
Islam is the religion of peace.
They are bastardizing it.
They are frauds.
They are calling themselves Islamic.
And they are calling themselves Muslim, but they are not.
Because Islam is as anti-terror as you and I are.
Islam is the religion of peace.
I'm telling you what our government's position is.
The U.S. military position.
The FBI, you name it, this is why they will not call these acts of terror terror.
Because if they have any connection to Islam, it can't be, because Islam is the religion of peace.
And Islam, genuine real Muslims, are as opposed to Al-Qaeda and ISIS as we are.
That is what has been dictated to our law enforcement agents by their superiors.
If those were your instructions, and you have a terror attack and you're out there reporting to the media, trying to answer questions, you'd sound like a babbling buffoon, too.
Because you'd have to come up with ways to violate the very common sense you know is true.
So what are the policy implications of the government and this fantasy Islam?
What are the policy implications of a United States government that believes Islam is as anti-terror as you and I are?
Well, it means that Islamic doctrine can never be cited as the cause of terrorism as a matter of policy.
And it never is.
It never is.
This leads, for example, to what is happening right now, this very day, this preposterous hand-wringing over radicalization.
We are supposed to believe that young people like Saeed Farouk, climate change, who just happens to be Muslim, spontaneously, out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever, he was provoked by a co-worker or radicalized by his wife, all of a sudden became mean and angry, a radicalized terrorist.
But that's not who he really was.
Just a young guy running around living his life, and then something or a series of things happened to radicalize him, as if there were no doctrine, As if there were no body of thought that was inducing the radicalization.
It's so absurd.
I can understand if some of you think that this makes no sense.
It doesn't make any sense.
That's the point, folks.
It doesn't make any sense.
So here you have peaceful blending into the background, cheap, poor little beard people are making fun of, little guy named Sareed Saeed Farouk.
And all of a sudden he comes radical.
Radicalized by what?
Not just by who, but by what?
What radicalized him?
Well, it isn't Islam.
No, because Islam is the religion of peace.
So it must be ISIS.
Yes.
So the news today that this guy was influenced by ISIS is not the administration getting close to calling this terrorism.
This is a classic example of the government taking the occasion to say it isn't.
Because Islam is as opposed to ISIS as you and I are.
Because Islam is the religion of peace.
ISIS is bastardizing Islam.
And if this little guy has been radicalized by his wife or by ISIS or whatever, it's further proof that Muslim slash Islamic terrorism is not at play here.
And it ultimately leads to the decree or the belief that terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda, therefore are not Islamic.
You have to conclude that they're either just bad people.
They're just wanton murderers or they're mentally deranged or they're sick or they've been hijacked or perverted or whatever.
But they have perverted, and they have hijacked Islam.
Because Islam's a religion of peace.
This is, I'm telling you what our government's position is, and it has been since prior to Obama, by the way.
Islam as a religion of peace can have nothing to do with these acts of terror.
So if the cops come upon a mass murder attack that is clearly instigated by Islamic doctrine, they are not permitted to conclude that it is terrorism because they have been directed by their superiors in law enforcement to maintain that Islam is against terrorism.
It's part of the propaganda, that your kids are taught, part of the propaganda the media spreads, that Islam is a religion of peace and is against terrorism, not sponsoring it, not doing it.
Thus the law enforcement agents believe they cannot call terrorism terrorism unless and until they uncover evidence proving that the Muslim mass murderers have some tie to a designated non-Islamic terror group like ISIS or Al-Qaeda.
And bingo!
Bingo, what do we get today?
ISIS, there's an ISIS connection, and once again, none of this has anything to do with Islam.
That's how it works at the highest levels of our government.
Back after this.
Okay, so now the next thing to happen, since this ISIS connection has been magically discovered, now it will slowly be called terrorism.
Slowly but surely you will see law enforcement now acknowledge that it is terrorism, but not Islamic terrorism because there's no such thing.
The Islamic religion is a religion of peace.
The agents investigating now have what they claim is a provable link between the jihadists in San Bernardino and ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
And our government has decreed that ISIS and Al-Qaeda are non-Islamic.
Therefore we can call it terrorism.
I I don't I don't think that's happened yet.
They're very, very cautious about this.
And they need for enough time to go by for people to absorb the fact that ISIS inspired this.
ISIS is not Islam.
ISIS is pure evil, bastardizing Islam.
And therefore, they are indeed terrorists.
But Saeed Farouk was not.
He was radicalized by Islam or his wife.
Here's here, Jake in San Bernardino.
Jake, I'm glad you called.
Great to have you up first today.
Hello, sir.
Hey, how are you doing today?
I'm great.
Thank you.
I'm good.
I'm a student on the campus of Cal State San Martin.
I've been going here for three years now.
And with the shootings that taken place a couple days ago, it's just sickening for me.
Teachers in the liberal left are saying this is still not terrorism.
Are your did you say your professors are saying that?
Yes, sir.
They're still saying it.
And if you add up to all the facts with you know the type of ammunition they use, the type of gun, the planning, the pipe bomb.
How is this still work ra work-related violence?
I mean, it's just a bunch of crap here that they're still saying this.
Well, that that I'm I'm sorry you missed the first hour.
That's that's what I just spent 50 minutes explaining.
But let me give it briefly to you again.
The reason your professors are leftists, leftists support Obama.
Obama is the United States government at the moment.
The official position of the U.S. government is that Islam is a religion of peace and is as anti-terror as you and I are.
And therefore, whatever this guy did is a bastardization of Islam because he was radicalized by say ISIS.
ISIS is the bad actor here now.
ISIS is radicalized him, but but ISIS is anti-Islam.
ISIS is not Islam.
ISIS is a bunch of horrible, rotten, mean people terrorizing, but that's not what Islam is.
But you're soon going to see this now called terrorism since they can link this guy to ISIS.
The effort here and the reason why so much time is going to be nothing has changed from the first moment we heard of this event until now.
The events, the details, all the same.
Nothing's changed.
But now they've got this ISIS link, and so now they will be able to say it's terrorism.
Because in their structure, Islam is not in any way associated with terrorism.
There is no militant Islam.
Islam is a religion of peace.
Al Qaeda, ISIS, their offshoots are bastardizing Islam.
And that's why we worry about a backlash against innocent Muslims who have no relationship to this, no tie to this, and they are just as opposed to it as you and I. That's why we worry about the backlash.
Now, I know that makes no sense to you.
It doesn't make any sense.
It is a fantasy version of Islam that our government created some time ago to avoid having to deal with the reality of Islam.
Now the reasons for that, they're up for grabs.
Is there Islamic uh sensibility, sympathies, is there fear?
There are so many that we don't want to go to war, we don't want to provoke, we don't want to irritate, we don't want I don't have the answer to why the reluctance.
Other than to say it's the left, and the left considers conservatives and republicans to be their number one enemy, not Islam.
Certainly not Islam.
We conservatives and Republicans are greater enemy than even Al-Qaeda or ISIS.
But it's by the way, and this is not just our government, folks, this is the way the Brits look at it.
This is the way the United Nations looks at it.
This is why Israel is isolated in the Middle East.
This call it a fantasy island version of Islam or any other term you want to describe, but it is a manufactured version of Islam that permits the government to exempt Muslims from any association with these acts.
9-11 on, you name it.
I've taken a break.
I'm up against it on time here.
Uh But Jake, you keep a sharp eye because your professors, now that the ISIS link has been made, are going to start calling it terrorism.
They're going to make sure you understand it's not Islamic terrorism because there's no such thing.
Back after this, folks.
Don't go away.
Okay, you still think that I'm wrong about this?
Well, then get this.
Criticism of Islam equals Islamophobia.
And the Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch, has just warned that people will be prosecuted for criticism of Islam, i.e., telling the truth that Islamic terrorism exists.
You can be prosecuted.
You tell the truth about Islam.
▲
Export Selection