All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
July 15, 2016, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Buck Sexton here in Four Rush.
Joined now by John Schindler.
He is a comment for the New York Observer.
You can read his latest at Observer.com.
He's also formerly of the National Security Agency.
This is a CIA to NSA chat, John.
We can call it spies like us.
What's up?
I I'm totally in, brother.
Spies like us.
I'm right here.
So let's talk a bit about of the some of the responses that we've seen and and some of the the debate that's broken out now i in this country in the aftermath of yet another huge uh mass casualty, uh jihadist attack, this one in southern France.
Your piece here says uh uh Hollande uh warns that well or warns what Obama won't.
Islamic terrorism is real.
Tell everybody what you mean by that.
Look, uh France this just suffered the third mass casualty jihadist terrorist attack in eighteen months.
Um as usual, the platitudes are coming out from around the world about this is terrible, this is awful.
Uh France, even on the left, is having a more a more mature debate about this than we are in the United States.
I'm I'm not here to defend President Holland.
He's made a lot of mistakes.
He's a socialist, he'd be on the left wing of our political spectrum, but even he did not mince words in the aftermath of last night's horror and talked about all of France being under the threat of Islamic terrorism, which is so obviously true, you have to jump through great mental hoops to avoid saying it.
Yet President Obama, Hillary Clinton somehow managed to avoid saying the obvious.
And at times like this, that contrast is really stark, where the reality of what the entire West is up against here is so obvious, average citizens get it, but a lot of our political class doesn't.
And in election years we're in now, this I think this makes this a really hot button issue for a lot of Americans.
Yeah, but how how can somebody not look at this uh not look at the way that with Hillary Clinton, we've got a former Secretary of State, you would think somebody who is uh very aware of the scale of this threat, uh of how seriously it has to be taken, of how there have to be uh there has to be a vision.
I mean, people talk about policy, but it really has to be how how can we, over the next twelve months, over the next five years, over the next ten years, how can we start to really defeat this enemy?
And I think that a lot of people who perhaps aren't necessarily overly focused on uh sort of global terrorism or uh as an issue, they they look at the threat to the homeland and they say, Well, how can I trust Hillary Clinton to handle this issue when there seems to be such a hesitation to even speak honestly about the issue?
Right, and I think any American right now should be asking that question.
What what actually is the harm in calling the enemy what he actually is?
Look, the there are multiple layers of jihadist terrorism, okay.
There are things actually ordered by Al Qaeda Central, Islamic State, ISIS Central.
Those are very much the outlier.
What we're having a lot more of is what seems to have happened in Nice of a disaffected, angry, young relatively young Muslim man who very likely, without orders from anyone, decided to mow down more than a hundred people, killing eighty-four of them at least as of the as of this hour.
Um he is reported to have shouted Allah Akbar, as has been the case with previous instances of what I call car jihad in France.
This happened multiple times before.
It's very clear what the motive what his motivation was.
I I think you almost have to be, you know, a Harvard law graduate like Obama not to see what the motivation is.
And I I think people across the Western world are becoming increasingly tired of this sort of institutionalized escapism by our political elites about what's really going on here.
Now we hear after this sort of thing happens from from both sides of the political spectrum, and of course right now, because we're in the midst of a presidential election season, you know, you've got the Twitter accounts from both uh from from both of the party nominees weighing in on this.
Uh you they're calling into different cable news shows.
So it's it's to say that well, we shouldn't politicize this.
It becomes a political issue in this country right away.
There's no there's no way to avoid that right now because it's it's forced on us as as a political issue.
Uh and then we get into the who has a better that people always want to ask this and and then take this in whatever direction uh they choose, but what should be done in response to this, right?
And uh on the on the Clinton side of things, I hear a lot of and I actually wrote about this briefly or tweeted about this yesterday.
I said, look, they're just gonna talk about allies and stronger allegiances and being smart and and these are platitudes.
These aren't strategies, these aren't ideas.
What are some ideas?
What are stra to secure the homeland?
For everybody who's listening right now, how do we stop this from happening in this country again, By the way, is the proper formulation.
Not from happening as we know.
It's happened far too often already.
It it just happened in Orlando last month.
Right.
Look, I mean, first of all, terrorism is by its nature a political act.
So saying we're politicizing discussion of terrorism is saying nothing, really.
Of course we are.
The enemy has politicized this.
As for what we do now, uh ideas that people until recently thought were frankly pretty crazy that you know Trump has said we have to initially said ban Muslim immigration, but stop immigration for a while from regions where terrorism is a big problem suddenly doesn't look very crazy anymore.
And if you poll it with the American people, a lot of the American people think this is something that we at least need to think about.
I'm not saying that's going to stop all this, but look the individual in Nice last night was a 31-year-old man from Tunisia, legally resident in France.
Perhaps that he'd not been legally resident in France, this wouldn't have happened.
Um no one's suggesting shutting the borders is going to end terrorism.
That's not reality.
But screening people who come into the United States for Islamist views, as we once screened people for communist views or affiliations, seems to me a pretty commonsensical place to start.
And why are we not discussing that?
I think there's a tremendous amount of amnesia, uh sort of a collective amnesia and maybe an intentional one with the media on that point.
This notion people will say an ideological test for for immigrant.
We're not U.S. citizens, different conversation, another one that we should have perhaps another time.
But we're talking about immigrants, totally different.
Uh and and there's a longstanding history of of U.S. law that looks, as you point out, for communist, socialist, anarchist uh ties with you know, to either official groups or whether you even you know, if you show up and you sit with an immigration officer and you say, Well, I'm part of this group that kind of wants to overthrow the United States government, that's grounds for saying sorry, you're not allowed to be here next plane out, I guess the time, depending on what we're talking about, it could have been next boat out, but the the the point here is the same.
The media acts with all this breathless indignation.
It seems like they forget or or maybe they just uh like to assume that foreign non U.S. citizens have constitutional rights.
That is not true.
Exactly.
We we i it until the mid nineties, U.S. immigration, well after the Soviet Union fell, the U.S. immigration was asking newcomers, you know, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party or any organization dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. government?
Political Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, is a subversive organization which advocates at least indirectly the overthrowing of our democratic way of life.
Uh why are we not asking about that?
And by the way, what the public doesn't understand is if you're you're coming to our country and you lie about that, you could be subsequently evicted from the country forever because you lied on your immigration forms.
That actually is a deterrent in many cases.
Why are we you know what we we we should be asking about terrorist involvement of any kind, any kind, not just Islamic terrorism.
But why are we not asking about Islamist political organizations as a criteria for whether you should or shouldn't come to the United States.
John, you make it you make a very important point there with once someone's on the record, for example, if if somebody files out or files their immigration forms and and and they're coming through the process legally, and I guess we could have a whole again, another separate conversation about illegal immigration and the the threat of uh of terrorists using that as a means of getting into this country.
Um as we've seen, by the way, well, we we've seen sort of a new version of immigration, legal or not, happening in Europe, and that's directly led to some of the consequences we've seen with these mass casualty attacks.
But in this country here, when somebody files out those uh files those forms, then when s when when they start to say things like, you know, I want to go join ISIS uh or or you know, I I I wish I could wage jihad, the sorts of indicators that people point to with indignation and understandably so after something like Orlando, this gives the authorities more to work with, right?
I mean, it if the policy is if you're you know try if you're ideologically aligned with groups or uh, you know, uh groups that want to overthrow the United States government, we can boot you.
That's right.
And we have done so many times with other groups, whether they be communists, whether they be Nazis, whatever.
There's ample precedent for this.
We are not in reinventing the wheel here.
We just need to put terrorism and political Islam in that same wheelhouse that U.S. immigration has used for many decades.
That's all I'm asking for.
And when people talk about uh greater cooperation with with our allies on this issue, um I I just we we look at countries that have uh pretty skilled, pretty adept intelligence services.
They're catching a fair amount of this.
And one thing that I I didn't hear getting much attention the last twenty-four hours was there's a a rather large ISIS uh uh ISIS cell, including people who had trained in Syria, the French wrapped up, I think it was a year or two ago in southern France.
I mean, th this is they are playing whack-a-mole over there as well as in in other places, uh in other places in Europe, but this notion that if we just do more cooper you know, we don't have any allies that are sitting around saying, we think there's an impending attack in America, but we're not going to tell them about it.
So I just feel like there's this the th this is a political myth of the highest order.
Look, uh intelligence cooperation with our allies on especially on counterterrorism has literally never been better, and it gets better all the time as it has in the fifteen years now almost since nine eleven.
And the French intelligence services are highly competent, they're highly adept, and also, to be fair, after the Bonaclan atrocity last November in Paris, the gloves really have come off.
They have they're under almost a state of emergency, quasi martial law almost, and how the police and intelligence services can operate against terrorism.
The problem here is not lack of information.
There's plenty of information.
Uh we're told already that the individual in Nice was not on the radar of the intelligence services as a suspected extremist, and I and I'm I I see no reason to doubt that so far.
He seems to have been a petty criminal of a kind who was very common.
The reality is there is not an intelligence fix to a problem of the magnitude France is facing now, where you have Salafi jihadism to use its proper term, the ISIS ideology um out there as as an uh as an attraction to really angry, hateful individuals who are otherwise enmeshed in crime and dysfunctional lives.
No intelligence service is good enough to stop every single one of those, and I think that's a painful fact the West needs to wake up to.
And step one needs to be keeping people inclined to this out of our countries in the first place.
How much of this much easier than preventing later.
How much of this, John, uh, in terms of the uh decision making that we can look back on from this administration, uh, whether we're talking about the anti-ISIS campaign in Iraq and Syria or uh sort of just the the rhetoric of this White House about America, both abroad and at home with regard to the fight against uh Islamic extremist terrorism.
How how much of of the uh how much of the mistakes that you've seen would you say is attributable to a lack of political will, to be honest about it here at home.
I I think the weight of that on this issue cumulatively has become enormous over time.
Look, federal law enforcement our intelligence agencies understand perfectly well after almost two terms of Barack Obama where their priorities are, what is on message, what is off message.
They have banned inside our classified areas of our government discussions of jihadism, what I call the J-word or Islamist terrorism, the I word, um, even though again the French Socialist President just talked about Islamic terrorism, we can't even internally in our own government.
Um I I'm not gonna say there's any individual plot that went off because we couldn't confront these things, but the climate has been chilling, to say the least, inside federal law enforcement and our intelligence agencies.
For all the billions of dollars we spend on fighting terrorism, the dishonesty at the core of this administration about what this enemy is, what he represents, what he wants, which is no secret.
They talk about this all the time.
The enemy is perfectly happy to use the terms that we won't use to describe them.
Well I ask only that we call them what they call themselves.
There should not be too much to ask, but apparently it is.
John Schindler is the national secur uh national security columnist for The Observer.
You can read his latest at Observer.com.
My uh intelligence community brother, John, good to have you on.
Thanks for joining us today on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Thank you.
Great to talk to you.
Uh 800-282-2882, Buck Sexton in for Rush.
A lot more coming, stay with me.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
Open line Friday continues on, eight hundred two eight two eight eight two.
Let's take some calls, everybody.
What do we have here?
Debbie in Fredericksburg, Virginia.
What's up, Debbie?
Hey, I just wanted to say um these Republicans who are anybody but Trump, they need to remember that Trump was selected by the people.
And um that said, you know, Trump is he represents a political revolution.
And a lot of people that are offended by him are offended by his his speech, his his manner, um, they think he's sexist, racist, whatever they want to call him.
But the fact of the matter is you're not going to succeed with the political revolution with the church lady polite personality.
This isn't gonna happen.
And so the George Wills and all these people that are taking their choice and going home, um, can keep going as far as I'm concerned.
I'm an independent.
Um I I generally vote Republican on right of center um politically, but I'm a former elected official as well, um on the local level.
And I've seen firsthand how the media um deliberately biases um coverage to influence election.
Um there's a lot of pressure to keep office to stay in office.
There's a lot of pressure to please everyone.
Um I get that, but our elected officials have a responsibility to serve the greater good and do the right thing.
Regardless of their own personal careers.
Unfortunately, a lot of our our politicians are career politicians, they've forgotten what it's like to be in the real world or what the real world's all about.
And um, I think Trump is somebody who's got a long track record of business success.
You look at his family, um, his children are successful, they're intelligent, they're well spoken.
Um that's what I look at when I choose a candidate.
I look at the individual, I look at their individual successes, and for people who are still doubters, all I'll say is Trump's got a big ego, that's true, and I don't think he's gonna let himself fail if he gets elected president.
All right, Debbie, thank you uh for a very eloquent and insightful call.
I appreciate you giving us a ring here on the EIB.
Good to talk to you.
Um a couple things Debbie brought up there.
Uh one of them is you know, with the Never Trump movement, and I say this knowing that some of my very dear friends, both sort of inside of you know, the the chattering classes of punditry and outside, are are never Trump.
Um, and so this has been an issue that I've had to go back and forth with them on for quite a while.
Uh I've always been never Hillary.
I was not I will not pretend to be an early Trump supporter.
Uh I was certainly not.
I openly supported Ted Cruz.
Uh all of that said, there is a difference between in my mind, and yeah, this is a radio show, so if you think I'm wrong, by all means, light it up.
Tell me what you think.
Difference in my mind between saying that as a matter of conscience, I won't cast my vote for Donald Trump and saying, as a matter of conscience, we need to change the rules to override the will of millions of people who voted for Donald Trump, who won fair and square through the system.
That to me that that's just not the same thing.
It's just not.
Uh, you know, i i if you feel like someone's uh playing too rough, you know, on on the sports field, you have the right to not show up to the next game.
That that's you can do that.
But you don't have the right to sort of you know, pay off a ref and say, you're now in, you know, d make it make it go our way.
Uh I don't think that's I don't think that's okay, and I think there's an important distinction to be made there.
I think there's also uh a moment here where we're seeing two sil two things happening simultaneously.
Um one of them is that you have Trump trying to deal with the system with the establishment with the political apparatus in this country, right?
And specifically the Republican political apparatus.
And we could critique him, and I'm sure many people uh have here and elsewhere.
I mean, there's there's plenty of room for for debate and criticism about how he's gone about that.
But you at least get a sense that he's not from within.
He's not from within that sort of beltway uh banded background.
Uh whereas on the other hand, you do have a Clinton candidacy that perhaps more than any other any of us could point to is completely propped up by and supported by the certainly the Democrat establishment, but more broadly by the political establishment overall.
She is the candidate of the elites.
She is the candidate of the big E establishment across the board.
And even though she's actually a really weak political candidate in terms of her own skills on the campaign trail and her abject, preposterous dishonesty, uh, even with all of that, there are people who still just believe that more or less she's business as usual, more or less she's somebody that we can deal with and reason with.
So even if on a on policy we dramatically disagree with her, even if on character and the substance of who she is and her record, we see her for the person that she is.
We'll take her over Trump.
I just don't understand that.
It doesn't make sense to me.
I stand before you openly and honestly, or I guess technically I'm sitting, if we're gonna really be honest.
Uh but holding myself up and telling you that, so we're all on the same page, we know where I'm coming from.
So the establishment has gone for Hillary in a huge way.
Let's see what that will lead to going forward.
800 282 2882, Buck Sexton and for Rush.
Stay with me.
Indeed, Buck Inferrush here on the EIB, 800 282-2882 Open Line Friday continues.
And now we're joined by Kim Strassel.
She is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, and she's the author of a book that's just out, The Intimidation Game, How the Left is Silencing Free Speech.
Great stuff in this book.
Kimberly, thank you for giving us a ring.
It's great to be there, Buck.
So I was just before you came on, just talking about how sh certainly the political establishment is behind Hillary.
We would expect that.
She's the Democrat nominee.
Even Bernie's thrown in the towel.
So it looks like it's going to be Hillary, we all know that.
But there's more than just uh politics at the uh sort of party level that's at play.
You talk in your book about this at some length.
The left is trying to use the apparatus of government itself to push political ideologies.
So give us some examples of this.
What are some of the most egregious instances that you uncovered?
Yeah, so there's two parts about c trying to control speech.
There's when they censor things when they only put out their line, and we've seen that with President Obama refusing to talk about radical Islam or censoring press conferences that they have.
The other side of this is when you see the hard left out there and they are actually training the apparatus of government, uh, targeting it on their opponents and intimidating them and scaring them out of speaking.
So the book runs through uh what really happened at the IRS.
And we know that what happened is that Democrats called on the IRS to go out and target conservatives and Tea Party groups.
Uh, we know the president himself spent two thousand and ten talking about these nonprofits, suggesting that they'd broken the law.
We know from documents and emails that you had a very partisan IRS uh full of bureaucrats like Lois Lerner who wanted to take this action and then this was done deliberately to put conservatives on ice.
We also see this happening even more scary in prosecutors who are abusing their power to go after conservatives and scare and silence them.
We saw that in Wisconsin, where we had several liberal prosecutors go after about thirty groups that had supported Governor Scott Walker's reforms, and in that case there were pre-don raids and secret gag orders and subpoenas and uh the taking of financial information and emails and generally tying these people up in legal defense for years in order to keep them out of the political arena.
Now we also have seen the uh the the email situation with Hillary reach and for m for me at least that I I would I would imagine for you as well, not an unexpected conclusion.
I never thought that the Department of Justice would bring charges.
Um but it seems like i it was even more obvious what some of the uh the thought processes were going into this, given that you had the meeting with Loretta DeLynch on the tarmac between uh Bill and Loretta Lynch, right before the announcement came out.
You had Comey speaking before the DOJ made their official announcement.
You know, it's scary enough that the IRS has engaged in politicized targeting, and as you point out in your book, this is on the record, this is this is a matter of fact.
This is not a matter of opinion.
But I think a lot of people right now in the election season are also getting a sense that oh, even the DOJ itself, perhaps even senior elements of the FBI have allowed themselves to become highly politicized and are favoring one political party and perhaps one political candidate.
I I I can't I couldn't blame people for coming to that conclusion because it's one that I've come to.
Right, absolutely.
And this is why the intimidation game is so scary, because Barack Obama's greatest legacy may well be, or one of his greatest legacies will be the degree to which he politicized the federal bureaucracy, which as you and I and everyone know is enormous these days, and much of it has police powers.
So, yes, what happened with Hillary Clinton?
Highly politicized.
There is no question that if she had held been held even minimally to the same standards of other uh federal employees who'd been caught handling information this way that she would be indicted at this very moment.
The fact that she wasn't was entirely due to politics.
But we see this same politicization in the Securities and the Exchange Commission, which has been pursuing regulations that would make it harder for corporations to engage in politics.
We see it at the Federal Election Commission where there is a highly politicized staff that has been targeting conservative organizations going out of its way to attempt to put them out of action while giving a pass to uh liberal organizations that do the same thing.
We see it at the FCC.
We see it uh at the EPA and it's selective enforcement of actions against groups that it doesn't like.
So this is a very scary thing and it's why everyone does need to understand what's going on.
This is also coordinated.
It's a tactic, it's well honed, it's replicated again and again often by the same politicians.
It's now a political strategy by the left that we all need to be aware of.
It seems like there is uh a reality that is setting in now in the minds of of pretty much everybody who's paying attention and honest about it that there is clearly a an apparatus of government, a sort of fourth branch of the government that is the bureaucracy that is self propagating,
self-sustaining and self-interested and that it will do things in order to achieve those goals, but also that it leans left and that I I can't think of anything from any of these organizations that you've you've cited here where you've pointed out in your book, The Intimidation Game.
I can't think of of an equivalent situation on the right and if I did see it it would make me angry.
I think that's part of what needs to be kept in mind.
If I did see it I would I would shout it down and I would want there to be accountability.
It feels like the government apparatus, the federal bureaucracy is leaning left and is actually trying to help certain candidates win office.
Yes, you have to think about who goes in to government service and often they do lean left.
We've had surveys that show that that is obviously the case in terms of the voting records of many who work for the federal government.
They have enormous amounts of power because the size of government has grown so much, also because the authorities that we have given agencies have grown so much.
Also because there is no accountability we saw that nothing has ever happened to Lois Lerner despite damning evidence that's just out there about what she did and how she deliberately went out and got these groups and for partisan reasons.
So there's no accountability and there's no transparency.
You mentioned Hillary Clinton's email server.
Government has become incredibly adept, especially the Obama administration, at hiding the actions of everything they do.
So we have these laws like the FOIA laws and others that are meant to give us information but often we're just stonewalled, even congressional investigators are stonewalled.
And so there's no way of rooting out what's been done, no way of holding them accountable and when the bureaucracy sees that they have that much license, it's then a green light to them to go after their political enemies, to take uh risks and do things that they warm normally would not do.
Kimberly what can be done maybe to before I take us too deep into the depths of despair here, what could be done if not to fix this problem that you address in the intimidation game, what could be done to start to sort of turn the curve in the other direction, to begin to improve the situation if anything.
I mean if this is just a sort of a Clarin call and a warning that's that's worthy too.
But is there anything that we can do to fix this?
Well again I think the most important thing is to understand uh and I lay it out in the book to understand what's actually happening and and to understand that these events that you see out there, the prosecutorial abuse, the IRS attacks, the attacks on people who give money in ballot initiatives, the attacks on uh companies and free market groups, these are not random but this is all part of a strategy uh and tactics that are used again by the same group of people.
It is a political philosophy and movement.
So you have to know how it works.
So that when it then happens to a group that you're in or an organization you care about or a company that you work for that you can call it out.
Because one thing that does come out in the book is that usually when the bullies, the intimidators, the abusers are called out they back down because there is still a huge public sentiment in defense of political engagement and political speech.
So that often helps.
I think we need to rethink transparency laws, too, because they're being used for bad purposes by when in particular when people are using them to get the names of contributors to different organizations and causes.
They then put them on target lists and go after and get them.
We should keep transparency focused on the government.
And I think we need to hold our politicians more account to those and support those that actually openly say they believe in constitutional protections.
and in reigning in the size and scope and power of the federal bureaucracy.
Kimberly Strassel is a Wall Street Journal columnist and author of the intimidation game how the left is silencing free speech available in bookstores than on Amazon.
Kimberly thank you so much for calling.
Thank you for having me Buck.
800 two eight two two eight eight two Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
We're having a lot of fun that in the EIB.
But we're gonna have more stay with me.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush today on the EIB.
Open line Friday continues on eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two before we get to calls and we're about to take a bunch of them.
So if you're on hold, stay with me want to just make sure you know that if you've missed any of Rush's show this past week it's easy to catch up on them.
All you have to do is join the member side of his website Rush twenty four seven at rush limbaugh.com.
A membership means that you can access archives and podcasts of the last thirty days of the program.
Plus you get the ditto cam, which is awesome and a free never Hillary bumper sticker.
I've got one I've got it on my bookcase as a warning to visitors never Hillary.
Let's take some calls.
Maggie in Ohio you're on the Rush Limbaugh show you are speaking to Buck.
Hi Buck um thanks for taking my call.
I wanted to go back earlier you were uh playing back uh episode where you're on CNN and they were arguing with you giving you the third degree about how you were saying uh terrorism is coming here.
I I said I said ISIS is coming after us and someone took objection to the usage of us.
Right.
Well um the argument to that and I think it's noteworthy to remember that they were arguing that um they Muslims are killing the Muslims you know especially over there in Europe and Middle East but it's noteworthy to remember that um back in India this um resort hotel or is this a hotel I suppose the Mumbai attacks in two thousand and eight they were all over the city of Mumbai including at a major a major hotel frequented by Westerners.
Yeah.
And remember remember they were going through and asking um sorting out the Muslims from the non Muslims.
This has been true in many cases.
It was true at the Kenya Westgate Mall attack.
It was true in the most recent attack in Dhaka, Bangladesh where uh they were trying to separate out Muslims from non Muslims.
Sometimes the way they do it is they ask uh you to recite a Quranic verse and if you can't then you're executed on the on site.
But this is this has happened in many large scale terrorist attacks, yes.
Right.
So that kind of blows their theory out of the water that it's mostly you know it's it's it doesn't matter if if you're not a the Muslim that believes in the the kind of uh for lack of a better phrase Muslimism as they they believe in you're a goner and if you're Christian or you know even an atheist or they don't care.
If you believe the way they do exactly the radical part.
I I think I know where you're going, Maggie let me let me just try to add a a little context but I I think I have an understanding of where you're trying to take this.
So uh first y i if you're looking at aggregate numbers, uh people who fall under the broad umbrella of jihadism uh kill more Muslims by a large factor than they do non-Muslims.
Now that's largely because of well when you look at where the biggest conflicts are occurring right now between jihadists and others where they're trying to either establish a larger Islamic state in Iraq and Syria or other countries where they're trying to overthrow what they believe to be apostate regimes.
There's a a whole uh process there's really a a doctrine of takfir which means that a Muslim uh jihadist will say that another Muslim is no longer a Muslim and therefore can be killed.
So this is how they get around the uh prohibition that is uh a general prohibition in Islam of killing fellow Muslims.
Um but as to your point about killing us, I mean I I just or or or picking people out for execution, uh they clearly have a a uh depending on the group we're talking about and where they are, they they target specifically uh Western interests, they target Americans.
Uh those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan know the rhetoric is always against crusaders and Jews.
By that they mean uh people from the West, Europeans, North Americans, uh South Americans, anybody who's sort of from what's broadly considered to be the the Christian uh Western Christian world.
Um and that's a very real part of their uh rhetoric as well.
But the the most important thing I think to keep in mind is that jihadists are at war with everyone else.
And so that's essential for the understanding of what us uh us is in this context.
Um and you even have people that will show that it's a small minority uh percentage-wise of the Muslim world that's, for example, supportive of ISIS.
I just saw some stats today on this.
But even a small percentage of 1.6 billion people is tens of millions of people who are at least supportive of ISIS ideologically.
So it's incumbent upon us to make sure that we have a unite we, everybody who is not a jihadist, who is not a a radical uh Islamist is not somebody who is uh trying to promote, espouse, support violence in the name of Islam, uh that we all stand united against those who do.
And that's why I I think the notion of us and who comprises that us in this fight against global jihadism is so essential.
I I hope that's a uh a fair uh fair response and a fair sort of context to add to your your statements, Maggie.
I do appreciate you calling in.
Thank you very much.
Um I do I yeah, we go.
We have one more we've got loads of time.
It's rocking and rolling.
You know, it's like when the bartender says we're done, I'm like, you're not done.
Come on.
There's just put another put another, yeah.
Put another uh Patron Silver on that table, sir.
Let's take uh Maria in Arkansas.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh show, you're speaking of Buck, Maria.
Thank you for taking my call, Buck.
And what I don't understand is nobody is talking about the consent of the governed.
Because that is a very important sentence in the Declaration of Independence.
And I believe that's what got Trump where he's at, and Paul Ryan better put Obama and Hillary Leavenburg before he shoots Trump.
Maria, do you have parakeets?
I thought I heard a parakeet in the background.
No, I'm outside and I have birds.
Oh, birds, okay.
I was gonna say uh I I thought it hurts the pet parakeets.
Come on.
Why do you guys even Trump why doesn't he call it consent of the governed?
It's not populism.
It's called consent of the governed.
Okay.
Of course, Paul Ryan wouldn't know anything about it.
He doesn't have it.
Republicans do not have it.
Ten percent of approval rating for Congress is not the consent of the governed.
Yeah, consent of the governed.
I get it.
I get it.
Thank you, Maria.
Thank you.
I no, I appreciate I appreciate the sentiment.
It's just the the repetition of the consent of the gu.
Yes, yes.
We need consent of we need the consent of the governed.
I'm j I'm jumping to conclusions.
I'm microaggression against sparrows or whatever was making those noises.
The obviously it was not parakeets.
Um but uh yes, the consent of the government is very important.
I'm not by no means I don't discount that.
It's very uh it's I don't I don't know what Mr. Snurdley is saying I'm even lay I even laughing, Mr. Snerdley.
I'm not laughing.
He's talking he's talking nonsense.
He's talking nonsense over there.
Okay, this is Buck.
We're gonna go into a break.
We're gonna be back in a few.
Buck sexon here in for Rush.
Uh always fun on open line Fridays, always fun to be with you in any context on the EIB.
Uh 800-282-2882.
We've got some calls.
We will be taking them.
Uh come on up here in the next hour.
So if you're on hold, stay with us.
And if you want, there's still a slot or two you can give us a ring.
Uh we're gonna be talking about the DNC speakers list, which has been finalized.
Ooh.
And maybe we'll go back and forth a little bit on your thoughts on Mike Pence.
Haven't really heard too many people weigh in on that one.
I mean, I wonder I feel like the the analysis about how VP sh you know, people don't get that excited about it either way.
Uh, but if you have thoughts on whether Pence was a good choice or not for Trump, or if you have thoughts on whether the uh I was about to say the the the Trump never Trump movement is over and done with, I would like to hear 'em.
And I'm sure the rest of the audience audience would too.
And uh we've got some other stories we're gonna get to.
▲
Export Selection