All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:19
July 15, 2016, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Indeed, the buck is back for our three today on the EIB Open Line Friday.
It is, my friends, 800-282-2882.
Light them up, please.
Let's chat.
So there's some new stuff out about the DNC.
We've been talking about the RNC and the Never Trump movement.
I haven't heard a lot of calls about whether Never Trump will be around, will continue to be a movement at the convention.
I don't know.
I thought there'd be a little more.
I got a lot of heat on social media for talking about it.
That's okay.
But I want to know what people think about it.
So by all means, let's hear it.
Give me your ring.
But what about the DNC?
Ooh, it's going to be in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia, lovely town.
I will say all Philadelphia natives that I know have told me that if you are relying on the two famous cheesesteak places there to give you your sense of Philadelphia's most famous food, not really, yeah, with the whiz, you know, they have the cheese whiz.
No, no, disappoint.
You know, you go down, you go down to the south, you go to Texas, and people talk about their barbecue like it's sort of a sacred thing.
And you're like, I mean, come on, guys.
How good can your brisket really be?
Oh, we use more sauce.
No, we use more vinegar.
No, oh, it's that good.
It lives up to the hype.
You go to Philadelphia and you go to have a cheesesteak and you at least go to the really famous places and they're like, do you want some whiz on that?
And you're like, isn't that cheese out of a can?
I don't know.
I'm not sure.
I'm just, I'm just laying it down.
I'm just keeping it real.
It's just not the greatest of the, not the greatest of the sort of regional foods that gets a lot of attention.
You know, I'll be down in Dallas next week.
Texas barbecue is excellent.
I got to have a better cheesesteak is all I can tell you.
So I may perhaps need to spend more time in Philly.
Love you, Philly people.
I'm just saying.
Pat's Ginos were not, did not, I forget which one I went to, to be honest with you, but I went to one of them and I was like, really?
All the hype.
Okay.
Let's get into some more worthy political topics.
So first of all, we'll sort of slow roll into the political topics with the star-studded guest list that they have for the DNC.
They've got Lady Gaga, Demi Lovato, unfamiliar with Miss Lovato.
Is this somebody that I'm supposed to know who this is?
This is now I'm sounding like I'm out of touch.
I'm a Graybeard millennial, but I'm at the upper end of the great of the millennial spectrum, so we call it a graybeard, but technically I'm still kind of a youngin', I think.
I don't know who Demi Lovato is.
Lenny Kravitz, I do remember.
I'm not sure that many other people particularly do.
It's been a while.
Oh, is that cold?
Okay, well.
He had like two good songs.
I mean, maybe three-ish, but there were two that were very good.
But of course, look, any Democrat listening, anyone out there would say, you really don't want to get into a sort of, you know, who's got more celebrities match.
We're talking about Democrats versus Republicans, DNC versus RNC.
I concede.
I concede.
And those brave souls who are celebrities, particularly of the Hollywood variety, I mean, if you're like a Nashville country singer, we love you, but it's not quite the same degree of opprobrium you might face from your colleagues in the business as out in Hollywood.
Those conservatives out there who've got our back, we appreciate that.
And we hope that you are not blacklisted out in Hollywood for your willingness to speak out as a famous person in the creative and entertainment side of the media business.
All right.
So you also have Breaking Bad, Brian Cranson, Lady.
I said Lady Gaga.
She's a fellow New Yorker, actually.
Interesting.
And Lenny Kravitz, also, I think, a New Yorker.
I think he's from Brooklyn, yeah?
Yeah, I think Lenny's from Brooklyn.
Anyway, I'm from New York, so total side note, non-sequitur what we're talking about here.
So that's what's going on on the sort of celebrity side of things.
I do remember being in D.C. when Obama won back in, what was it, 2009?
And there were a lot of big parties with a lot of famous people.
That happened.
So you can, maybe it means that you're going to have to sort of smoke them if you got them and the end of the Republic is upon us if Hillary wins.
You may think that the country is finishing its radical transformation, but there will be some big parties with some really fancy, famous people.
So we got that going for us, which is nice.
They also have the speakers.
Sorry, those are all people who will be speaking and or perform.
I assume performing, although we all know that they're not just going to sing, right?
They're going to get up there, political statements.
I'm so brave.
Let me yell something to a crowded room full of people, all of whom will agree with me and cheer.
Maybe some of whom will cry because I'm such a hero.
I'm so brave.
I just do it all for my art.
I just love it.
Whatever.
So you've got some other heavy hitters from the Democratic Party.
And look, I've been a very strident critic of the Obama administration's policies and in many cases of President Obama himself.
But I think you got to give credit where it's due, especially when you see Obama out there on the campaign trail and then Hillary on the campaign trail.
You're like, this is sort of a, for lack of a better way to put it, varsity and JV situation.
And Obama's the varsity when it comes to giving speeches and stuff.
I mean, Hillary, it's just, I'm going to yell into the microphone.
It's so harsh and there's like a brutalizing of the auditory canal.
It's just not good.
And there's nothing she can really do about it.
It's just, she's not charismatic.
She's not as good on the campaign trail.
So while having Obama speak, certainly for Democrats and even for some, let's be honest here, everybody, even for a fair amount of independence, Obama speaking is going to be effective under the circumstances and for his audience.
He is effective at giving speeches.
Hillary is still, and as staged managed as she is, and as much as they have gone overboard trying to find ways, you still hear people say, like, the real Hillary is going to emerge any day now.
And I'm like, I mean, it's been 30 years since she drove a car, pumped her own gas.
Like, I don't really think there's any more real Hillary that's going to come out and all of a sudden show us how connected she is to the common folk.
I mean, she'll hang with you, common people.
She got like about 50 grand for 15 minutes of her time.
I mean, if we break down the speaking fees, it's just, you know, if you got a paper bag full of, maybe you've got some cousins in the Russian uranium business.
You know what I'm saying?
You make a call.
Talk to somebody on your behalf about that.
You just got to have the cash.
You've got to have the cash if you want some time with Hillary.
So Michelle Obama will also speak, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders.
He's going to get in there.
You know, I think that Bernie's transition here into Hillary supporter, we all knew it was going to happen.
We all knew it was going to happen.
I was hearing for quite a while about how, oh, the Bernie supporters are going to walk.
Maybe the only thing that I could see happening, and I don't think it'll be a very large contingent, but I don't know.
I don't think any of us really know.
I also, as a side note here, think that any polls, first of all, there's a few things we got to get out there.
Any polls you see right now in a week won't matter.
Remember two weeks ago when Hillary was like winning in every poll and oh, it's all over for Trump.
And now he's actually beating her at a bunch of key swing states.
And you're going to see all the horse race stuff, all the provisos and prefacing applies to it's too early and everything else.
But I think it's very hard to get a sense of who will vote for Trump and who won't because, one, I'm not sure they're really necessarily polling the right people.
I don't know if all of the old paradigms about who's going to vote still apply.
And I'm hearing people now say, oh, Trump was winning all throughout the primary.
No, he wasn't actually.
It was like a Nate Silver, New York Times statistician, predictor, 538 blog.
You know, they crunched the numbers.
He said Trump had a 5% chance of winning the primary at the beginning.
5%?
I mean, if I told you you had a 5% chance of, you know, a 5% chance of something terrible happening to you tomorrow, you'd probably sleep okay.
You know, 5%?
That's not that big a deal.
But so they got the numbers wrong on that.
The number that I don't think anybody can predict, and I know I'm sort of bouncing around here, this is what happens in hour three.
Things just get wild.
Plus, we've got Open Line Friday.
Plus, we've got calls.
It's going to be crazy.
It's wild in here.
Will Bernie supporters go over and join Trump?
Some of them.
Enough of them, perhaps, in some Rust Belt states that it will make any difference.
I know a lot of people say, no way, Buck, no how, no chance.
I don't think a majority, I don't even think a large as a percentage group of people who still to this day feel the burn.
I don't think that's necessarily going to happen, but could it be enough that it matters in a state like, well, what's going to be in play?
Who knows?
Wisconsin, enough that it matters in Ohio, enough that it matters in, you know, name a place where at least there's some reason to believe it could be contested, right?
It's purple or purple-ish.
I don't know.
We'll see.
A lot of people disaffected at the political system.
And I mean, I think of Hillary as a sort of walking, talking advertisement for all of the problems, and dare I say evils, of the establishment such as they are, right?
It's a person who's deeply entitled, who actually is above the law.
Isn't that kind of painful to say?
She is above the law.
We all want to tell ourselves she thinks she's above the law, but no, what we saw with the emails is she actually kind of is too important for the Democrats, too powerful even for our own Department of Justice to make the right decision.
That's a sobering thought, isn't it?
You know, we often look at other countries and how their elections are going.
We're like, isn't that ridiculous?
Look at that guy out in wherever.
It's getting 97% of the popular vote.
Preposterous.
Look at how we do things in this country.
I mean, yeah, we're better than that.
We don't have a one-party state where there's 90% of the vote going to the one candidate who's been running for the last 30 years.
But we do have a court system and enforcers of the law who have huge political influences on them.
Make them change their version of what the law should be.
And I would think that's a big no-no.
That's bad.
Makes me very uncomfortable.
So Bernie said, so Bernie's going to speak.
Obviously, we knew that would be the case.
He's going to be speaking there.
Elizabeth Warren will be speaking as well.
She's the less affable of the two socialists that are currently on the Democrat scene.
I think that's fair to say.
She also is more effective than Hillary, but obviously not quite as willing to throw out previous positions and play the centrist card now.
I mean, you're going to see this massive shift.
I mean, if you remember, Hillary during the primary, it was all, you know, open borders.
Yeah, free college.
Why not?
Let's go for it.
Let's just throw more money at the problem.
$20 trillion in debt, chump change.
We got that in the couch cushions, my man.
Now you're going to see Hillary, the strong, determined, look at my resume, gold-plated resume.
And I'm the one that will get things done, the sort of America's CEO candidate.
Although the only company she's ever run is Clinton Inc.
And the way that company made its money was by selling influence.
Oh, well, but Bernie's going to be out there.
Hopefully, he's going to give a rousing speech where he gets into how much all that stuff he said about Hillary being deeply untrustworthy and in the pocket of Wall Street.
I have to say, the Trump treat, a Trump tweet where he said that Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs.
I mean, that is manifique.
Marvieux.
Barfait.
It was good stuff.
My compliments to the chef on that one.
I thoroughly enjoyed it.
So, yeah, I don't think Bernie's going to get up there and be like, I mean, I've thrown out all my previous positions.
Everything I said about her is a lie.
Lia liar, pantsuit on fire.
What can I do?
I mean, I'm up here.
I got to talk about it.
You know, so she's, you know, it was all a joke.
Yeah.
The revolution will be televised apparently with Hillary as the head of it.
Yeah, that's not going to work.
So I don't know what he's really going to do.
He's going to get his enthusiastic supporters even more enthusiastic.
And we'll talk a bit about where that's all going in just a second.
Buck Sexton here, Infor Rush, 800-282-2882.
Back in a few.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush today on the EIB.
Open Line Friday continues on 800-282-2882.
Just real quick, I want to just throw out there that there's, I saw this on the bottom of MSNBC for a second.
They had Homeland Security Secretary.
This is a quote, concerned about the possibility of violence in Cleveland.
I like that this is sort of left open-ended.
Like, who's as though there's going to be crazy protests and people throwing Molotov cocktails who are supporters of like tax reform and want to have a discussion about the debt and deficit?
And yeah, that's who's going to be acting up and getting crazy at the RNC.
And you'll notice, by the way, that the same leftist loonies, whether we're talking about, oh, you know, a bunch of campus socialists or La Raza activists or Black Lives Matter, whatever the group may be.
And I don't know.
There's going to be a lot of them.
I walked through a Black Lives Matter protest last week and there was a guy holding up an anarchist flag because that'll solve police problems, I guess.
Whatever you may see, the RNC, keep in mind, there'll be some version of that probably appearing at the DNC.
So there's violence at the Republican convention.
There's violence at the Democrat Convention.
Most likely situation is that it's going to be roughly the same groups at both, if that is to happen.
Hopefully it does not.
I'm going to say violence, even just unruly and disorderly behavior, which is not the way things should work in this republic, sir.
All right.
I said I'd take calls.
We should, because it was Open Line Friday.
Mike in Minnesota, what is up, sir?
Hi, Buck Sexton, Mike Saxton here in Minneapolis.
Sexton to Saxton.
I like it.
I believe because of everything that we've been seeing happening in our world, we have a very unique opportunity, individually and collectively, to examine our hearts and to determine that it's not about race.
It's not about nationality.
It's not about religious beliefs.
It's not about a wall.
It's not about political policies.
But our real issue, our central issue, is in every group, there are people who walk among us who would do us harm.
And we as a society do nothing about it.
We can identify those people.
And if we have the courage, report them, and the authorities will do nothing about it.
Most of us don't even have the courage to report these people.
But whenever one of these activities happens, there's always somebody who knew, always somebody who probably could have said something.
But we as a society are so politically correct, we won't act.
And I believe it's a very small percentage, and I think that small percentage has an ability to sometimes incite other good people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do.
But I think we really have a problem with that small percentage, and we, I think, as a world, have to find a way to be able to identify these people, help them.
And there are different degrees.
There are people who need counseling.
There are people who need elimination, who need to be removed.
We're talking about jihadists, right?
I haven't heard you say anything.
You're sort of talking about bad people.
I mean, there's a lot of bad people of all kinds all over the place, but we're specifically I feel like you're sort of not giving me what the center core issue here is, which is that there are people who believe in violent jihad, right?
Or you're just talking about, in general, we need to be more open or more aware of bad people who do violent things.
We're talking about jihadism, right?
Well, we're talking about bad people in general, and I'm talking about the people.
That's a little broad for our purposes, isn't it?
Well, let's talk about jihadists then.
Obviously, the jihadists' beliefs are to eliminate us from the face of the earth.
Yes.
That belief.
Or enslave us.
They'll take either one, but is not normal.
They are mentally ill.
No, no.
It's not mental illness.
It's a belief, and it's one that's been around, by the way, for a long time.
It's just we live in a world where a minority and even a single individual can inflict massive damage and get global coverage for it.
How do we define mental illness, however?
Is it somebody who acts outside of the norm?
And the norm isn't to hurt the people.
Well, I could tell you that what a jihadist would say is that what you think is the norm is not the norm and that they're acting rationally from their perspective, from their worldview.
And while you and I would sit there and say, okay, so they're a bunch of sadistic raping, murdering maniacs, they would say, well, we have a righteous, in fact, we have a celestial designation for our cause, that this is a battle that is being fought for the future, not just of power in the world, but for the life everlasting afterwards.
I mean, they think it's going to paradise.
But whose view is universal and whose view is limited?
I think if you were to be able to canvass the entire world, the worldview would be anybody who would do harm to another human being, particularly killing people.
Mike, without any disrespect, we actually got to go because we're out of time here.
But we're getting a little sort of philosophy 101.
We'll be back with other stuff soon.
Indeed, Buck is back with you now.
And phone lines are open.
800-282-2882.
Open line Friday.
We're rocking and rolling.
Is it really already halfway through the third hour?
Time flies when you're rocking out on the EIB.
I just realized from now on, whenever I get a call, and if I don't have a perfect answer and running out of time, I just have the one liner.
I've got the mic drop.
It's about the consent of the government.
I'm sorry, guys.
Let's just let it go.
It is indeed about the consent of the government.
I've never lost.
I don't think we've ever lost it on radio before.
This might be your first time.
The consent!
Anyway, I'm sorry.
All right.
It is about the consent of the government.
It is.
800-282-2882.
We will take some calls.
I will also collect myself here for a second, and I will say to you all that there is a little bit of breaking news.
This is kind of a hard turn, so you have to apologize.
Let me apologize for that for a second here.
Prior to, I'm sorry, the 28 pages from the 9-11 Commission report that had been kept classified out of public view for a long time.
They have just been released.
I think it was the House Select, oh, no, they're now in the possession of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and there are some redactions still, but the information is now out there.
And look, this happened while we're on air here, so I haven't had the chance to, as much as I would like to tell you, I could read 28 pages of this in one commercial break.
I will be looking at it, sort of picking up what I can from some of the national security reporters and analysts out there.
We've got Jim Shudo over at CNN with some quotes from the piece here, the 28 on the 28 pages.
Quote, while in the U.S., some of the 9-11 hijackers were in contact with and received support from individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government, end quote.
So those of us who have had that concern all along, well, now we know that that was at least reflected in some capacity in the report.
Again, I have to go through this in some detail.
And then also this tweet, quote, prior to 9-11, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative resources on Saudi nationals in the U.S. due to Saudi Arabia's status as an American ally.
End quote.
Ooh, that's both from Jim Shudo's official Twitter account.
He's a chief national security correspondent over at CNN.
Good guy.
Wow.
This was what was said all along, that there were concerns that on the one side of it, there's some belief that there was a connection with, remember, it's a different thing to say that the Saudi government as sort of an official policy, even if it was sort of a covert one or one that's not out there, but that the Saudi intelligence agencies were in any way involved in 9-11.
That's not what the claim has been.
The claim, as I understand it, and well, as I've heard it from very senior former Intel officers and government officials, is that there were some people who were in the Saudi government or directly tied to the Saudi government who may have provided some assistance.
And there's at least reason to support that, what was speculation.
There's reason to believe that that wasn't just coming out of nowhere based on the 28 pages which have been released.
You know, you also have to wonder if there's no bombshell bit of evidence in the 28 pages, and parts of it are still redacted.
Keep that in mind.
They'll say for sources and methods, they'll say it's about proper classification.
But if that's the case, why couldn't we know about this over a decade ago?
Why do we have to wait on this one?
Why did they hold this back for so long?
I just wonder what the explanation of that would be.
And I'm curious to know if we will get it from the government side of things.
And then there's also this other aspect.
So that's on the sort of Saudi involvement, complicity, tacit consent, whatever, however you want us to rephrase it.
It looks like there was at least reason to believe, and they won't give us the sources and methods from what I understand on this.
So you have to just base it.
There's some level of inference that you're going to have to make here.
Somebody connected to somebody in the Saudi government should have known, would have known, did know, you tell me what was going on here.
And when you have 15 of the 19 hijackers who are Saudi citizens, that should be something that every American remembers and doesn't forget because, wow, that is a factoid that I think should never get lost in this debate and this discussion as we talk about Saudi Arabia as an ally in the war on terror.
It's one thing to say the Saudi government is an ally.
It's another thing to say the Saudi people overall are with us on this.
But what about that minority in Saudi Arabia that may even stretch into their officially sanctioned imams, which they're essentially state preachers, right?
They're really employees.
I mean, imagine if instead of just relying on Lois Lerner to not come after you for your Tea Party group's tax returns, you also had to sit on Sunday and listen to her tell you about how to achieve everlasting life.
I think it would be a weird state of affairs, to put it mildly, if you had government employees who were the ones telling you how you can get into heaven, how you can get into paradise.
So that's the situation in Saudi Arabia on the religious side.
And then you get into the government side of it.
And if there was anybody in that government who knew anything or should have known anything, we should know that.
And there should be some sense of accountability.
And then we get to the FBI side of this.
And you always have to be mindful of not doing the sort of Monday morning quarterbacking thing where you say, well, the FBI, all these dots.
It's a lot easier to connect dots when you know what the end result's going to look like.
The whole point is you've got to connect them as you go, not knowing what the final picture will be.
So to go in reverse, okay, there were things that were missed.
There were certainly some.
I think it's clear based on the 9-11 Commission report that was already released that there were lapses here.
I mean, it's a massive intelligence failure, no question.
But even specifically within FBI, there are people who have made a very compelling case that this should have been uncovered before the terrorist mass murder and catastrophe of the September 11th attack, 2001.
But that Saudi Arabia's special status as an ally might in any way have limited our federal agencies and our intelligence services' ability to look into possible leads is something we also need to know about.
If the situation was, and look, I wasn't in the FBI at the time.
I was still in college.
I mean, I've never been in the FBI.
I'm just saying, I wasn't inside.
I don't know.
But if the situation was such that people were worried that they would come under assault from the inside, from their superiors, from the top of the bureaucratic food chain at FBI or elsewhere, if they spoke up, because you can't upset the Saudis.
And look, Saudis have a lot of influence in this country.
There's some very prominent Saudi investors in universities and elsewhere.
I mean, you know, the Saudis have both political sway as well as other means of making their displeasure known.
And if that stretched all the way down into the federal bureaucracies in this country and had a chilling effect, we should know that.
We look now at what happened with the Fort Hood terrorist attack, where there were members of the United States military who, in retrospect, of course, you're like, how could you not have said something?
This guy was talking about, he was doing PowerPoints where he was praising suicide bombing and talking about jihad in front of other people in the military.
Well, once you've been inside some of these bureaucracies, and I've never been on the military side, but I have been in the CIA side of things and worked with many of the partner agencies with the CIA, you understand that career suicide is a very real thing, and there are all kinds of pressures.
Now, of course, in retrospect, anybody would speak up, but it wasn't in retrospect that they were afraid that there was a chilling effect whereby if they said, you know, this guy Nadal Hassan, he's saying some pretty whacked out stuff that is a real threat, I think.
You could have been called Islamophobic and a racist, and that would be the end of your career.
That's a very real consideration.
And it's one that costs lives.
If there was anything like that going on inside the FBI or anywhere else because of a possible Saudi connection to anything with the 9-11 hijacking, we also have an absolute obligation to be truthful and honest about that in this country and to know it.
We have to know it in the first place.
So the 28 pages are out.
I will be reading them in full.
But in the meantime, I'm just looking to see what excerpts, key excerpts, analysts are pulling out.
And I'll stay on this.
800-282-2882, Buck Sexton and for Rush.
Stay with me.
Why doesn't he call it consent of the governed?
Guys, you can't do that, right?
This is now, I think we should, I'm going to do a bumper sticker.
This is going to be my answer to anything.
Anytime I'm stumped, you know, someone's like, well, what do you think about subsection 42C of this bill, Buck?
I'll be like, that's right.
It's about the consent of the governed.
Look, to the caller, it was all like, you have a great point, and we love you for calling in, and thank you for that.
It was just.
Okay.
Oh, breathe, Buck, breathe.
EIB.
Let's get back into it.
It is about the consent of the government.
This is a true statement.
This is a truism.
All right, let's take Tim in Detroit, Michigan.
Tim, you're speaking to Buck.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Do we have Tim?
I can't hear Tim.
Yes, sir.
Tim, you're on.
What's up?
All right, good.
I'm a truck driver here in Detroit.
I hope they don't take our trucks away after what happened.
Horrible tragedy out in Paris.
But there are a couple of things I would do to combat terrorism bucket.
One would be start profiling.
Number two, I would we have a lot of great Muslims living in this country that love our country, that serve in the military.
Absolutely.
We're going to attempt to infiltrate the mosques and the evil people that want to do us harm, not only here, but over there.
And then we just need to attack these people.
Send 50,000 troops over there.
What do we got?
65 countries?
65-country coalition?
And we're fighting 25,000 people.
Come on.
This is ridiculous.
Buck, you've been out of the business for a while.
I'd like to know what you would do.
Okay.
Well, first of all, I totally agree wholeheartedly with your point.
And it does bear repeating that there are patriotic and fantastic American Muslims who serve in the armed forces and who, I mean, and I have, look, I've entrusted my life to Muslims overseas, allies overseas.
And they are essential in the fight against terrorism.
There's no, we can't do this without the help of the vast majority of Muslims who are, as I say, with us on our team.
But there has to be honesty about the fact that this threat comes from within that broader community.
As to infiltrating mosques, I mean, look, I spent a short time, most of my career was the CIA.
I spent a short time at the NYPD's intelligence division.
I was there for a little over a year.
And you can just see what happens when you're trying to, even if you're basing your investigations on a criminal predicate or you're going about this based upon a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, just the it's a sort of version of disparate impact theory in the sense that if it's you're running a terrorism counterterrorism office and 90% of your cases,
and this isn't an actual statistic, so don't quote me on this, but you know, 90, 95% of your cases involve jihadist, jihadist extremists, jihadists, terrorists who come from within the Muslim faith.
There are people who object to that just because they object to that, right?
Like they'll say, well, you're profiling or you're picking on one group.
And when you say to them, well, look, we're just trying to stop terrorism and this is where a majority of the cases are, that doesn't sort of placate them, right?
They still want to say that this is, it's either rooted in racism or xenophobia or whatever.
Meanwhile, what they don't understand are that without Muslim Americans and Muslim allies who give us information and who say, look, this guy's saying crazy stuff.
He's saying he wants to shoot up a synagogue or he says he wants to go to without those, we're nothing.
We have nothing.
We can't, you know, we're not talking about micing up every mosque in the country and sort of having some giant NSA dragon it.
That's never happened.
But there's a tremendous amount of political sensitivities to it.
So that's, and that's already happening right now, and that's a debate that continues to go on.
And as to your point about 50,000 people trying to, or sending 50,000 troops rather overseas, you know, I kind of think that's where the next administration is heading.
I don't know if it's 50,000, but I think it's going to be within short order.
You're going to have 10 or 15,000 in Iraq.
You're going to have a larger number in Syria because people are starting to believe, I think, that your options are take the fight to them, to the enemy, to ISIS, to jihadists, to anyone who works with them, affiliate with them, or just hope that you don't get hit so badly, like we did on 9-11, that we're going in and it's going to be full-scale invasion and rebuilding of a whole society again, or perhaps multiple countries.
We don't really know.
So I think more action now will probably prevent bigger actions down the line that would result from a mass casualty event here in the U.S. and a tragedy.
But we'll have to see.
So far, I mean, I was saying, I think probably about two years ago that we'll have more U.S. troops in Iraq and we will have U.S. military in Syria.
And that was obviously the case.
So I have to say I've been right on this issue so far.
Tim, thank you for calling in.
I appreciate it.
Good to talk to you.
I've got to go to break.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
Going to finish this out in a minute.
Stay with me.
Buck Sexton here in for a rush with my last couple of minutes with you all here on the EIB.
I'm a Blaze host and CNN commentator.
I really appreciate you giving me some of your time today.
I hope that next week goes as well as can be possibly expected at the RNC.
It'll be interesting, no doubt.
I've got a lot of friends who are going there, and there's some concern about how it's all going to shake out.
And I don't just mean concern about the cleanliness of hotel rooms.
I mean, you know, people are a little worried about how this is going to be.
I won't necessarily have a chance to come back and talk to you about it as it goes on then, but all I can tell you is I'll be watching it eagerly.
But I'll be watching this sort of the way most people watch sporting events from the safety of my own home.
I'm not going to be out there covering it.
To those who are, I wish you all the best and a safe and fruitful RNC.
So those are kind of my words of not words of wisdom, just let's say hope.
My words of hope and caution and concern for all of you who will be there.
God bless and take care.
And let's hope it all comes off.
That they do have the consent, as Mr. Snurley says, of the governed, which is important.
I want to thank Uncle Rush and the whole team here for letting me drive around in the EIB Ferrari once again.
This is Buck Sexton.
▲
Export Selection