RUSH: Now, in further analyzing the president’s speech last night, I want to remind you of a very important point that I made last week last week. Barack Obama is the United States government at the moment. The official position of the United States government is that Islam is a religion of peace and is as anti-terrorism as you and I are, and therefore cannot inspire people like the San Bernardino Two. It is not Islam. There’s no such thing as radical Islam!
It is ISIS and Al-Qaeda and all the others who are using Islam, but they are not Islam. Even though they say they are. They are bastardizing the religion of peace. This is our official view as a country. It’s our official position as a country. So Syed Farook — and it looks like now the ringleader was the wife — what they did was not inspired by Islam. It was by ISIS. It was ISIS who “radicalized” them, not Islam.
ISIS is not Islam. ISIS as a bunch of horrible, rotten, mean people terrorizing others. But that’s not what Islam is. And now they’ve got this ISIS link that they announced. That’s why all of a sudden they can call it “terrorism.” That’s why Obama can call it terrorism now, because ISIS is terrorism; Islam is not. It’s a very important distinction. And Obama made my point last night, and Mrs. Clinton did last night with George Stephanopoulos.
I will explain it illustrate when we get back.
RUSH: It’s very, very important to understand here: As far as Barack Obama is concerned, and therefore our government (I mean, he is our government right now), there is no violent Islam. There is no terrorism that comes from Islam. There is no violence. It is a religion of peace. Every act of terror that is committed by groups claiming to be Islamic is not. They are perverting a great religion, which is a religion of peace.
Here is Obama saying so in his speech last night. And one of the purposes of the speech last night was to separate ISIS from Islam, and he did it right off the bat near the top.
OBAMA: It is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people.
RUSH: Now, before you start thinking that that’s a major, a major shift in policy — that Obama has finally crossed the bridge and agreed — he’s done nothing of the sort. Once the FBI linked these people to ISIS, that cleared the decks for calling it terrorism. Now, the fact of the matter is that the wife of the San Bernardino Two, and Syed himself — the father of the Syed said — were devoutly “religious,” and became more and more radicalized.
She became more radical as she got closer to her “religion,” not as she got closer to ISIS. She probably never met ISIS. She might have communicated with ’em, but in every statement that has been made by their family, we’ve been told that these two became more violent, more radical after they had become more devout in their “religion.” They never joined ISIS. They didn’t join Al-Qaeda. And if I may make a brief departure, this business Al-Qaeda “was” that Obama said in the first sound bite we played?
He was talking about ISIS being a dangerous organization like Al-Qaeda “was.” There is no “was.” Right after the Paris attack that ISIS carried out, Al-Qaeda carried out an attack in Mali. More people were killed in Mali, 20 people, than in San Bernardino, 14. And they are still investigating whether the San Bernardino Two made contact with Al-Qaeda elements when they are overseas in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Don’t buy this idea that Al-Qaeda’s done and over with and finished because Obama got Osama.
This is all part of the same smokescreen that Obama’s been tough on terrorism. He’s been tough on them. He’s taking ’em out, eliminated, got rid of Al-Qaeda. Bush never did that! But I got ’em. Al-Qaeda is a “was.” Now we’re dealing with ISIL and so forth. But here’s the thing, folks. It’s one of many things. If Islam played no role in this, as our president tells us and as Valerie Jarrett tells us and as Loretta Lynch tells us and as practically the entire Democrat Party tells us…
There’s a lot of terrorism in the world, and if it has nothing to do with Islam, where are Islamic leaders standing up and acting mad about it? If Islam’s being perverted, where are the devout Muslim Islamists standing up and expressing their anger over it? I don’t know about you, but if worldwide terrorism was being carried out by a bunch of people calling themselves Christians, I am pretty confident that mainstream Christianity would stand up and denounce it and join the hunt to track them down and get rid of them as soon as anybody else was trying to.
I know what Obama says. (impression) “Oh, these moderate Muslims? Uhhh, they’re in danger, too! I mean, more Muslims are killed by Islamists than…” I understand that, but if this religion of peace is being so perverted, if it’s being so defamed with all this terrorism done in its name, why doesn’t somebody stand up and denounce it? Why aren’t a whole lot of somebodies standing up and denouncing it? And the answer… Well, the question answers itself. But it’s clear that the San Bernardino Two were radicalized not by ISIS, not radical.
They were radicalized by becoming deeper and deeper believers of their “religion”. Now, why does this matter? What is the big deal? Why is…? You know, people say Obama refuses to utter the term “radical Islam.” Why does he not do it? What does it matter? I’ll tell you why it matters. And in so doing, ladies and gentlemen, I want to play for you a couple of sound bites from Mrs. Clinton, who was on with George Stephanopoulos, which is funny. I mean, here the boss goes on TV with the employee: Hillary the boss, Stephanopoulos the employee.
Stephanopoulos was always in the Clinton war room back when Bill was president. Now he’s been reassigned from the war room to ABC. So he’s a faux journalist, actually a Democrat Party hack, and the boss shows up for an “interview” on his Sunday morning show called This Week. Stephanopoulos said, “You have been reluctant to say that we’re fighting radical Islam, and I wonder why not. Isn’t it a mistake not to say it plain, that the violence is being pushed by radical elements in the faith?”
HILLARY: Well, that’s a different thing! Radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions, I’m fine with that. I say it all the time!
RUSH: Really? “Well, that’s a different thing! Radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions, I’m fine with that. I say it all the time,” except that she doesn’t. She doesn’t say “radical Islam.” Here’s Obama. Grab audio sound bite number thee. Here’s him making the distinction.
OBAMA: It is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam —
OBAMA: — that calls for war against America and the West.
OBAMA: They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people.
RUSH: Wait a minute. How’s gun control gonna get rid of pipe bombs? How’s more gun control gonna get rid of pipe bombs and IEDs and whatever else they were concocting in there? And furthermore, did you know that ISIS is only targeting America and the West? That’d be fun to tell the people in Syria. What do you want to tell the people of Iraq ISIS is doing? They’re attacking everybody who’s not Islamic. They are attacking and wiping out infidels. It is in the book. Here’s Mrs. Clinton’s second answer.
Stephanopoulos says, “So what’s the problem with ‘radical Islam,'” Mrs. C?
HILLARY: That sounds like we are declaring war against a religion, and that, to me, is — number one — wrong!
STEPHANOPOULOS: Even though the qualifier “radical” is there?
HILLARY: No, because, look… Duh… You know enough about religion. You’ve studied it, and there are radicals, people who believe all kinds of things in every religion in the world. I don’t want to do that, because, number one: It doesn’t do justice to the vast numbers of Muslims in our own country and around the world who are peaceful, uhh, people. No. If you’re a law-abiding (snickering), peace-loving Muslim, you need to be with us against those who are, uhhh, distorting Islam.
RUSH: All right, fine. Where are they? Now, why do the words “radical Islam” matter? You just heard Mrs. Clinton there trying to throw water on the idea that there is — this is what they’re trying to do. She’s trying to throw water on the idea, and Obama did the same thing. You want to snuff out any belief that there is a belief within Islam that could give rise to Syed Farook and his wife. The last thing they want you to think is that Islam has anything in it that would inspire and motivate the San Bernardino Two to do what they do.
Therefore they cannot call Islam radical and they never will because, for whatever reason, they don’t want to think it is, or else they do know that it is but don’t want you to know that they know and so continue to obfuscate the whole thing. So she falls back on the idea that Islam has no blame here. Islam has nothing to do with anything that happened in San Bernardino or in Paris, either time, that there are instead radical people who are using Islam, and that’s why they won’t use the term “radical Islam.”
Ian Tuttle, who wrote on this at National Review Online, The Corner blog, said that even if this kind of explanation were plausible — which it is, the explanation that there’s nothing radical in Islam — it’s exposed by Hillary’s own description of the terrorists’ ambition as jihadists. Where does “jihad” come from? Jihad is an Islamic concept. It’s not something ISIS made up or Al-Qaeda made up. Jihad is an Islamic concept. Terrorists cannot have jihadist ambitions and then use Islam to explain it. The Islam comes first. Islam is what inspires all of this and our Democrat Party refuses to go there. They just won’t hear of it. And who knows why, we can speculate why, the way they vote or they have deep problems with America.
I shudder to think what it is, but it’s dangerous, regardless. We are a great nation at risk in a dangerous world made even more dangerous by virtue of who our current leadership is. As is evidenced by that speech last night, this administration still does not see the threat the way you and every other American does. And I will maintain to you, I’ll say it again that I think all these outbreaks, domestic terror, whatever you want to call it, I think — you know, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA, way back in the nineties, in the mid- to late — I forget when, but he was on This Week, Sunday ABC show, and he said that he believed Bill Clinton was comfortable with a certain amount of domestic violence because it helped them in their gun control efforts.
That’s all I’m saying here about Obama. I think they’re comfortable with a certain degree of violence because everybody knows they’ve made no secret of the fact that what they really want to do is get your guns out of your hands, that you are the problem. Not ISIS, not Islam — well, not Islam and not Muslims. You are the problem. The law-abiding people of this country and your guns, you are the problem. And that messianic Jew who was arguing politics with Syed Farook, people like him are the problem. The radical right-wingers, they’re the problem, we gotta get guns out of their hands.
RUSH: Mary in Plymouth, Minnesota, you’re up first today. It’s great to have you. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. It’s an honor to be on with you. I have been listening to your program since I was in a car seat, so this is just amazing.
RUSH: Well, thank you very much.
CALLER: Yes. So, okay, here’s my point. The White House narrative continues to be that there is no evidence to suggest that the San Bernardino terrorists were connected to a broader group like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Okay. So now consider his comments from last night as you’ve just been discussing. He said no, this isn’t Islam. These are just thugs calling themselves ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Okay, so take those two statements to their logical end. Doesn’t that mean that there’s nothing left but Islam in the case of San Bernardino?
RUSH: Well, I think you have a point. Here’s the thing. I think the best way to understand the left on all of this, the liberal, as you and I know him, doesn’t understand religion, period. Look at the way they impugn Christians. Look at the way they impugn evangelicals and so forth. Now, I don’t think your average liberal thinks religion is legitimate. I don’t think that they assign it much weight in having an effect on the way people live and on the things they believe. I think they look at religions as just another club that people belong to. But it doesn’t go much deeper than that, because they don’t. I mean, they eschew religion, for the most part. They denounce it. They don’t believe in it. They think it’s a bunch of crazy things.
If anything is a religion, it’s their ideology, liberalism or environmentalism, something of the sort. But as far as the broad-based left is concerned, you know, God is a dangerous concept, too. And they don’t really go very far in expressing belief in God. So religions, to them, are nothing more than a collection of like-minded people who in the case of Christians are a bunch of wacko, gun nut, pro-lifers. They haven’t the slightest understanding, nor do they care to understand, that religion is a source of strength and faith and is a guidepost for things like morality, right and wrong, good versus evil. And so they don’t go very deep.
That’s why they are able to denounce Christianity and to say what they say about Islam. Because it really isn’t that big a deal. It’s just a bunch of people that think the same way getting together once a week or however often and expressing their beliefs and whatever it is they have in common. But the true, deeply personal characteristics of religion totally escape liberals, and that’s why it scares them. They’ll never be able to control somebody’s religious views. It frightens them terribly.
RUSH: No, no. I’ll tell you why this matters, why the left’s view on religion matters. If it isn’t deep, if it’s just a club, if it’s just a bunch of like-minded people getting together or something, it can’t possibly be the root cause of something like Syed Farook did. Islam can’t be blamed because religions do not have this effect on people. They’re not deeply held. They’re not formative in any way. And that’s the left’s overall view of religion, so it has to be something like workplace violence or outside influence from guys like ISIS or whatever, but it can’t be the religion. It just can’t be.
RUSH: , Scott, Plano, Texas, you’re next as we head back to the phones. It’s great to have you on the program, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Merry Christmas Rush.
RUSH: Same to you, sir.
CALLER: I have a story from 2003, and of course this is two years after 9/11 and before ISIS got started up and we invited a local mosque that is right near our church to share their faith with us and have a question-and-answer period, and my question for them — and there was one person there that was a native Middle Easterner. Another guy was actually a good old boy from East Texas that was raised Baptist and converted to Muslim. So it was kind of an eclectic meeting.
But my question was to them, “Why haven’t the Muslims been speaking up more about 9/11? Why are they so quiet?” And their response was this: “If we protested, then instead of you being the number one target, we would become number one target, and therefore, that explains our silence.” And of course my internal thought was, “Well, gee, I guess I know what side you’re on.” I didn’t say that out loud, but like George Bush said — and it’s been said before, and it will be said after — if you’re not with us, then you’re against us.
RUSH: Well, there’s one thing, though. Some of them have a point. The militant Islamists, the jihadists, kill far more Muslims than anybody else. They feel they are infidels or not serious, not following the tenets of the face. I mean, look what’s going on in Syria. Who do you think’s dying there? Who do you think they’re killing in Iraq? Sunni versus Shi’a is a part of it. I can understand that to an extent, but it’s also a convenient reason, is it not?
CALLER: Yes. It is an excuse of convenience. We were actually invited to the mosque and I was given a Koran and I read it from cover to cover, and there are some disturbing things in there, and I have a potential solution if you want to hear it.
RUSH: (chuckles) We’re standing by. What is it?
CALLER: I would suggest that the Muslims list every verse in the Bible that they have a problem with, and allow the churches to respond as to what it really means, and then we could do the same thing. We’ll identify parts of the Koran that we find troubling and let them respond. For example, in the Old Testament when the Israelites were shown the Promised Land, they were told to wipe out everybody that lived there. But that was a one-time thing in the Old Testament. It was not looking forward to say, “You need to kill every non-Jew or non-Christian in the world.”
RUSH: Well, but, now, wait, wait, wait just a second here. We’re starting to mix apples and oranges here. The Israelites were being liberated from bondage, for one thing. However, your idea sounds like the way the Republicans want to operate in Washington. “You know, well, let’s get together in a room and let’s discuss our differences and see if we can’t find some common ground.” The problem today is there isn’t any common ground between the left and right in this country. And the problem that you’re gonna have with that, with your idea, is that…
And if you’ve read the Koran, you know this. There’s only one belief, and anybody who doesn’t subscribe to it’s an infidel. There’s no compromise here. This is a Seventh Century belief that is being implemented and acted upon here. There is no common ground. There is no overlapping understanding here. The only objective is to either convert or face death. And that’s what I don’t think people understand. I don’t think that’s what people are willing to admit.
Even if they do understand, they don’t want to admit it. It goes against human nature. Compromise, understanding, tolerance is all part of human nature. This doesn’t fit, so people just don’t want to believe it. But if you’ve read the Koran you know that what is happening here is right in it. It is not being perverted. It’s not being “bastardized,” as Obama says. It’s being followed. I don’t know how many times I’ve told the story, and I’ve had the guy on the program, Andy McCarthy.
If you’ve heard this, bear with me, because some haven’t. Andy McCarthy used to work as a United States attorney, assistant United States attorney in the Manhattan office, Southern District of New York. It was his job, he was the lead prosecutor of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman back in 1993, ’94, ’95. Omar Abdel Rahman had a mosque in New Jersey in which he was advocating the blowing up of the Lincoln Tunnel and the Holland Tunnel and a couple of other bridges and some other landmarks. And he had a bunch of followers that were attempting to implement what he was putting into place.
Anyway, he was caught, was put on trial. What Andy did to prepare for the trial was to read the Koran. He thought he was dealing with a kook. He thought he was dealing with a real extremist wacko in sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. So he read the Koran. His intent was to find out how Omar Abdel Rahman was off the mainstream track. And he was shocked. I mean, Andy’s written books about this. He was stunned, because he found out that Omar Abdel Rahman was not an extremist and was not off the beaten path. He was following the Koran. He was a mainstream believer in the Koran. It shook him up. It woke him up. It scared the heck out of him, and it shaped the way he conducted the trial. He ended up getting a conviction.
But he, like everybody else, thought that these people, the terrorists, the terrorist leaders, the imams, were kook radical offshoots. And he found out they’re not. That’s why it’s so frustrating to people who know, to listen to Obama and his administration talk about how a great religion’s being perverted or bastardized or what have you. The fact of the matter is, it isn’t. It’s being followed. It’s the only book they read, and they read it all the time. They don’t allow outside influences, other than to form and inform their hatred and their opposition to what they don’t believe in and what isn’t them. And that’s what makes this so serious. It’s why this is as crucial as it is.
We’re not dealing with radical, extremist offshoots. You’ve heard about the Wahhabi version of Islam in Saudi Arabia. It’s mainstream. Saudi Arabia, the royal family of Saudi Arabia is the official — how can I phrase this, the exact title. But they are responsible for the belief and the purity and the implementation of Islam worldwide. It’s where Mecca is and so forth. The royal family. The Saudi royal, the king of Saudi Arabia is the grand pooh-bah of it all. Whoever he is, from time to time.
RUSH: You ever heard, as an illustration, have you ever heard Barack Obama claim that Wahhabism does not reflect true Islam? I mean, many people call Wahhabi Islam, that’s really way out there. It’s mainstream Islam in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royal family is the guardian of Islam, in the book. The king of Saudi Arabia is, in title and name, the guardian, protector, enforcer, chief implementer, however you want to think of it. And for all of the different sectarian violence there is and disagreement, you never hear Obama address any of the variations of it. He only goes after terrorist groups and claims that they are not.
Where are the terrorists being terror oriented? It’s in the mosques. All of this comes from Islam. It’s not this stuff that then finds its way into Islam. In other words, Islam’s not sitting there minding its own business and all of a sudden a bunch of radical terrorists start up and try to find their way and force their way into the mosques and into the religion. It’s the other way around. It’s an outbound process. And the Wahhabists are at the top of the charts in believing that those who do not follow the dictates, the infidels, are to be killed. They’re not to be persuaded — well, if they can be converted, fine. But that takes a lot of proof.
That sounds extreme to me. Sentencing to death people that don’t agree with your religion, that sounds pretty — anyway, folks, this is what it is, and this is where it becomes tough, because people just don’t want to face this. This is something, “Oh, my God, if that’s true, gosh, I don’t want to have to deal with that. That’s like a call to arms.” You can’t just accept that and ignore it and go about your day when something like San Bernardino happens. And a lot of people still do not want to face it. After 9/11 they didn’t want to face it. It’s a tough thing to believe because there’s nothing comparable like it in this country.