RUSH: The poor Drive-Bys are so confused. I mean, they’re really riding a roller coaster of emotions, the seesaw of emotions — up, down, up, down, where are we going, when’s it gonna stop, is it good, is it bad. They just can’t quite figure it out. Greetings, my friends. Great to have you here, as we head on down the tracks. Rush Limbaugh from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Three hours broadcast excellence hosted by me. Telephone number, if you want to join us, is 800-282-2882.
Look at what is happening in Los Angeles. Either way this goes, I mean, whatever is the case here, this is — folks, if it’s a hoax, look what they’ve pulled off. If it’s real, look what that is. We’ve got the second largest school district in the country shut down on a basis of a credible threat to a member of the school board or some such thing. They get threats there all the time, the guy said. “Yeah, we get threats every day.” Something about this one he said made them take action. They have shut down the entire school system.
There were people already at school. There were people already on their way to school. They had to close and shut down the buses and send them back to the parking lot. They had to clear people out of the schools that had already gotten in there. They had to get the word out that school was closed. This is going to cause all kinds of problems during the day today with parents who normally send their kids to school to get rid of them. Now they’re gonna have to deal with them. I mean, it’s a major thing. But the point is, if this is a hoax, look what’s happened? A hoax has shut down — what’s to prevent this from happening every day? No, no. Seriously. I mean, they say the threat’s credible, something about backpacks. They cannot inspect every backpack. They can’t inspect every school. They can’t inspect every boiler. They can’t inspect every nook and cranny of every school or bus or what have you.
Everybody is obviously on edge. San Bernardino is not far from Los Angeles, obviously San Bernardino to the east. So that’s clearly on people’s minds. Officials closed all LA Unified School District campuses this morning after receiving a credible threat of violence involving backpacks and packages left at campuses. The authorities said they’re gonna search — there are more than 900 schools they have to search. More than 700,000 students are going to miss their liberal indoctrination today. They’re going to miss their exposure to propaganda. You might say that’s an upper. But we don’t want to go there right now. I’m just giving you the facts.
The LA Unified School District superintendent, Ramon Cortines, said, “I think itÂ’s important to take this precaution based on what has happened recently and what has happened in the past.” This is just two weeks after the San Bernardino massacre. Fourteen people were killed, many others wounded. “Fearing for the safety of schools and students, Cortines said he couldnÂ’t take a chance, so he asked police to search all campuses, adult school and early-education centers,” before reopening tomorrow. “Officials said the threat came in electronic form and was made to numerous but unspecified campuses. As a result, they made the decision to close all campuses for the day. The Los Angeles Police Department and FBI were assisting with the investigation, Los Angeles School Police Chief Steve Zipperman said.”
So again they say the threat is still being analyzed. “‘We have chosen to close our schools today until we can be sure our campuses are safe.’ Students who already arrived at school will be supervised until parents can pick them up, officials said. LAUSD ordered parents and guardians to bring identification with them.”
Get this. The school district said in a statement: “Parents and guardians, please bring proper ID when picking up your child at school. They will be required.
Now, I understand — folks, I really do. There’s no way — and I know I grew up in a much, much smaller town, but no parents needed IDs to pick up their kids at school when I was there. You gotta show your papers. Look, I understand it. I mean, I’m not I’m not criticizing it. I’m noting how things have changed. Parents need ID. Otherwise anybody could show up and pick up the kid. I understand it. It’s a different world. It’s a different country. It’s a different age.
Ladies and gentlemen, there’s a lot of attention — I mentioned something yesterday… (interruption) What? (interruption) Oh, yeah, yeah, I’ll get to the debate tonight and all that. (interruption) What? (interruption) Yes. I’m gonna get to the media coverage of what happened. Yeah. I’m gonna get to all that. But as you know, I never want to make this program about me. (interruption) Well, I know, but I didn’t know it. You know, I got a note from my brother at midnight last night. He said: “Have you had any feedback on what you said about Trump and Cruz?” And I said, “No, not a word.” And I said, “But I never do get any feedback.” And I never go searching for it, so I haven’t seen any.
Remember, I don’t have cable news on at night. I mean, last night I had the football game on, and I watched a couple of their TV — I never have cable news on at night. It’s not an active thing. It just evolved. I just don’t turn it on anymore. I don’t know why. Well, yes, I do know why. I stopped learning things on it. It’s like I used to watch the Sunday shows religiously and now it’s predictable. I know what each guest is gonna say, and I know who’s gonna frustrate me, both sides, so I just don’t subject myself to it.
The point is, I didn’t know any of that was happening last night. I didn’t know any of that was happening until I got the sound bite roster from Cookie 10 minutes before the program began; then I see I am the first 11 sound bites. But, anyway, it’s what I was gonna say, folks — I touched on it yesterday, and there’s much more that has been learned about this — and that is the administration’s policy is refusing to allow social media to be used in determining potential terrorists or other criminal activity.
It’s specifically outlawed by the Obama administration, and we touched on it yesterday a little bit, and it blew up overnight. It’s become a huge issue, understandably so, because it’s raising all kinds of questions about the Obama administration and just what the hell they are doing and why are they making it so damn hard to identify people before they would commit acts of terrorism. The example being used is the wife of the San Bernardino Two. She was telegraphing everything about herself on social media.
What is it I’ve always said about social media? Well, I’ve said many things about it. But one of the most prominent things I’ve said about it is that it is remarkable to me how everybody on social media, in the quest for fame, is willing to divulge everything about themselves they can. The lack of regard for privacy — until somebody seems interested in it, then all of a sudden they start demanding privacy. But everybody in social media, Twitter, Facebook, you name it.
People there are just putting everything about themselves on these websites, these profiles, as they can. It’s just everybody wants to be famous. Everybody wants a taste of fame because of the way fame is portrayed in pop culture media. Well, apparently Syed Farook’s wife was no different. She was telegraphing quite a lot. She was explaining quite a lot. She was showing her anger. She was expressing her desires. If they had consulted the social media that she was posting about herself, they would have had a huge idea.
She passed the visa examination, which is the fiance visa, ’cause that’s all done online. That’s not even done with a personal interview anymore! And there it all was. In her case, it was right there on her social media that she used, and even if somebody at the Regime had gone to it and looked at it, it was inadmissible, per se. It was illegal to use it. So the headlines on this story today have kind of blown up. Let me give you a sample of them here. Daily Caller: “Obama Officials Trained to Focus on Behavior, Not Religion or Ideology.”
Washington Examiner: “White House Looks to Curb Anti-Muslim Sentiment — The White House on Monday began staff level meetings and telephone calls with religious leaders to discuss how they could help combat growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the US.” This is suicidal. I have a poll, a Pew poll. I’m holding it in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. Now, I don’t know what your opinion of this is gonna be, but to me it’s kind of shocking. Eight percent of US Muslims — 8% of US Muslims — think terrorism is okay.
I don’t think there’s 8% of any other group in this country that would say that. There might be one other. But 8%, to me, is a too large number. It’s 8% and growing. And here we are, after San Bernardino, after Fort Hood, after all these things, and the Regime is running around worrying about backlash against Muslims. When there isn’t any! And they had a meeting yesterday — this is unbelievable — to discuss how they could help combat growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the US. Meanwhile, the Washington Post is out with a poll today.
Trump’s got his biggest lead ever. They can’t believe it. They are attributing it to Trump’s comments on the moratorium that he suggested on Muslims being allowed to enter the country. They’re stunned. They’re shocked. They can’t believe that Trump went up. They can’t understand it. Even after all the help I’ve tried to give them in understanding how all this is working, they still don’t get it. Trump’s numbers are up. It’s even been misreported in one place that he’s got a 38-point lead.
He doesn’t have a 38-point lead. He’s up at 41%. The closest to him is like 15%. Well, it may be closest to 38, but it’s not. But it’s massive. And they can’t help but understand and report that it is because of Trump’s comments on limiting the arrival of Muslim refugees. It’s only a common-sense reaction that the nation has engaged in many times prior to today, prior to this era. “Secret US Policy Blocks Agents From Looking at Social Media of Visa Applicants, Former Official Says.” This is Brian Ross at ABC.
He’s trying to find a Tea Party culprit. He can’t, but he still looks.
But that secret US policy blocks agents from looking at social media. So Republicans have proposed a bill that would require vetting immigrants’ online statements. So this has blown up now, and people are noticing the lengths to which the administration has gone to make sure investigators cannot look at social media and then make judgments on what they see there in terms of learning, uncovering potential terror threats. Now, to me it’s quasi-suicidal. You have a whole body of evidence that has just been deemed off-limits because of some notion of privacy, civil liberties, or whatever.
These people are posting it themselves.
It’s not that other people are finding out who they are and posting it. These people are vomiting all this stuff about themselves, and this has been the primary identifying characteristic of social media. “Notice me! Notice me!” These people are begging to be noticed, and we’re saying, “You can’t use that, though.” And the reasons make no common sense whatsoever. Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson? I mean, he’s leading the charge on this, making sure that none of that social media can be used.
Had it been available for use, we’d have had a much better idea about the San Bernardino Two. Anyway, in process of prepping this, I have come across the actual PDF government manual on the proper use of social media. It’s a two-page PDF file. I am holding it here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, and I’ve sent the link up to Koko at the website. So if you want to go to RushLimbaugh.com, give him a couple minutes and he’s post that link.
But what this is, is it’s the instruction sheet that the Department of Homeland Security uses to train agents in what they are allowed to do and not do. It’s only two pages. Sections C and F are the money sections, and Section F could have been written by the Muslim Brotherhood. It could have been written by CAIR. You know, all this stuff about a secret policy not to look at social media is BS. It’s not “secret.” It’s right out there for everybody to see!
It’s a straightforward application of Obama’s long-standing countering-violent-extremism strategy. What this is, is not secret at all. It is the department of instructions on making sure there isn’t backlash against Muslims and making sure that we don’t unfairly target them and making sure that we don’t profile. It instructs agents not to consider speech, ideology, or Islam. All agents are allowed to do is look at behavior. And if the behavior of a potential suspect does not indicate trouble, the suspect must be ignored. We can’t look at what they say on social media speech.
We can’t look at their ideology and profile what that might mean.
Nor can we look at their religion.
RUSH: Let me give this a stab. Here’s Section C of “Countering Violent Extremism Training.” This is what our agents are told to see, do, not do, notice, not notice. There are three columns in every section: “Goal. Do. Don’t.” Section C: “Training should be sensitive to constitutional values,” okay? And the agents are advised to do the following: “Review the training program to ensure that it uses examples to demonstrate that terrorists span ethnicity, race, gender, and religion. 2. Look for training that focuses on behaviors over appearances or habits.
“Number 3. Look for training that supports the protection of civil rights and civil liberties as part of national security.” Okay, those are the do’s. Sounds really effective, right? Here are the don’ts: “Don’t use training that equates radical thought, religious expression, freedom to protest, or other constitutionally protected activity, with criminal activity.” Don’t use training that equates…? In other words: Do not believe that “radical thought, religious expression, or freedom to protest” can be criminal or can even lead to “criminal activity.”
Don’t even think that way.
“One can have radical thoughts/ideas, including disliking the US government, without being violent; for example, trainers who equate the desire for Sharia law with criminal activity violate basic tenets of the First Amendment.” So you had better not have any negative ideas about Sharia, and you had better not think you spot anybody believing in Sharia. And if you do spot somebody that you think believes in Sharia, it doesn’t mean anything. So ignore it unless you see them behaving in such a way that they might commit an act of terrorism, like running around with a bomb.
But if you don’t see ’em with a bomb, and all you know is they’re Sharia and they’re militant Islam, you can’t do anything about it.
RUSH: I’m telling you what this administration is doing, the school district in LA shutting down today, the way the administration is handcuffing investigators and agents in identifying terrorists prior to their acts of terror, this is serious stuff. We’re handcuffing ourselves. We’re tying one arm behind our back, however you want to characterize it. I’ve got the-two-page behavioral manual for agents here that I just read a portion of. Let me read one more of the “don’t” section. “Section C: Training should be sensitive to constitutional issues.” I read their three dos here that are irrelevant. The don’ts are where you find out what this administration is made of. Here is “don’t” number 2. “Do not use programs that generalize about appearance.” What that means, “don’t use programs” means do not make a judgment on whether somebody is a potential risk because of how they appear.
“Do not generalize about their national origin. Do not generalize about other similar characteristics in an attempt to identify indicators or ‘types of people likely to carry out acts of violent extremism.'” In other words, deny what you know, do not notice what you see, do not act on what you know and what you see, because if you do, you are violating our Constitution, and that’s not who we are, and you are violating our universal value.
So, in other words, if you see somebody that would raise a red flag by their social media postings, by their race or ethnicity, you are to ignore it until you actually have some sign that they might be a bad person by virtue of their behavior. Well, you know, I’m not a professional criminal investigator, but how in the world are you going to spot somebody’s criminal behavior before they commit it? How are you gonna spot it so that you can stop ’em from doing it if you can’t notice all the likely indications?
This goes further than not profiling people, folks. This is actually… What this is, this is a protection scheme for the group of people that do engage in militant Islamic acts of terror. Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training. The administration is building a cloak that covers these people and shields them from investigators. They’re not allowed to act on any of the indicators. In fact, they are to ignore them. “Don’t” number 3: “Don’t use training that is overbroad, equating an entire religion, nation, region, or culture with evil or violence. For example, it is incorrect and damaging to assert that all Muslims have terrorist ties.”
Well, now, you can see where that comes from. Now, however, agents are clearly free to identify “gun nuts” by a gun rack in back of a pickup. If they drive a pickup, if they chew tobacco, any number of things. It is this one religion and this one ideology that is shielded and protected, and agents attempting to engage in countering violent extremism are being trained to ignore every aspect of it. The only thing they can go on is behavior.
If a terrorist suspect posts on social media that he or she hates some institution and is planning or would love for it to be blown up? You can’t use it, can’t go there. Violation of privacy. Can’t do it; can’t use it. If you do, it will not be allowed. Any of the other indicators, too. This is just a surface analysis of this. But this is deadly serious stuff. And it raises all kinds of questions about just, you know, who the people are in charge with defending and protecting the people of this country and who are they actually defending and protecting.
RUSH: Here is the number on the percentage of US Muslims who say suicide bombing, violence against civilian targets is often or sometimes justified: 8%. That’s from the Pew survey. The report here is from Cybercast News Service. “Survey data released by the Pew Research Center in 2013,” admittedly two years ago, “shows that 8% of US Muslims believe that the use of suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets is either often or sometimes justified in defense of Islam.”
That’s 8% of US Muslims. Now, bear in mind that Pew is a very, very left-leaning organization. They favor open borders. They favor high levels of Muslim and Syrian refugee immigration. So, I mean, if they’re saying 8%, it could well be higher. Now, let’s put that 8% reality. We’re in the process here of rapidly immigrating, about what, a million Syrian refugees? Obama wants 10,000 a month, 100,000 a year. Combined with the Islamic population already here, and the ones that Obama wants to bring in, let’s just…
For every one million Muslims in the United States, if the Pew survey is right, that means 80,000 people in the country — 80,000 Muslims, if the 8% number is right, 80,000 per million — think terrorism or suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets is either often or sometimes justified in defense of Islam. Now, you might be saying, “Well, in defense of Islam, Rush. That’s…” Well, no. Defense of Islam could be any target that is not Islamic. Any target where there are infidels could be considered in defense of Islam.
If it were 1%, we’d be talking about 8,000 people who think terrorism’s often justified. Eight percent of US adult Muslims think terrorism is often or sometimes justified. But then we have people say Trump’s a lunatic for this moratorium. Trump’s a lunatic and anybody who supports Trump is a racist or a bigot. If you run the numbers here, and then you add it to everything else that’s happening — and we don’t have to make up events. We don’t have to say, “Theoretically what could happen if this and this and that happens…” It’s already happened.
We already had San Bernardino.
We’ve had Fort Hood.
We’ve had any number of domestic terror incidents since 9/11.
Now we’ve got the LA school district being shut down today. By the way, quick question on that. Does anybody else think it’s strange that a potential legitimate Islamic threat would call a school board member? These people do not do it that way. They do the deed and then either claim credit or try to get away, get caught; then claim credit. Or a history of them is researched and we find out that they’ve been planning it for a long time. But this… There’s something. I don’t know. But it doesn’t matter. Really, it doesn’t matter whether this is legit or a hoax. How do you not shut down the LA school district every day now? I mean, if it’s your job to take these threats credibly, responsibly, assign credibility to them. It’s not a job I think I would want. Not a job I think I would want, correctly stated.
RUSH: I just got some audio sound bites where Obama is comparing the Syrian refugees that he is permitting to enter the country to the Pilgrims. I’ve got those four soundbites. You know, I could easily use those sound bites and I could very selfishly use them to promote my children’s book series. I could very easily do that. And I might yet still do it. But to draw that — (interruption) Well, yeah, the first book, Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims. That book is still, it’s the first of four, that book — well, all four of them are in the top 50 of some certain sales lists in two years. I may get to the sound bite, but stop and think of this.
How in the world do you compare people that you are inviting, asking, practically rounding up and bringing them, how do you compare that to people fleeing religious tyranny, getting on a boat and going somewhere they had no idea where it was; they had no idea if they’re gonna get there; they had no idea what awaited them. They had nothing whatsoever. It was the biggest risk any of them would ever take in their lives. How in the world do you draw — what kind of a person do you have to be, what kind of scholar on American history, what must your opinion of American history be if you can easily, happily, energetically compare Syrian refugees to the Pilgrims who led to the founding of this country?
In what world do you live? What universe do you occupy? What perverted concepts do you believe or have been taught that could lead you to that kind of moral equivalence? And the left does this constantly. You know, every year at Christmastime they warn us, “Well, you know that Mary and Joseph, they were homeless.” Oh, really? So you’re telling me that the next savior could be pushing around a shopping cart, sleeping in a cardboard box in Hoboken? I mean, the things these people do — oh, speaking of that, I had it yesterday or the day before two different stories on homelessness, LA and — was it New York? Maybe it was San Francisco.
Anyway, it’s out of control. Homelessness is a larger problem than it’s ever been, and where’s this been reported? How come it’s taken seven years for this to make news? (interruption) Well, no, it was not Hawaii, but you’re right, Hawaii has a huge homeless population, too. I mean, where do they send ’em? Put them on the road to Hana and hope for a collapse? It’s not gonna happen. But it’s a rampant problem, and, meanwhile, we are being told every day that we got this growing economy, only 5% unemployment, that we’re just surging here, economic growth and new job creation, and it’s all BS. None of it is true. The homeless in liberal-run cities is out of control, homelessness is.
I think when Obama does these sound bites and tells these Syrian refugees they’re the moral equivalents of the Pilgrims or the modern day Pilgrims, he’s trying to insult us. He’s doing so purposely. There is no unity in this man. There is no desire for unification. It’s quite the contrary.
One other thing here before we get to the other news that I promised we’d get to here in this segment. I really want you, when you have time today, go to RushLimbaugh.com and click on the link, it’s a PDF, it will open as a PDF file in your web browser, “Countering Violent Extremism Training.” It is a US department Homeland Security document advising their agents on the dos and don’ts of various aspects of hunting down and finding potential terrorists.
I focus on section C and Section F. I haven’t read section F, but when you do, if you’re up to speed, you’ll think this could have been written by the Muslim Brotherhood. When you read section C, if you happen to own a business, a small business or large, if you’re a CEO, if you’re in human resources at any sizable organization, you’ll think that this is exactly the kind of stuff you have to tell your employees to avoid a lawsuit, for crying out loud. But all this is is a series of shackles and handcuffs on law enforcement agencies, things they can’t do to suspects right in front of them.
There’s no common sense in this. It just violates common sense. Anybody reading this, the first reaction you’ll have, this doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t make any common sense. So what’s going on? When something doesn’t make common sense, that’s when people’s minds are free to roam and try to come up with an answer to the questions or the things that are befuddling them with answers that do makes sense, because this doesn’t make sense, the restrictions, the suggestions, the mannerisms, the techniques, none of this makes any sense in terms of actually stopping acts of terror.
Common sense, in a legal sense, if you want to talk about this as common sense, you’d have to talk about probable cause, reasonable suspicion. If you’re law enforcement and you want to stop an action before it takes place, the courts and everybody, the legal system, you have to have probable cause here before you can go further and investigate, search warrant. You gotta have reasonable suspicion. And I want to read to you what the Supreme Court has written about reasonable suspicion and probable cause, because in the legal beagle world, reasonable suspicion and probable cause just mean common sense.
This is a Supreme Court case Ornelas v. US, just a little excerpt here from one of the opinion rulings. “Articulating precisely what ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘probable cause’ mean is not possible. They are commonsense, non-technical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. As such, the standards are not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.”
Yet that’s exactly what is being imposed here before the act. It’s like another Supreme Court ruling. How do you define pornography?
Well, I don’t know, but I know it when I see it. Common sense is how you define pornography, and common sense we’re not allowed to use anymore because it may offend somebody, which means it violates tenets of political correctness. So common sense is out the window, and therefore probable cause and reasonable suspicion are out the window because they aren’t possible. They both rely on common sense. And we can’t even come to a consensus agreement on what common sense is, so focused has the left been on destroying language, destroying time-honored American values, that common sense has been rendered unusable or useless.
“Articulating precisely what ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘probable cause’ mean is not possible. They are commonsense, non-technical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” Meaning, you know it when you see it. But that’s not permitted in the Obama countering violent extremism training. Oh, because we must protect who we are in our values and not violate who we are and not devalue and violate our universal values that are being redefined by Obama and his Regime daily.