Trump’s ISIS Speech Profundities That the Drive-Bys Don’t Want You to Hear
Aug 16, 2016
RUSH: It all makes sense. Trump gives his vaunted, anticipated, major address yesterday, foreign policy, ISIS, this kind of stuff. You’d never know it, but Trump’s speech contained a whole bunch of profundities. Trump’s speech contained some amazing things, but you’re not hearing about that. All you’re hearing about it was typical Trump bigotry, typical Trump ignorance, typical Trump demonstrating he’s unfit and unqualified for the office.
Just typical coverage by the Drive-Bys. And then after that they’re ignoring it, and they’re ignoring it because there’s things in there, in Trump’s speech, that I’m convinced that they do not want certain people to know that he said. And I will explain what I’m talking about as the program gets underway because that’s what the program’s for. It’s for me to explain to you what’s going on and what I think about it.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 if you want to join us. If you want to send an email, I scan them, occasionally select one to reference. It’s ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
Let’s go straight to Newt Gingrich and his reaction last night on the Fox News Channel to Trump’s foreign policy speech yesterday. This is what the Newtster, Mr. Newt, had to say.
GINGRICH: This in some ways is the most important foreign policy speech since Ronald Reagan. The contrast between what Donald Trump did and what Hillary Clinton is couldn’t be clearer. This is a Grand Canyon-wide chasm of two totally different worldviews. This was truly a historic speech and it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media can actually focus on the speech.
RUSH: Not gonna happen. That was last night. Trump’s speech was yesterday afternoon. We’re coming up on 24 hours since Trump gave the speech, and there’s not a peep, there’s not a single peep in the Drive-By Media anywhere close to what Newt’s talking about. Did you hear what Newt just said here? He said in some ways it’s the most important foreign policy speech since Ronald Reagan. Now, we all know that Newt is given to hyperbole. But that’s Newt.
We also know that Newt is a Trumpist. But at the same time Newt has had plenty of criticism of Trump. He’s had plenty of constructively negative things to say about Trump. So he’s not one of these sycophants that’s all-in and defends Trump no matter what. And I tend to think — you know, the Trump speech happened yesterday while this program was on the air, and it’s not possible for me to get into something in detailed fashion while the program is underway. All I can do is, you know, maybe roll some sound bites from it, but, I mean, my awareness and knowledge is strictly surface in that circumstance.
It wasn’t ’til yesterday afternoon and last night that I was able to get into this. And I saw some things that, to me, were profound. And they might be to you, too. But nobody’s gonna know it. I’m not telling you this to say, “Hey, folks, this could be the turnaround.” That’s not my point. The point is that what Trump said versus what Hillary Clinton has said she wants to do, it’s a 180. It’s a total reverse of what the two parties are reputed to stand for.
Rather than tease you here, let me tell you what Trump said he’s gonna do. You’ve heard that the Drive-Bys — I’m sure you’ve heard this — that Trump, God, what a bigot, God, what a racist, God, he discriminates against everybody.
Trump said that we’re gonna vet these people, and we’re gonna find out why they’re coming here, and we’re gonna institute requirements. They gotta come here and essentially love America. They gotta want to become a part of America and we’re gonna find out what biases they have. And if they have any desire to come here and kill Americans, they’re not getting in. And the Drive-Bys said he’s obviously biased toward Muslims. Why would they think that?
Why would they think when Trump says, “And if you have designs on coming into this country and killing Americans, you’re not getting in,” and the Drive-By reaction is, “See, he hates Muslims.” Why would they think that he’s talking about Muslims? Why would they think that at all? Who’s got the bias here?
Anyway, Mrs. Clinton on one hand has said that she wants to be, actually I think it’s Trump’s term, Angela Merkel. She wants 500,000 Syrian refugees and Islamic immigrants and so forth, in the country every year, right? Some number like that, it’s a pretty large number, 500,000. Donald Trump says, “Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, no way. We gonna vet these people and we’re gonna put them under tight examination, and if we find that they are coming here to rabble-rouse, to make trouble, if we find they hate Americans and want to inflict harm, we’re not gonna let ’em in.”
Now, who is it that lesbians and gays and women consider to be their defenders and their number one protectors? It’d be the Democrat Party. Gays and lesbians, the LGBTQ community, along with practically every other minority group, believes that the Republican Party’s out to get ’em. And that their savior, their protectors, their defenders, the people looking out for ’em happen to be the Democrat Party and whoever is running for president. So in this situation, it’s Hillary Clinton.
Who does Hillary Clinton want to let into this country just because? Just because they are Islamists, just because they’re Syrian, just because? She wants to let into this country people who, as part of their religion, must discriminate against gays and lesbians. We know how Islam regards women, and we know how Islam regards homosexuality.
What candidate in a foreign policy speech yesterday made it clear he doesn’t want those people in the country? And what candidate has just put up the green light and said come on in? Hillary Clinton. The Democrat candidate, the Democrat nominee for president, representative of the Democrat Party openly, willingly wants to admit people to the country who have not very pleasant thoughts and ideas about women and homosexuals.
And over here the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, is the guy who doesn’t want those people to come in by virtue of his speech yesterday. So we’ve got a reversal here of 180 proportion. We have the Republican candidate for president essentially suggesting that if you want to come into this country and attack Americans because of their gender or because of their sexual orientation — if you want to come to America and you have a problem with sexual orientation or with women or any other minority group — we’re not gonna let you in.
And naturally, the Republican’s being called a bigot. The Republican’s being accused of discrimination. And it’s the Democrat who’s letting sworn enemies of various of their constituents groups into the country. This is why I think the Drive-Bys are not going into much detail talking about this speech, and there’s no other way to analyze this. Now, the one thing that you have to accept here is that the religion of Islam is what it is regarding women and homosexuals.
Now, we know that in Saudi Arabia, which is (for lack of a better word) the headquarters of modern Islam… (interruption) Yeah, infidels as well. We know what Islam says about nonbelievers. We know what Islam says about women because we see how women are treated. We just got… I watched this incredible… I heard about it yesterday and I just watched it. The Drive-By Media were making the biggest deal out of the fact the first woman to wear a burqa won a medal in the Olympics.
What does that tell you? The first woman to wear a burqa! Well, we have here quite openly what Islam thinks of women by virtue of the way they’re treated, the way they’re forced to dress, the way they can’t drive, the penalties if they veer from the rules and tenets. Same thing: We know that homosexuals are beheaded in places like Iran and a Saudi Arabia if they’re discovered to be homosexuals. Now, some people may not want to believe that. There may be some devoted Democrat voters who simply are not gonna accept that.
They may not know that that’s part and parcel of the religion — and when they’re told, they might not want to accept it because they won’t be able to understand the Democrat candidate openly welcoming people like that into the country. You remember when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was running Iran? He came to the United Nations one year in October, the annual General Assembly meeting. And they invited him to address the student body of Columbia in New York. And he went!
And he’s giving his speech. The speech ends, and it goes to the Q&A. A student raises his hand, asks the Iranian president about homosexuals in Iran and how they’re treated. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, “We don’t have any of those in Iran,” and the Columbia student audience began to laugh and chuckle. And Ahmadinejad said, “Oh, do you know some? Can you tell us where they live?” The room got kind of quiet. But I still suggest that many of these traditional Democrat voters will not accept this. They don’t think that’s the truth about Islam.
Even after Orlando, look at the Drive-By Media.
Even after Orlando, the Drive-Bys and the Democrats have done everything to say that was not about Islam. “No, no, no! That was… What? Workplace violence! That was somebody off his rocker for the moment. That was somebody insane. No, no. That had nothing to do with Islam.” That shouldn’t surprise you. Every terrorist act that happens in this country, the Drive-Bys and the Democrats say, “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no! That has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a religion of peace. There is no terrorism.”
Anyway, it is what it is. I mean, Trump did vow — and his foreign policy approach was — to defend America at every turn. Whatever his policies are, they are rooted in the defense and the protection of United States and its people. He’s gonna keep Club Gitmo open. He wants to continue his discussion about modernizing NATO and so forth. The Drive-Bys are out, of course, characterizing it as a speech by a nobody who knows nothing, who’s an idiot, who’s unfit. He’s unsuited, he’s ignorant, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
But I tell you, when you boil this down, when you actually look at what Trump said — and I’m sure that some of the things that I’m referring to here are why Newt had his reaction about how important a foreign policy speech it was. We are in a serious world war. There is an all-out war on Western Civilization, and there’s only one candidate willing to even admit that and then devise a foreign policy designed to thwart it.
The other candidate won’t even admit there’s a war on Western Civilization because in many ways, the Democrat Party is a combatant in trying to undermine Western Civilization. Many of its constituent groups are part of the army trying to undermine Western Civilization. The Democrat Party seems to find common ground with every anti-American group they can out there. They find common ground with every “minority” no matter what.
It’s like Scott Walker said (paraphrased), “Mrs. Clinton, you’re throwing gasoline on Milwaukee here with these comments of yours,” ’cause what we had in Milwaukee is a definite misstep by a citizen, the young Sylville whatever his name is. Smith? The young man shot by the cops. The guy was a perp. This was not police misconduct. There was no moral equivalence here. There was no, “Both sides are guilty here.” But Mrs. Clinton comes out with her statement, “Well, the situation just shows how we need respect for the cops and the cops need respect for the people.”
As though whatever went on in Milwaukee, both sides are guilty! That’s the moral equivalence we get out of Democrats, and it’s not true, and Scott Walker, the governor, said (paraphrased), “Don’t say that. Mrs. Clinton, you’re just encouraging these people. You’re giving them justification for what they’re doing and there isn’t any.” And so it goes. So we do have the Democrat candidate by virtue of being a Democrat, who is openly and bragging about how big a person she is, how big their hearts are.
What great compassion they have, by admitting all of these people in the hundreds of thousands (is her objective) who are admitted… I don’t want to say “enemies,” but they don’t like certain Americans. ISIS… (interruption) I know. ISIS, by the way, their latest atrocity… Did you hear about this? (interruption) Yeah. ISIS found a bunch of people in Iraq that they claim were working for the Iraqi government. The six citizens of Iraq denied it, said they weren’t working for the government. ISIS said, “Screw you! We think you are,” and they boiled them in tar.
In public! They boiled them in tar. And this group has openly said, “Oh, yeah. We got a bunch of our guys in that bunch of Syrian refugees that are gonna be admitted into your country,” and the party that’s got the borders open and welcoming all that into the country is the Democrat Party, and here’s Donald Trump over here saying, “Unh-uh. Not on my watch. We’re gonna real strict on who gets in here.” It is the only sensible approach to take, and you are not hearing about it because the narrative on Trump is that he’s unfit.
He’s unsuited, he’s dense, he’s stupid, he’s inexperienced, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he’s too narcissistic, and all of that. So they can’t portray Trump as a serious guy on an issue. When he gets serious, they can’t portray his policies as worthwhile. So they trash them as the usual Republican bigotry, usual Republican discrimination, that kind of thing. And then they stop talking about it ’cause they don’t want draw any more attention to it.
RUSH: Okay. Here are the correct numbers. Hillary Clinton wants to increase the number of Syrian refugees by 500%, and that number translates to 65,000 a year. The current number Syrian refugees getting into America via Obama dictates is 10,000 a year. Hillary wants to up that to 65,000, not to mention the new overall Islamic or Muslim immigrants that she wants to admit into the country. And look, folks, it is what it is. You can get mad at me.
You leftists out there, you can get mad at me all you want. I know that hearing the truth sometimes is challenging for you. But here you have the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, who wants to interview these people to find out, “What kind of Americans do you have problem with? You’re not an American; you want to come to America. Do you hate gays, do you hate women, do you think women are lesser citizens, do you think gays ought not be able to practice openly?” Whatever. And if they answer honestly, they’re not getting in.
Now, what do you want? Do you want to admit people into this country who are genuinely oriented against women and gays and lesbians and transgenders? That’s what Mrs. Clinton wants to do, with no questions asked. I mean, it’s clear as it can be. None of this is arguable. Now, you might say, “Hillary wouldn’t purposely do this!” Oh, really? They’ve got the southern border wide open. They’re letting all kinds of people come into this country, people that do drugs. Trump’s also spelled that out, too.
What do you mean, “They wouldn’t ever let that happen.” Who do you think is letting all this happen? Who do you think not only is letting it happen, who do you think’s causing much of this? It’s your good old Democrat Party. And Mrs. Clinton’s been right there at the top of it for 30 years right in the mix of all this.
RUSH: One more Trump bite from his speech before we go to the break. This is Trump spelling out yesterday — it’s in Youngstown, Ohio, by the way — the end of nation building, which, by the way, is exactly what the Democrats accused George W. Bush of doing. We have this senior foreign policy reporter at CNN saying Trump is only going to extend the Bush policies, and here’s Trump basically telling everybody how he is going to be doing much of the exact opposite. And here’s what he said about ending the era of nation building.
TRUMP: When I become president, the era of nation building will be brought to a very swift and decisive end. (applause) A new approach which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East must be to halt the spread of radical Islam. (applause)
RUSH: Listen to the applause here. Kept going.
TRUMP: All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which shares this goal will be our ally. Some don’t share this goal. We cannot always choose our friends, but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.
RUSH: The left hates that. We don’t have enemies. The Republicans are the enemy. Trump is the enemy. Talk radio is the enemy. Conservatism’s the enemy. Not ISIS. Not Black Lives Matter. Not Syrians. No, no, no, no. We only have our enemies in America.
But this is right on the money. This nation building business, if you don’t know what that means, the simplest way to say what it means is that we’re not gonna be the world’s policeman anymore. Well, we may do that, but we’re not gonna hang around and try to remake nations in our image, like Bush tried to do in Iraq by turning it into a democracy.
RUSH: Here’s Edmund in Lexington, Illinois. It’s great to have you up first today, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Hi. Rush, I was gonna say, your first comments about the Muslims and how the Democrats really should loathe the anti-gay, anti-women group as a whole but they don’t. Your message will really resonate with the average Democrat, and I think just like there’s two types of Republicans, there’s two types of Democrats. There’s the generic Ohio Democrat; there’s the Pennsylvania Democrat.
That’s far different than the Democrat in Washington, DC, who runs the press. So I think if that Trump can get that message out, the message that strangely enough, he’s the anti-war candidate. Strangely enough, he’s not the guy getting quarter-of-a-million dollars for a speech at Wall Street. I mean, he has many ways to attract the average Democrat, even though it seems like everything you hear about him, “Ah, this just doesn’t work.”
RUSH: Let me ask you about that. I’m gonna accept your premise only for the moment, and ask you this question: Are you comfortable with…? Are you a Trump supporter? I should get that out of the way first.
CALLER: Yes, I am.
RUSH: Okay. Are you comfortable with Trump making appeals like this that you think will work to Democrats? As you said, he’s the anti-war candidate. In many ways, he has more in common with the average Democrat than your average Republican. Does that bother you at all?
CALLER: No, it doesn’t. I mean, I think most Republicans, honestly, in retrospect probably wish they were anti-war, you know, in the Iraq war with Bush II. So that doesn’t bother me at all. I think it just removes a talking point that they can’t go to. They can’t go to the… How can they go to the anti-women talking point when he could respond with, you know, “Are you kidding me? Look who you want to bring into the country: A group that has the death penalty for being openly homosexual in 10 countries?”
CALLER: “How does that fit with your progressive views?”
RUSH: Exactly. And Trump does not want to let those people in, and Hillary does. The Democrat Party does. And they want them to come in in droves. Let me take issue with your premise, because this is an important point — and I hope you’re right. I have long believed what you just said, that the Democrat Party is made up of common, ordinary, everyday people that just happen to be Democrats because they grew up that way and to them the Democrat Party is FDR and JFK and all that.
But I’m not so sure.
I think the Democrat Party has become almost thoroughly radicalized.
I don’t know if there are that many of those Democrats left. That’s a recent opinion, a recent discovery, and it has surprised me. I am genuinely surprised at how little time it has taken for the full breadth of the Democrat Party to become totally extreme radicalized. And even if you’re right out there, Edmund — and even if there are Democrats that are not the radical leftists that their elected leaders in Washington are, they still have one thing in common with those elected leaders in Washington: When it comes to Republicans, they hate.
Even your JFK Democrats, even your FDR Democrats, even the Democrats… You said there are two kinds. You got these radical, extreme leftists that are doing God knows what, and then you’ve got the rank-and-file that may not even really know all that. They may not really think that. They’re just loyal to the name “Democrat.” Even if you’re right, the one thing those two different groups of Democrats have in common is their hatred for anything Republican, and that’s Trump’s biggest obstacle, I think, is they have a genuine institutional hatred because they’ve been conditioned to have it for God knows how long.
Their whole lives.
This one’s pretty crystal clear. Trump didn’t say it the way I’m saying it, by the way. I am summarizing what Trump said. I’m giving you the practical, real world result of what Trump said. All Trump said is, “If you have designs…” And I’m paraphrasing even this. He said, “If you have designs of coming to America and killing Americans or discriminating against Americans, you’re not coming in.” Okay, I’m telling you what that means. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has no such test.
“If you are a minority, and if you have any likelihood of registering to vote Democrat, we want you.” That’s the only bar you have to cross. If you want in this country, you have to make them convinced that you’re gonna register Democrat — that you want to register Democrat, you’re gonna vote Democrat — and everything else will be overlooked. Now, you hope that the average Democrats that you know out there that might listen to me would hear this and be gotten to. I do, too. I’ve hoped this for a long time, but I just don’t know. Anyway, it’s a good call, Edmund. I appreciate it.
RUSH: You know, the Drive-Bys are just so bent out of shape over what they think is Trump’s extreme vetting policies when it comes to deciding who gets admitted to the country and who doesn’t. It’s like everything else. It’s like immigration. There are so many things about immigration people don’t know.
Do you realize from 1924 to 1965 there wasn’t any immigration? Every time I say this, it reaches people who’ve never heard it and can’t believe it. From 1924 to 1965 zip, zero, nada immigration. It was thought that we needed that much time to assimilate all the people who emigrated to the country beginning in the late 1800s through World War I and so forth, Ellis Island, they came in through many different ports of call. And they had to be assimilated.
And Teddy Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy came along in 1965 and with the renewed immigration act or whatever that thing was called, and the modern era of immigration which has led to massive illegal immigration was begun. And that got so out of control that in 1986 the Simpson-Mazzoli act was passed, and that granted amnesty to about three million illegals who were here at the time, and the assurance would be that no more would be permitted.
But since the Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass of dependent people, uninterested or incapable of self-sufficiency and self-reliance, we keep the borders open. And since the Chamber of Commerce wants those people for cheap labor, the Republican Party’s been brought on board to now support the whole concept of amnesty. But from ’24 to ’65 there wasn’t any.
By the same token, folks — what are the years here? The US government policy from 1952 until around 1990, I’m not sure if it was ’90, ’91, ’92, but from 1952 to 1990, we had what would be called today extreme vetting policies, in order to keep undesirable people out of the country. That’s what the federal government’s job is. To defend and protect the citizens, to uphold the integrity of the country and its borders.
But now in a globalist world where nations’ borders are to be deemphasized, there really aren’t nation states anymore, we want to get to that point, why, if anybody wants to go anywhere, we find a way to let ’em, and particularly if they want to go to America because we need to cut America down to size. That’s what the rest of the world thinks, and the American people have seen fit to elect presidents who happen to agree with the rest of the world, that the US needs to be cut down to size. The Nationality Act of 1952 is what I’m talking about. The Nationality Act of 1952, even Jimmy Carter cited it to justify his ban on Iranians coming to the US after the Iranian hostage crisis. Did you know that? I’m sure you didn’t. Some of you probably did.
But when the Iranians in 1979 took all those Americans hostage, Jimmy Carter banned all Iranians from coming into the country, as a retaliatory step, and he cited the Nationality Act of 1952 to do it. It was passed in 1952. It was intended to keep communists out, but it was used and applied to other undesirables. Large parts of the Nationality Act of 1952 are still in effect, including a prohibition against people who believe in polygamy or who promote it. Which, of course, is a tenet of Sharia law. You can have as many wives as you want.
In addition, we have used religion to keep people out. You can’t convince Millennials today of that. They don’t think America was ever that audacious. Yeah, we used to be keep certain religions out of the this country on purpose, if they were at war in certain places. And people say, “No, we never did, you can’t prove it.” Yes, I can. You take a look at the form that anybody seeking asylum has to fill out, one of the questions, “What religion are you?” Especially because most people seeking asylum claim that they’re fleeing religious persecution or religious war in their homeland.
Well, you gotta ask ’em, “Okay, where are you from, what religion are you, what religion’s being persecuted?” You have to track all that down. We’ve always asked people what their religion is, and we’ve used it to keep people out. There’s nothing new here with what Donald Trump wants to do. None.
And all Trump is saying is, any undesirables, you want to come into this country and kill Americans, we’re not gonna let you. And we’re gonna interview you and vet you, and we’re gonna find out. If you come from a religious belief or political belief that thinks America is the enemy and you need to kill them or discriminate, we’re not gonna let you in. I would think that would be very important to gays, lesbians, transgenders, infidels. And over here it’s the Democrat Party that wants to let all those people in. It’s almost an exact role reversal.
Greetings, and welcome back. It’s Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB Microphone at 800-282-2882.
Back to the Trump speech yesterday, foreign policy speech. Newt Gingrich said it was the foreign policy speech of all foreign policy speeches since the Reagan era. Newt says it’s that important. We resume now with Trump explaining his extreme vetting. And you will hear that he gets sustained applause during this.
TRUMP: I call it extreme vetting. (applause) In addition to screening out all members of the sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles, or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. (applause) Those who do not believe in our constitution or who support bigotry and hatred will not be admitted for immigration into our country. (applause) To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world (applause) that have a history of exporting terrorism. Not for us. Not for us. (applause and chants)
RUSH: “Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.” What do you think he’s talking about there? That’s exactly what I mentioned at the top of the program. When he’s talking about we must screen out any who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles or who believe Sharia law should supplant American law, that means, if you want to come in here and you don’t like our gays and you don’t like our lesbians and you don’t like our transgenders and you don’t think they should be allowed to do any of that, and you don’t like the way women have all the freedom they have in this country, we’re not letting you in here. We do not believe in that, and we don’t want you to come in here and undermine our country, and we’re gonna find out, we’re not gonna let you in.
People go yeah, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump.” Now, stop and think of this. Who is it that is stating flat-out an open defense of homosexuality and its itinerant behaviors, transgenderism, lesbianism and people that don’t believe in Islam, who is it that’s saying his foreign policy is going to be such that those people are not gonna get in here, they’re not gonna be allowed to practice their hatred or their bigotry or whatever? The Republican candidate.
This has gotta be a head-scratcher for activist gays, politically activist gays, most of whom are very liberal and support Democrats. Because over here Hillary Clinton, no such circumstances. If they want to come in, she wants to let ’em in. Really the only criteria the Democrats have when it comes to immigration — and you can laugh, or you can get mad. I’m here to tell you, the primary criteria the Democrats have, let’s be specific. These 60,000 refugees from Syria she wants to let in, Obama’s letting 10,000 in. She wants to up that by 500%. So what, 50,000, 60,000 a year. You know why? The odds are they’re gonna vote Democrat.
That’s the primary concern the Democrats have when it comes to immigration. That’s why they support illegal immigration. That’s why they support the immigration of people who are impoverished, undereducated. They’re not able to fend for themselves, take care of themselves. They’re not capable of self-reliance. They automatically arrive in America dependent, guaranteed to register and vote Democrat. That’s the number one criteria. Not whether they hate gays, not whether they hate lesbians or transgenders or Christians or any of that. Imagine, imagine this role reverse.
Now, grab sound bite 21. Walid Phares this afternoon on Fox Business Channel. Neil Cavuto said — no, actually Charles Payne is sitting in for Cavuto, and Charles Payne said to Walid Phares, “Are the people screening immigrants who want to come to the US currently missing something in the process? They’re not focused enough with respect to allegiance to dangerous terror groups?”
PHARES: Since 2009, the Obama administration has denied for these agencies to use any reference to jihadi ideology. So you are checking an individual coming from Aleppo, coming from Mosul, coming Cypress, without even considering that this person is part of this ideology. So you check on the police record, you check on his or her psychological situation, has there been any crime in their lives, everything checks, go in. The one thing that is important is the jihadi ideology, no check.
RUSH: In other words, what he’s saying is the current policy, the current vetting policy is not permitted. It is not permitted to find out if they are jihadists, if they’re militant Islamists, if they are terrorist related, not permitted to ask that under the Obama administration. Not permitted to ask it.
What Trump is suggesting is that’s gonna change. Trump’s saying to hell with that, we’re gonna find out who’s coming in here and we’re gonna find out why they want in and we’re gonna leave no stone unturned in finding out who they are and why they want come in and we’re going to find out. And the anybody that wants come in here, that wants to disrespect or country, that want to hurt Americans, to discriminate, we’re not gonna let them in. Which is consistent with American foreign policy from the get-go. Well, I shouldn’t say the get-go. I mean, the early days of the country they let anybody in. We were interested in growing the population.
But in the modern era, we have always vetted people coming into the country. We have always been responsible about it. The current Regime is not. And this is all Trump is saying in his foreign policy speech. And all of these details that you’re learning here are exactly why the media is not spending a lot of time on the details of the speech. The only thing you’re hearing probably is that Trump once again displayed his lunatic lack of understanding, his unfitness for office or whatever it is, however it is they’re characterizing it. But substance-wise, you look at the people who heard it and knew what he was talking about, Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump, standing ovation, 13, 15 seconds long.