The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu




RUSH: John in Memphis. It’s great to have you, sir. Thank you for waiting.

CALLER: Hey, Rush! It’s great to talk to you. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet. Any time, sir.

CALLER: Hey, you said, I think it was at the end of the week before last, that you were drawing a parallel between the left — between the Marx left — and Sharia Islam. That got my antenna up, got my radar going. I’ve done some reading; I’ve found a couple of articles that basically say that Marx and Engels were both absolutely admirers of Islam. They saw Islam as being a struggle, much like communism, between wealthy and poor, and they really liked the idea of the armed uprising, of the armed revolution. They liked the way that Islam ruthlessly put down those who did not bow to it. So you were right on target.

RUSH: Well, that was actually a piece by Daniel Greenfield writing at FrontPageMag.com, David Horowitz’s site. Greenfield was making the case that this was… It was all bouncing off of a realization here that the Democrats respect no authority. The glue that holds this country together — this was what I said and tried to explain Greenfield’s piece. And I asked people to think about this. And I do this periodically ’cause to me, folks, it’s actually kind of mind-boggling. We are a country now of over 300 million, 220/40 million adults or whatever.

And we are over 200 years old. And we’re still as founded. Now, don’t misunderstand. I know the left is trying to change all that. The point is, what is it that’s held this country together? What is the glue? We are the only country like ours. And when we were founded, there was nothing ever even close: A constitutional republic. We have a document of not very many pages that says “what is,” and for hundreds of years, everybody that we’ve elected — with a few short exceptions — have honored it just because it exists. It’s just a piece of paper.

We could have at any time mistakenly elected a tyrant who could have come along and set it on fire, taken control of the military, and turned us into a country that most of the people in the world have had to live under. We could have been tyrannized. We could have taken over by a tyrant or dictator. I mean a real one. The only thing that stopped it is that we elect our leaders who have to campaign for a protracted amount of time. There’s plenty of time to find out what there is to know about them. We have a vast media that finds everything and then some about people. But even after these people pass that vetting, they get elected.

And not a one of them has walked out on the Truman Balcony and taken that Constitution and ripped it up and had a bunch of military people surrounding him and told us that we are now his subjects. It has not happened. Why? It’s what has happened in practically every country on earth since the beginning of time. Why not here? And the answer is there has been a common, accepted respect for the authority that is the Constitution, and that then can be said to be a respect for the rule of law. Now, to me, that’s pretty fragile.

For all these years, it has relied on human characteristics of virtue and honor.

Now, you know how megalomaniacal people can be. There are people who want more power and power more and they’re never satisfied. How have we escaped having a coup run by some overzealous tyrant? How have we escaped what most people in the world have lived under? It’s the honor system. It really is. It’s respecting, it’s revering the Constitution, and that’s why so many of us are worried because there now seems to be a rising political movement that doesn’t respect the authority of the Constitution, and it is today’s progressive movement which is housed in the Democrat Party.

And in an effort to explain what Greenfield’s point was, I cited some examples given by Andy McCarthy of how similar the American progressives are to Sharia Islam. And that is: There is no authority other than their own. The progressives in America today still have not respected the results of the election. They do not respect the authority of the outcome of the election. They live and breathe to overthrow that election, because they didn’t get what they want. The only authority they acknowledge is their own. Same thing with Sharia Islam.

As long as the leader is devout Sharia, then he will be obeyed constantly. But if that leader strays, it’s, “Bye-bye leader. Hello, Anwar Sadat.” He strayed, made peace with Israel; he was assassinated by militant Islamists, Sharia Islamists. We are in a dangerous time here as I acknowledged after the election, a precariously dangerous time. We have an outgoing administration that still has full-fledged power. We were waiting for Trump to be inaugurated, and you could see every day that the American left — the so-called liberal progressive movement — has no respect for the authority of election outcomes.

They have no respect for the authority of judicial proceedings unless they agree with what they want. That’s why they have angled to take over as much of the judiciary as they can. I think it’s remarkable this country has lasted as long as it has, and because of the honor system. How many people have we actually charged in the modern era with treason? Mr. Greenfield, Daniel Greenfield is the piece that I cited was actually accusing modern-day progressives of committing treason by their very acts today.

They are undermining and attempting to undermine the authority of this country, which is the Constitution. They simply do not respect any outcome that is not what they want. You can’t reason with them. You can’t cross the aisle. There’s no compromise. That’s not even possible. The concept is something that doesn’t even occur to them. So that basically was what I was trying to compare the progressives of today in America and around the world with Sharia Islam as a means of helping people to understand just what we’re dealing with in progressives in this country.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, I need to do a Sean Spicer impersonation and remind you that Hitler was a huge advocate of Islamists, militant Islamists. Militant Islamists in the Middle East, met with Hitler. Same objective. Anti-Semites. Well, it is what it is. I mean, the caller said that he had heard that Marx and Engels admired militant Islam. So did Hitler. I mean, it is what it is, folks.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This