RUSH: I really was shocked. The Atlantic is not what you would consider even a mainstream publication. It leans left, and proudly so, with exceptions. There is a piece in the latest issue written by a man named Graeme Wood, and, according to this guy: “The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.
“The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic StateÂ’s officials and supporters themselves.” I’m reading various quotes from the article. “They refer derisively to ‘moderns.’ In conversation, they insist that they will not — cannot — waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.”
“But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone — unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.”
And then this. Try this, Marie Harf. Try this, Obama. In The Atlantic, no less. “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
“Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, ‘the Prophetic methodology,’ which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail.”
It goes on. It is an in-depth piece. We will link to this piece at RushLimbaugh.com. They are who they are. They do not need American jobs. They are not who they are because of any economic circumstance. They cannot be silenced. They cannot be made peaceful with the introduction of western values because they abhor them. That is why they are who they are. They abhor Western culture and Western values and the infidels who populate it.
There is no way that we can bring about a peaceful end to the existence of ISIS by exporting Western culture. We can’t even do it by exporting liberalism. The best bet we might have is to try to corrupt this bunch by exporting liberalism. Can you imagine if we were able to succeed in getting the women of Islam protesting about their mistreatment, like happens in America, can you imagine the corrupting influences? Can you imagine if a certain segment of ISIS began to complain and whine about the environmental destruction that the group is making happen with their efforts of killing and attacking and beheading, look at the waste.
I have always thought, I have always believed, I have always preached, I have always suggested that one of the best weapons the United States has in defeating our enemies is to export liberalism to them. Liberalism is the fastest way to shut down an enterprise I know of, short of bombing it. The damage is forever, until you kick the liberals out.
Can you imagine environmentalist extremists as part of ISIS? Can you imagine feminist ISIS members? Can you imagine anything that you associate with liberalism, having it be part of ISIS and have protest groups spring up? It’s brought the United States to its knees, and it all happens, of course, under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and all that. It’s something that I think we need to consider.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Another example of exporting liberalism as a weapon against our enemies, a way to distract them, to divide them, to create strife amongst themselves. We could export militant feminism. We could export militant environmentalism. A bunch of environmentalist wackos, among it’s ISIS membership, for example, blaming the ISIS leadership for environmental destruction, demanding that they do clean war, demanding that they don’t pollute as they march across the Middle East.
I know, ISIS would kill them in short order, but it would still be a distraction. How about, can you see if we were able — this is the purpose of the CIA, if you ask me. Can you imagine if we were able to infiltrate ISIS and start demanding that ISIS leadership accept gay marriage? Can you imagine the destruction or the distraction that would be within ISIS? I know the ISIS leadership wouldn’t take kindly to being protested against by their own members demanding a change, but they do it against the Catholic Church all the time, so why can’t we do it against these guys?
The Catholic Church, Christianity’s protested all the time as restrictive, it’s gotta get modern, it’s gotta get with the times. Well, let’s let the CIA infiltrate ISIS and have a bunch of liberalism pop up out of the blue in the form of militant environmentalists demanding that ISIS reform itself, gay marriage advocates demanding that ISIS expand its definition of marriage, and any other aspect of liberalism. If it worked, it would paralyze ’em with internal strife and debate, and it would highlight how unfair and discriminatory ISIS is in ways the American people could understand it.
If the administration will not honestly portray ISIS for what they are: murderous, religious extremists zealots, well then let’s infiltrate them and show them what a bunch of discriminatory elitists they are. As we know, the American low-information voter has been made to believe the Republicans are conducting a War on Women. If they can be made to believe that about Republicans, do you think maybe they could be made to believe that about ISIS? It’s a golden opportunity, if you ask me. And it’s exactly what the CIA’s purpose is. Human intel on the ground, infiltrate the group, and then start demanding human rights and civil rights changes and demand to stopping all the abuses that the ISIS leadership is sponsoring. I, frankly, would love to see it.
Here’s Richard Stengel. Richard Stengel used to run TIME Magazine. He was on Erin Burnett OutFront last night, and they were talking about the battle against ISIS. This is after Marie Harf had opened up on the whole thing on Monday. Erin Burnett said to Richard Stengel, “So what are you doing to fight this?” He’s at the State Department, by the way. He’s not at TIME. Stengel is now at the State Department, undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs.
STENGEL: The more violent messaging, the more violent social media is actually pitched towards us in the West and of course to these foreign fighters or the potential foreign fighters that you’re talking about. Part of the problem there is that’s a very, very tiny audience, and they are attracted to some of this because they are disaffected, they’re unemployed, they’re unhappy, they have grievances. And so the ISIL videos and social media is pointed towards those people who they want to come to Syria.
RUSH: There you have it. This is a guy in the State Department, used to be at TIME Magazine, what’s that tell you? He leaves TIME and goes to the Obama State Department and now says that the terrorists in ISIS are attracted to this because they’re disaffected, they’re unemployed, and they’re unhappy, and they have grievances. There it is. The grievance industry. It’s as present there as it is here. There’s all kinds of legitimate grievances against the US, right? We have an entire grievance industry here called liberalism. And now he says that the same thing exists in ISIS. They’re disaffected, they’re unemployed, they’re happy, they have grievances.
See, my plan is actually already underway, and this guy doesn’t even know it. This guy’s already beginning, he’s in the first phases of exporting liberalism because he is projecting his own worldview onto them. Now, in the real world that would be dangerous because they are not us and we’re not them, but this clown is projecting what happens in America to what’s happening in ISIS and thinks there’s a route to the solution there.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Folks, I think we’re in great danger. The country is in great danger. We’re a great country at risk in a dangerous world, and we’re in even greater peril because this administration refuses to acknowledge the enemy, and I don’t think it’s just lip service. I honestly do not think they’re just saying, “It’s not Islam! These people are not Muslims.” I don’t think they’re just saying that to try to calm fears or for whatever reason.
I think they really… I don’t think they get it. They’re leftists. Look at this. I mean, it’s hard to follow some of this. You have Marie Harf saying, “We can’t kill ’em anymore. We gotta get ’em jobs!” You’ve got Richard Stengel here saying, “Well, you know, part of the problem is they’re attracted to some of this ’cause they’re disaffected. They’re unemployed, they’re unhappy, they have grievances.”
This is exactly the way they look at the United States, for crying out loud! They look at every minority group as having a legitimate grievance. “They’re unemployed, they’re unhappy, and so they’re seeking outlets for their energy,” and, “It’s not Islam and it’s not Muslim,” and so forth. This guy Stengel, former head honcho TIME Magazine now at the State Department, is projecting his own values and his own views on to these people.
In the process, he’s giving them a status and a civility that they don’t deserve. They haven’t earned it. Here’s one more Stengel bite. Erin Burnett said, “Is the United States in denial about all of this?” I don’t think it… It may be “denial” depending on how you want to define it. I just don’t think these people in the Obama State Department, anywhere in the administration, get it. Folks, it all comes under the umbrella that they think the United States is the problem in the world.
What all of this really means, when Marie Harf says it or Richard Stengel, “Yeah, well, they have grievances, and they’re unemployed,” it’s because of us. “We support Israel. We went to Iraq. We the War on Terror. We’ve destroyed their economies. We’ve destroyed their countries. We’ve bombed ’em. We’ve done this. It’s our fault. We almost owe them.” That’s what I hear this State Department people saying. It’s sick, but it’s rooted in something they really believe, and that is that the United States is not the solution to the world’s problems.
The United States is the problem.
So Erin Burnett says, “Is the US in denial?” Get this answer.
STENGEL: I actually don’t think it’s that hard to understand. The actions of these people are, by definition, not religious. There is no religion on the face of the earth or in human history that condones the kind of reprehensible criminal actions that ISIL commits. Do these men say they are doing it in the name of Islam? Yes. Is it a completely distorted and narrow and ancient view of Islam? Yes. But I would not say it is Islamic.
RUSH: This guy needs to read The Atlantic piece. It boils down to this: If you’re not going to even admit who your enemy is, what your enemy is, what their objectives are, you don’t have a prayer of defeating them. But I don’t think this administration even looks at ISIS as something to be defeated. Marie Harf, even though she is what she is, I don’t believe she’s an original thinker. I think she’s parroting what she hears throughout the State Department and throughout the administration.
They all think this.
They get in their little chat rooms, and they talk about this stuff every day just like the professors do in the faculty lounge at Harvard or Yale or wherever, and they get in their little bubble and they talk in their own worldview. Nothing from outside gets in or permeates, and they end up believing this tripe. The actions of these people are, by definition, not religious?
They are! Whether it’s a minority, whether it’s perverted, whether it’s not real Islam, it’s the actions of people who — in their own minds — are uber-religious. They don’t want to admit this. Now, the reasons for that you’d need a psychoanalyst in here, although I think I pretty much know. It’s because they think… Do not doubt me on this: They think that all of these groups — ISIS, the Cubans, you name it. I don’t care who they are.
They think that they have legitimate grievances and gripes with the US. I had a caller yesterday who asked me something. He was actually beside himself. He said, “I don’t understand these liberals. Why in the world…?” He was talking about immigration, but he asked, “Why in the world do they want to give away the country? They’ve got kids. They have got their own kids. Why do they support things that are weakening this country and ruining opportunity for their own kids?”
I told him, in an abbreviated formatted answer, what it is.
“It is that they do not see this country the way you do, sir. They see this country as illegitimate. They see this country as unjust and immoral from its first days, from the days of its founding. All that’s going on now is simply reparations and reciprocity and making up to everybody we have misbehaved against, everybody we’ve oppressed, everybody we have imperialized, everybody we’ve colonized, everybody whose land we’ve stolen, everybody whose resources we’ve stolen.
That’s what’s happening, and as such, all of these groups, whatever they’re doing, in Richard Stengel’s mind (I don’t know how big a part of his mind, but it’s in there), there is some legitimacy to this group, ’cause, after all, look what we’ve done to them! They hate us. Why do they hate us? What have we done to make them hate? The State Department, Bush State Department had a seminar on that.
Here’s Tim in Traverse City, Michigan. Hey, Tim. I’m glad you waited. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Yeah, thanks, Rush. Lutheran Christian Republican dittos from Traverse City.
RUSH: Thank you, sir. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Yeah. Great. Thanks for everything you do. I was just listening to this stuff from the liberals’ press, and I was thinking back to the Gulf War, or 2003/2004 when there was just a swell of enlistments from our young men and young women. They put up with it for a while, and then I remember the explanation was there was no jobs. These young people had nothing better to do, and they had to have opportunities, so off they went. It’s not surprising that it’s the same thing now, because they can’t understand that people would be passionately fighting for something. So I just saw a similarity there.
RUSH: You know something, ladies and gentlemen, this man from Traverse City, Michigan, is right. This Tim, he is dead-on right. He is exactly right. He’s a thousand percent right, and it’s a great illustration. This country’s Democrat Party and the liberal establishment during the Iraq war, Gulf War, Gulf War I, you name it. John Forbes Kerry (who served in Vietnam). They all, at one point or another, insult the volunteers in the United States Military. And how do they do it?
They claim the country’s run out of opportunity; there’s no way these poor kids — “from the South,” by the way. These hicks from the South and from Texas. This always happens during Republican administrations and during Republican deployments. The liberals always come around and say, “Well, there aren’t any jobs out there. There’s no choice these people. They’ve got to join the military!
“They don’t have a chance of getting an education, don’t have a chance of getting a job. They wouldn’t join the military if it weren’t for that because the Republican economy stinks.” And then John Kerry was somewhere out Pasadena, California, talking to a bunch of students about education and intelligence and said, “Yeah, you’re either smart or you end up in Iraq.” These people, Tim is exactly right. They’ve spare no occasion to insult uniformed military personnel.
I’ve always marveled at that, too.
You can hate the military, but why do you want to impugn the people who are signing up and offering their lives and sacrifice? What is the point of impugning them? Why attack them? I mean, even if your made-up reason is BS — and, of course, the idea that the only way these people get an education is to join the military is BS. “The only way they have a chance of having any kind of an income is join the military, ’cause the Republican economy is so bad!”
He’s exactly right, and so here’s more transference or projection.
It’s the same thing as, “Oh, these poor ISIS guys!”
You heard Stengel say it. You heard Harf say it. “We need to get ’em jobs. They got nothing else to do. Their economy’s in such bad shape, there’s no opportunity. We need to find them jobs and to give them something to do, and they wouldn’t care about becoming terrorists.” Look at the values, look at the opinions, look at the worldview that they have and how it is a blanket worldview. They associate everything in the world with their view of the injustice and the unfairness and the immorality or whatever you want to called it of this country.
Tim, I appreciate the call.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: “Islamic State Militants ‘Burn to Death 45 in Iraq.'” This story’s actually from yesterday. You notice how little attention this story about burning people to death has gotten in the Drive-By Media? A BBC report I have here, and it’s almost the only one. Is it because the lack of confirmation or are they trying to protect Obama? Obama’s out there saying, hey, this is just a bunch of random folks, street crime. So as ISIS continues its rampage, the Drive-By Media kind of hides what they’re doing. Is that to protect Obama?
“ISIS Arrests Woman over Exposed Eyes — The Islamic StateÂ’s (ISIS/ISIL) established ‘morality police’ reportedly attacked a woman in eastern Syria because her eyes were exposed. … The ISIS morality gangs in Albuhamai, Syria, found a woman wearing a full face veil that they deemed to have left her eyes too exposed. The police also arrested two men who attempted to protect her.”
Have you heard that the Regime is going to expand open immigration to Syrian refugees? Cybercast News: “The United States has ‘a long tradition of welcoming refugees,’ and it expects to welcome thousands more of them from Syria in 2015 and 2016, despite concerns about foreign fighters, the State Department said.”
They’re gonna quadruple the number of Syrian refugees allowed in the country the next two years. Now, would somebody explain to me the common sense behind this? One of the ISIS primary battlegrounds is Syria. Why in the world would you do this? Is it to show that we won’t discriminate? Is it to show how politically correct we can be? Is it to show how we are not judgmental? Even when it comes to terrorists, we will not discriminate?
What could be easier than for a bunch of ISIS fighters to disguise themselves as refugees and get into the US under that pretense? It’s unbelievable. And while this is going on, we’re having a three-day summit to try to explain and understand all of this violent extremism out there. But it’s not focused on trying to understand ISIS. It’s focusing on understanding the violent extremism you might find at Ruby Ridge or Twitter, or places in this country. The backlash against all of this, don’t you know.
Here’s another Tim. This one Winston-Salem, North Carolina. I’m glad you waited, sir. You’re next on the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Mega dittos, Mr. Limbaugh. It’s a pleasure to speak with you.
RUSH: Great to have you here, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Yeah, I was just thinking, since Vietnam War, Gulf War, you know, wars on terrorism, whatever, you always hear the left echo the statement, “What business is it of ours to intervene in these countries? You know, to go in and remove regimes from power. We’re not an exceptional nation. We’re not an exceptional group of people. We have no right to intervene and change their lives. It’s none of our business.” And using that logic in response to Marie Harf, what business is it of ours to find these people jobs and suggest economic policy and —
RUSH: I made that point earlier in the program. The irony here is that these people cannot find jobs for Americans, and yet that’s what they think the solution to the problem with ISIS is. See, she’s actually talking about something that they actively oppose, and that’s nation building. They got all over Bush for nation building in Iraq. It’s not our job, we have no right to impose our way of life on these people. That’s what you’re saying. And, you’re right.
For as long as I’ve been doing this radio show, I have been hearing liberal Democrats say, “We have no right to impose our views on the rest of the world.” I’ve even heard ’em say sometimes we have no right to impose freedom on them, because we’re not the world’s policemen, or it’s not our right, we don’t have that kind of power, there is no American exceptionalism, nothing special about us.
But yet here comes ISIS, and, “Well, we do want to stop them because we’re liberals and we oppose killing. And we oppose the death of people. But we must understand why it’s happening in this case, and it’s because they don’t have employment and jobs, and so we’re just trying to save lives.” And that’s how they would rationalize this in their valley girl way of speaking and enunciating. But, look, your point is well taken. We could spend all day here pointing out the hypocrisy of these people and the irony, that’s one of their favorite words.
What I have found — and it is persuasive with certain audiences — low-information people, I’ve found that pointing out hypocrisy doesn’t do much, as far as they’re concerned. The reason for that is, far be it for me to understand it, but the left is allowed to get away with screwing everything up because they have good intentions. They have big hearts. They at least trying to do something. Whereas the Republicans, why, they just don’t care, except about the rich and Wall Street. But the Democrats, they got big hearts. They may screw it up, yeah, we know, but they’re trying. They want to help, they want to improve things for people, and they’re able to skate on this and escape a lot of scrutiny.
Related Links