RUSH: Here’s Joe in Louisville. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you so much for everything that you do. Longtime listener, first-time caller.

RUSH: I appreciate that. Thank you.

CALLER: So I just wanted to point out that within 12 hours our FBI has announced that so far in this investigation the shooter has no ties to ISIS, and almost nine months into the Trump presidency and we’re still being told he may have ties to Russia.

RUSH: (laughing) You know, I love going to the phones. You people are some of the most creative, inventive, informed, educated. It’s not even been 12 hours, you’re right, not even six hours — how many hours is it? Approaching 12, and already we can conclusively say no evidence it’s ISIS, but after a year we’re still not sure about Trump. When did you think of that? At what stage of this did that occur to you?

CALLER: I was on my way in to work this morning and, you know, my first initial thought is always, “Please don’t let this be someone who is of Christian faith,” which is really kind of crazy to me because it never is. But after I heard that ISIS had claimed credit, after you played that clip, I thought, how strange it was that our FBI is already confident enough to say that this man certainly has no ties to ISIS, when they’ve only had 12 hours to really kind of look at who this person was —

RUSH: Hang on just a second. Let me further muddy the waters by repeating something I said mere moments ago. All during the Obama presidency there wasn’t any such thing as militant Islamic terrorism. It wasn’t that they wouldn’t just say it. There wasn’t any. The active position of the Obama government, including the State Department, the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security was that Islam is a religion of peace, so there isn’t any such thing as militant Islamic terrorism. They are a bunch of frauds or fakers, that was the official position of the Obama administration.

We also know that the State Department has routinely, in the days of both terms of Obama, they issued white papers for Homeland Security warning them that the most dangerous terror threats domestically were extreme right-wing groups. Do you remember this? I’m sure you do, having heard me mention it now. And I think one of those was — who was it? Who was over at Homeland Security or State? It was a woman, I don’t want to say Loretta Lynch, but it might have been. The attorney general, might have been. I’ll find out. I’ll research this and look it up.

But in both terms of Obama’s presidency there was a report issued internally that was made public by some law enforcement agency, might have been State Department, Homeland Security, that they real danger when it came to domestic terrorism was not militant Islam but rather extreme right-wing groups. I’m going somewhere with this, folks. Hang in there. Stick with me.

So we know that there are many Obama embeds remaining and Clinton embeds remaining in various areas, levels of the bureaucracy where that belief was official government policy, that there is no such thing as militant Islamic terrorism. It’s why Trump made a big deal during the campaign of actually calling it out and has called it out numerous times in official presidential speeches, statements, and remarks since being inaugurated.

My point is that at many levels of our government, there is a predisposition and a prejudice, maybe a bias, if you will, that militant Islamic terrorism is a false concept, that there isn’t any such thing as militant Islamic terror. Now, people who believe that who were responsible for articulating that as government policy, many of them are probably still there. I’m telling you that there are still many who want that to continue to be the basis on which law enforcement and the rest of us proceed.

The short version of this is that there are a lot of people who, the moment that happens, can’t wait to say it is not militant Islamic terrorism because they don’t want it to be, because they have said there isn’t any. And so our caller here from Louisville points out that they’re able to claim with relative certitude, in a matter of hours, that there’s no evidence to suggest any association with ISIS, but despite no evidence in over a year, they are still trying to pin Trump’s election to collusion with Russia. An interesting point.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Janet Napolitano, that’s who it was, Janet Napolitano back in April of 2009, she was the secretary of Homeland Security. She released an intelligence assessment that listed returning veterans among terror risks to the U.S. Remember? This is Obama’s first year or so in office. Janet Napolitano issued warnings about returning military veterans as potential terrorists and extreme right-wingers.

That report was out there for a long time. They the eventually pulled it, but that didn’t matter. It was a window to their mind. We found out exactly what they think. Meanwhile, actual militant Islamic terrorism was being denied, it was being categorized and called something else. Even militant Islamic terror attacks that everybody knew, that they were claiming credit for, “No, no, no, it’s not militant Islam. Islam is not militant, religion of peace.”

So they have the Obama embeds, the Obama types. The Democrats have a bias, my friends, against anybody concluding that militant Islam has anything to do with terrorism. Now, I want to play a little mind game with you based on the caller from Louisville. This guy had an interesting point. He said we haven’t even been 24 hours yet, and law enforcement is already ruling out ISIS. We haven’t found any evidence, no evidence of ISIS, militant Islam, there’s no evidence it’s a terror attack, not even 24 hours.

But in over a year without any evidence that Trump and Putin and Russia colluded, they’re still hunting, and they will not say, unless you dig deep in newspaper stories and find the one sentence, you know, thousands-of-words-story that they have found no evidence, but it doesn’t stop them. So imagine. Now, ISIS has claimed responsibility and law enforcement says, “No, no, no, we haven’t found any evidence that ISIS has anything to do with it.” Let’s play a game here.

Imagine if Vladimir Putin issued a claim of responsibility, just like ISIS has done today, but instead Putin claimed responsibility saying he and Trump did conspire to rig the election to help Trump win. Imagine if Putin would say this. We’re playing a game here. Would the FBI say, “Now, wait a minute, you can’t credit that because we have no evidence of it, and after all, Putin could be lying.”

My point is this. ISIS claims credit. American law enforcement puts its foot down. “Nope. Nope. We don’t have any evidence. No.” Let’s say Putin says, “Guess what, gang? I’m going to claim responsibility. I’m gonna take all this pressure off. Trump and I did collude to rig the election.” Would the FBI say, “Nope. Nope. We have no evidence”? No. They would run to it. They would embrace it. They would say, “Finally Putin and Trump own up,” or “Putin owns up.”

The point is it all depends on what you want the outcome to be here. It depends on what you want, what you hope explains this. It’s distressing, folks, to think that there isn’t an uncorrupted institution left in America. Has everything been corrupted now in order to advance a political agenda? Has NASA been corrupted? Has NOAA been corrupted, the weather service been corrupted by climate change? Is the FBI corrupted by desired outcomes, some to be guilty, some not to be?

Have we so corrupted law enforcement that we’ve said for so long there’s no such thing as militant Islamic terrorism that even when there is, we have to deny it? I’m just asking. But this is what I meant earlier, and now that’s what’s so distressing about all these former escapes from all this now suffering the same influences and corruption.