{"id":213798,"date":"2016-06-20T16:09:33","date_gmt":"2016-06-20T20:09:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/172.24.32.11\/daily\/2016\/06\/20\/the_religion_of_peace_needs_protection\/"},"modified":"2016-06-20T16:09:33","modified_gmt":"2016-06-20T20:09:33","slug":"the_religion_of_peace_needs_protection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2016\/06\/20\/the_religion_of_peace_needs_protection\/","title":{"rendered":"The Religion of Peace Needs Protection"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a> <\/p>\n

\n

RUSH: This whole thing with redacting the 9\/11 calling from the Islamic terrorist?  You want to get…? (interruption) Let me just give you a preview of what\u2019s coming on that score.  Grab audio sound bite number 23, 24.  I mean, this will set everything up that\u2019s coming, including that I got a fascinating email filled with questions about things I said last week about who the left really considers to be their number one enemy.<\/p>\n

Us.<\/p>\n

Not militant terrorists. Not people that want to murder us. They hate us.  They\u2019re scared of us.  They — whatever — despise us more than they despise Islam.  This letter writer asks, “How in the hell can you say that? How in the hell can that be?”  So I\u2019ve gotta prove it again today.  But here.  The FBI assistant special agent in charge Ron Hopper went out there to address the media today. This is after Loretta Lynch\u2019s TV shows yesterday. So he went out there. The bottom line is, here\u2019s where we are: No one can draw pictures. <\/line><\/p>\n

The religion of peace needs protection, is the bottom line.  The religion of peace needs to be protected because there\u2019s so much mean-spirited extremism aimed against them — so much bias, so much prejudice, so much hate extended toward the religion of peace — they need to be protected.  No one can draw pictures of the Prophet Mohammed. Obama cannot publish the words of a believer who is trying to follow the rules guaranteeing safe passage to 73 raisins. (interruption) Well, yeah, it\u2019s not virgins; we got a new interpretation a couple weeks ago.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s raisins; it\u2019s not virgins.  Anybody…? How did they confuse that?  I mean, what do raisins have to do with virgins?  How in the world was that confusion?  Where did that start?  Anyway, so we can\u2019t draw — nobody can draw — pictures of the Prophet Mohammed.  Obama cannot describe militant Islam for what it is.  Obama cannot publish the actual words stated and used by a believer while committing an act of terror who was trying to follow the rules guaranteeing safe passage to the 73 raisins. <\/p>\n

Now, not to nitpick here, but how does jihad fit in with the religion of peace? I mean, if we now have to go to these great lengths to protect them. And just to show you where we are, Ronald Hopper today — this is in Orlando mere moments ago — was speaking about the investigation, which he said could take years, by the way.  Did you hear that?  The investigation of this incident could take weeks, it could take months, it could take years.  Here\u2019s the first of three sound bites…<\/p>\n

HOPPER:  He identified himself as an Islamic soldier who pledged allegiance to a terrorist organization which was bent on killing Americans.  He does not represent the religion of Islam but a perverted view, which — based on what we know today — was inspired by extremist killers.  We currently have no evidence that he was directed by a foreign terrorist group but was radicalized domestically.<\/line><\/p>\n

<\/a>RUSH:  So man, oh, man. They\u2019ve even gotten down to the special agent level of the FBI. They send these guys out and say, “Here\u2019s what you\u2019re gonna say. You\u2019re gonna say he doesn\u2019t represent Islam.  He was not inspired by it.  Let\u2019s see.  He does not represent the religion of Islam but a perverted view. He, based on what we know today, was inspired by extremist killers.” But you see the extremist killers have nothing to do Islam. <\/p>\n

No, no, no, no, no! The extremist views have nothing to do with Islam whatsoever, this special agent at the FBI is telling us.  Even though the guy pledged supported for ISIS, “We currently have no evidence that he was directed by a foreign terrorist group but was radicalized domestically.”  What\u2019s the difference?  I mean, when you get right down to it, what\u2019s the difference?  Here\u2019s the next bite…<\/p>\n

HOPPER:  Further redacting is meant to not give credence to individuals who have done terrorist acts in the past.  We\u2019re not going to propagate their rhetoric — their violent rhetoric — and we see no value in putting those individuals\u2019 names back out there. For cowards like this one, people like that influence them; so we\u2019re not going to continue to put their names out front.<\/p>\n

RUSH:  So we\u2019ve redacted everything the guy said about the reasons he did it.  We\u2019re just gonna redact it, because this is almost verbatim what Loretta Lynch was saying all over TV yesterday.  So the orders have gone out from on high how this is gonna be portrayed.  I think what you need to remember are the audio sound bites we had last week from James Kallstrom who was the former head of the New York office of the FBI, and he explained in his own words the practical application today of Countering Violent Extremism, as we detailed it for you last week<\/a>. <\/p>\n

<\/a>It is the latest directive from Obama, which does not permit the FBI to gather intel directly from Muslim communities, neighborhoods, what have you. Mosques, you name it.  The FBI is not allowed. They can only… In fact, they\u2019re not allowed to the investigate the social media accounts of Muslims who commit acts of terrorism and post it on social media. They\u2019re not. Even though they broadcast it far and wide why they\u2019re doing what they\u2019re doing and to whom they\u2019re going to do it, the FBI is not allowed to use any of that in the investigation. <\/p>\n

Kallstrom made it clear. (summarized) “Our hands are tied. We cannot presume. We cannot accept what we learn.”  The only way that the FBI can utilize any intel as if it happens to come from inside the community delivered by somebody there, like a rogue informant or somebody in a neighbor or in a mosque who hears it and calls the FBI. Then they can deal with it, but they can\u2019t go in there and find out on their own.  They cannot look at social media.  And this is the manifestation of it.  Here comes this FBI agent:<\/p>\n

This guy was not who he says he was, and so we\u2019re not gonna publish the words he used because we\u2019re not gonna allow this guy to tar and feather an innocent religion.  We are not gonna allow this guy to do it! So we\u2019re not gonna allow this guy to continue to propagandize.  These guys redact a lot.  They redact the Benghazi hearings report, a number of the phone calls that went on that night.  To me, this is insane.  There\u2019s no other way to describe it.  This is insane, folks. It\u2019s literally insane. <\/p>\n

It is one of the countless number of things that just fly in the face of standard, ordinary, everyday common sense.  And it\u2019s things like this that make people start asking questions.  “What in the world is going on?  Why in the world is it going on?” You start asking these questions, start getting very close to it, and then you have to back off for fear of what might descend upon you.  But it doesn\u2019t make any sense.  I mean, the answers to the questions that everybody asks: Why this desperate desire to protect obvious intent on the part of the obvious associated?<\/p>\n

Why protect it? <\/p>\n

Why try to go to the effort to make everyone not see what is plain as day?  Why?  You start asking that question, and the answers get very dangerous very quickly. (interruption) Well, they do.  That\u2019s why I myself am even backing off.  I had a guy tell me he wrote a column trying to answer that question based on my frustration with trying to get right up to it and backing off for fear that literally there may not be any future in going there. (interruption)  No. (interruption)  Well, no.  I don\u2019t think it\u2019s that.  (interruption)<\/p>\n

Snerdley says, “There\u2019s only one conclusion we can come to now, but we can\u2019t say it.” I don\u2019t think that\u2019s it.  We could go the benefit-of-the-doubt route. (interruption) You\u2019re talking about the president, right?  (interruption) Right.  We\u2019d have to go to the benefit of the doubt route if we wanted to touch on this at all.  Maybe I will.  You know, give me some… “I pledge allegiance…” But, see, he wasn\u2019t being ordered by ISIS.  They\u2019re saying that he was radicalized by the internet!<\/line><\/p>\n

He was “radicalized.” He\u2019s not really one of them, see? He\u2019s not really one of \u2019em. He\u2019s just Looney Tunes. He got radicalized.  Radicalized by who?  What radicalized them?  Other extremists that have nothing to do with Islam?  What radicalized the guy? (interruption) I know.  You take the Allah references out, because, as I just said, this administration is doing everything it can to protect religion of peace.  This guy\u2019s words of motive, everybody… Why? When something like this happens, why? Why did it happen? Why did the alligator snatch that child?<\/p>\n

Speaking of that, I actually saw a story. I\u2019m not kidding. Over the weekend, I actually saw a serious story somewhere.  I was driving.  I was not in the position to print it out.  I actually saw a story, “What was the alligator thinking when it snatched the two year old?” (interruption)  I\u2019m not kidding.  “What was the alligator thinking?” Serious, serious story.  I didn\u2019t have time to read it.  That\u2019s the frustrating thing.  I just saw the headline.  It was time to get out of the car.<\/p>\n

I had reached my destination and it was time to get out of the car, and I forgot all about it \u2019til just now.  But we\u2019re going out of our way to protect the religion of peace.  The guy uses the word “Allah.” The guy uses everything that we\u2019re accustomed to hearing. “No, no, no! We\u2019re gonna redact that \u2019cause we\u2019re not gonna allow this guy the opportunity for his propaganda.”  Now, turn this on any other group: The Tea Party, talk radio, you name it. They will do anything, including lie, to try to link innocent people to the commission of certain acts of terrorism. <\/p>\n