RUSH: We’re gonna start in Baltimore. This is yes Yehuda. Yehuda, it’s great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Dr. Limbaugh, it’s an honor to speak with you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call. Rush, I wanted to discuss the recent LA Times op-ed on whether or not regarding the film Innocence of Muslims is protected under free speech.
RUSH: I saw that yesterday or the day before. Yeah.
CALLER: Yeah. So the argument was that if the expression leads to incitement of violence and puts people in danger, it should not be allowed. So that pretty much sums up the liberal narrative apparent from the administration’s reaction — and their haste to blame the film for the violence — and obviously from this op-ed. So they’re arguing that condemnation and serious attempts to stop undue murder, destruction, and violence carried out by radicals is far less important than discouraging — and potentially enforcing exposure and condemnation of — that exact same violence and extremism.
RUSH: That’s exactly right. That is exactly right. But where does this lead? You know, frankly, there are gonna be some shortsighted people who say, “Yeah, yeah. You know what? I think it’s like yelling, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, Rush. We ought to make sure that people don’t offend the feelings of religious people.”
RUSH: You know what? If all you gotta do to have your speech curtailed is offend somebody and make ’em get violent…? (snorts)
CALLER: So now the question really becomes: Who has more freedom of expression, us twenty-first century American citizens or Muslim extremists? And I think that from what’s going on, the answer is that right now Muslims are freer to express themselves than we here in the United States in the twenty-first century.
RUSH: A brilliant point. Because under this op-ed’s term, the point is: The Muslims can wreak havoc all they want.
RUSH: But if we say something about it that they claim caused it, we can’t speak anymore.
RUSH: Our words are going to be deemed more injurious, risky, and harmful than their actions.
CALLER: Yeah. A good analogy would be like the big brother/little brother relationship, where the big brother must act older and responsible while the baby can do whatever he wants because he’s the baby. The liberals don’t see the radical Muslims as people who have a chance of ever controlling themselves in the absence of an outside enforcement. Yet they assert that we are the ones who must adjust to that. Honestly, I mean, that really takes away our freedom of expression and —
RUSH: Since you have obviously intellectually delved into this — and, by the way, if you don’t have an answer to this, no problem, because I’m hitting you with it without you having had any knowledge it’s coming.
RUSH: But you’ve thought about it.
CALLER: That’s all right.
RUSH: Why do you think the American left is, in fact, so tolerant of this? Why are they so tolerant of terrorism? Why do they want us to blame ourselves for it? What explains this, in your mind?
CALLER: Well, sir, in my mind there are two aspects. Let’s call it the positive aspect and the negative aspect. So the positive aspect is that they haven’t seen it close up in their eyes. It hasn’t happened to them. It hasn’t happened to their family. The negative aspect is the core, the psychological core of liberalism, in my opinion. That is that liberals… By definition, the reason why they’re liberals is because they like to preach to others. So even if the other people — you know, the normal, mainstream citizens — are not doing anything wrong, the liberals, because of this inherent feeling that they…
You know, because of this holier-than-thou feeling that they need to preach their beliefs to somebody else, they’re going to look for something wrong; for something to criticize in the other people. Even though the mainstream citizens aren’t doing anything wrong. And that’s pretty much where it stems from, that even though the radical Muslims are committing egregious crimes, somebody here is condemning it and exposing it. And doing it in an insensitive way. Which, by definition, every exposure is. So instead of choosing to condemn and to fight against the real problem, which is pretty hard to do, instead they just take the way of preaching to the harmless, innocent citizen who is doing nothing but exposing evil.
RUSH: Well, I have no doubt all that’s true. I, however, have a different theory.
RUSH: And it’s not nearly as complicated as yours.
RUSH: Because it’s a real basic question: Why in the world do they go so far out of their way to make sure these people aren’t offended? I think it’s because they, the American left, have a lot in common with militant Islam.
CALLER: Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm.
RUSH: They have a common enemy, and the common enemy is American conservatives.
CALLER: That’s very worrying. That’s extremely worrying.
RUSH: I think they’re both totalitarian. They believe in totalitarianism. They believe in the largest central command and control, commanding and telling everybody what they can and can’t do. Where they can and can’t go. What they can and can’t eat. The similarities between the American left and militant Islam are shocking. We believe in freedom, and that doesn’t go with either liberalism or Islam.
RUSH: Let me read you this LA Times op-ed, which claims that freedom of speech probably does go too far when it involves Islam. I’ll read the conclusion. “The point is…” I’m quoting from it now. (ahem) “The point is to emphasize that US law makes a distinction between speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.” Now, who talks that way? When’s the last time, Snerdley, you thought of saying something so you could put lives and property at risk?
Anyway, that’s what it says.
It goes on here about “speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.” Well, who gets to sit in judgment of what kind of speech that is? Yeah, that’s right! The government does. “Especially in the heightened volatility of today’s Middle East, such provocation is certainly irresponsible — and reveals an ironic alliance of convenience between Christian extremists and the Islamist extremists they claim to hate.”
What do “Christian extremists” have to do with this?
Where are they? Who are they? They’re not even in this story!
Ah, but you see? But, you see? I said this last week, or maybe it was earlier this week. The reason they’re harping on this video… Remember that Obama PR skit that we did on Monday, the press conference? I’m telling you, it was a week or two ahead of its time. Because the point we were trying to make in that skit is this filmmaker is a “Christian extremist,” and that makes him a conservative, and that’s why Obama’s harping on it. It’s part of the presidential campaign.
Blaming this video is blaming conservatives, as far as the presidential campaign’s concerned. What the heck does a “Christian extremist” have to do with Middle Eastern terrorism? So the whole thing is, by bashing “Christian extremists.” I’ll tell you, liberals… My old buddy, Andy McCarthy, has written a whole book on this, which is fascinating. It’s on the ties between liberalism, socialism, leftism, and Islam. The similarities are scary. It’s central command and control. No liberty or freedom.
It’s everybody living under dictates: What you can eat, what you can drive, where you can drive, who can drive, who will live and die, who gets health care and who doesn’t. It’s scary stuff. I’m telling you, the American left… Whenever, a terrorist outbreak happens, what’s the first reaction anywhere from a Democrat? “Oh, my God! We gotta apologize. Oh, we have to appease them.”
Are they afraid of ’em? (interruption) Well, that’s just BS. “We have to understand ’em. We have to understand their rage and find out why they hate us.” It’s all part of blaming America. It’s all part of blaming us. That’s true. But it’s almost as if there’s cowardice, although I don’t think that’s what it is at all. I think that they really don’t want… Folks, as I take a look at this, the Democrat Party and the American left doesn’t want us to see terrorism for what it really is.
They want us to see it as some really rare occurrence that is radical and has nothing to do with mainstream anything. It doesn’t happen that much. But to the extent that it does, it’s because there are conservatives that these people don’t like. If a… Let me put it this way. Answer this question with intellectual honesty: “If your average liberal had a choice to rid the world of Muslim extremism or American conservatism, what do you think the liberal would choose?”
And before you answer, try to remember what you’ve been told about what’s being taught in schools about who the real enemy is in America today. The real enemy is any Republican and any conservative, and for all the cliched reasons. By the same token, do teachers in schools rev their kids up to the dangers of militant Islam? “No way! We can’t offend those people,” but you can offend American conservatives all day long. You give your average liberal a choice:
“Okay, tomorrow the world is going to be absent either militant Muslims or militant conservatives. Which do you choose?” They’d vote us, folks, off the boat. I have no doubt about it, and I’m not kidding or exaggerating. I think we represent a bigger threat to them because we stand for the exact opposite. They are in common on their controlling characteristics, domineering characteristics, their arrogance.
They want to control everything, everybody.
They want to be in control of things that people eat, drink, use, high-tech, all this. Liberals have to have control over people, largely based in the belief… Well, it’s a raw thirst for power but it’s also rooted in the fact they have contempt for people’s ability to handle the rigors of life on their own. The Islamists want to do it just to keep this rigid moral code intact and fealty to the “Holy Qur’an,” as President Obama pronounces it. And we are diametrically opposed to all of it.
We want freedom, individual responsibility, individuality, entrepreneurism. You make the best of life however you can. Equality of outcomes is not possible. They want sameness everywhere, even sameness in dress. It’s really striking when you think about it, all the areas of similarity. It really is. When a terrorist act happens, what’s the liberals’ first reaction? Blame conservatives! Dark Knight Rising? Tea Party! Gabby Giffords? Sarah Palin!
You name it.
Any criminal act, mass murder, or terrorist act, the American left (including the media) first looks if a conservative is to blame. The car bomber in Times Square? Mayor Doomberg, who did he blame? Conservatives who were unhappy with Obamacare. Right? Meanwhile, what’s-his-name at Fort Hood blows the joint up? “No, we can’t say that that had anything to do with Islam. This is a sick person.”
“Wait a minute! He was being inspired by this sheik over there that Obama eventually wiped out with a drone attack.”
“Well, he was still a lone wolf. He was not acting in concert with anyone. He was just a sick individual.”
“Now, wait a minute. He was a Muslim, he went nuts, and he started blowing people away!”
“Well, that’s an isolated occurrence.”
You let any act like that happen, and the left’s first reaction try to blame a conservative for it. You know it and I know it.