Gingrich: When will our leaders realize we are at war?
Obama has just weighed in on the Ted Cruz comments about increasing cop presence in Muslim neighborhoods. Obama’s outraged. Everybody’s outraged by this. Trump’s out there saying we should have used torture, and nobody’s caring. Nobody’s even commenting on that because everybody is overwhelmed by what Ted Cruz said about having increased police presence in Muslim neighborhoods.
My question about that… Because Hillary has blown up over this. She can’t believe it. “Hillary Clinton Calls Ted Cruz’s Proposal to Patrol Muslim Neighborhoods ‘Dangerous.'” May I ask a simple, obvious question? You would think the moderate Muslims that we are told about, the moderate Muslims who want no part of jihad and who have no inclinations toward jihad whatsoever — and they’re not interested in it, and they don’t support it. You would think that moderate Muslims — who, we are told, don’t like the extremist jihadis just like we don’t. We’re told that moderate Muslims do not like the way their religion is being defaced and tarred and feathered and tarnished by the actions of the jihadis. (interruption) Hijacked, yes! We are told that the moderate Muslims — peaceful, peace-loving — living in neighborhoods all over America, don’t like the fact that their religion of peace has been hijacked by the jihadis, the ISIS, the Al-Qaedas, the militant jihadists. The San Bernardino Two, for example. So why wouldn’t they welcome help from law enforcement in keeping their neighborhoods safe?
Why wouldn’t they welcome law enforcement presence to root out the people who are hijacking their religion of peace? I’m sorry, I need to be told. Is that an offensive question? Are some people going to think I’m trying to stir something up with that question? ‘Cause I’m not. I’m just asking. To me… You know, I’m the mayor of Realville here. We are told that moderate Muslims don’t like any aspect of jihad. They resent very much what’s being done to their religion. Think it’s being hijacked. It’s a religion of peace. They want no part of this.
So Cruz comes along and says, “You know, we need added police patrols in Muslim neighborhoods to root out the jihadists who are killing and attacking innocent people and giving the religion of peace a bad name.” Why wouldn’t they support this? May I turn it around? May I ask that question a different way? And again, I’m really asking here. I’m not… This is not rhetorical. Somebody more informed than I on this is gonna have to answer this for me. Take your average gang neighborhood.
Do you think the mothers and the grandmothers in these neighborhoods who don’t want their kids to have any part of gang life, don’t want ’em to get anywhere near it… Do you think they would resent additional police presence in the neighborhood? To keep the neighborhood safe? Or would they distrust the cops to be there no matter why they claim? (interruption) Depends on the neighborhood? (interruption) Depends…? (interruption) So some…? (interruption) Even parents, mothers, grandparents that don’t want their babies anywhere near the Crips, Bloods, or whatever gang, don’t want them anywhere near that life
Even though some of those neighborhoods would be suspicious of the cops coming in, trying to keep the peace? (interruption) Some neighborhoods would welcome them, you’re saying? Depends on…? (interruption) Yeah, some. (interruption) Yeah, quietly. They might not throw a party for the cops, wouldn’t have an afternoon barbecue for ’em, but could quietly support them being there. It’s a common sense thing, to me. I mean, everybody’s concerned about crime. Everybody’s always complaining about crime.
A lot of people say, “You’ve never got the cops around when you need ’em. Cops only show up after the fact. We need more cops!” Then cops somebody suggests that we have additional police presence to keep the peace — and in this case, to keep the religion of peace from being hijacked, jaundiced, criticized, impugned, whatever — and this is considered an attack on a whole religion? Think about this. This is considered an attack on a whole religion by suggesting the cops have a greater presence in neighborhoods? What is it…?
I know what they’re thinking.
It’s discrimination by accusation or some such thing.
The very idea that you would suggest it means you’re biased and discriminating against the human rights of members of the religion of peace. You want to know what a spark this has become? I mean, this is a fuse. Even Obama weighed in on it in the middle apologizing to the Argentineans for keeping secret files on ’em. At a joint press conference in Buenos Aires, during a Q&A, the AP correspondent — his name is Josh Lederman — said, “What would you say that it says about the state of our debate when you have a major presidential candidate calling for surveillance of Muslim-American communities, Mr. President?”
OBAMA: I’ve got a lot of things on my plate but my top priority is to defeat ISIL. As far as what some candidates have said, I think I’ve been very clear on this. We have a[n] extraordinarily successful, patriotic, integrated Muslim-American community. They do not feel ghettoized. They do not feel isolated. Their children are our children’s friends, going to the same schools. They are our colleagues in workplaces. They are our men and women in uniform, fighting for our freedom. And so, any approach that would single them out or target them for discrimination is not only wrong and un-American, but it also would be counterproductive.
RUSH: So president of the United States has just told Ted Cruz he’s wrong and he’s un-American and his idea is “counterproductive.” And Obama continued. This is the tail end of his comments.
OBAMA: The notion of having surveillance of neighborhoods where Muslims are present? I just left a country that engages in that kind of neighborhood surveillance.
RUSH: Oh, no.
OBAMA: Which, by the way, the father of Senator Cruz escaped —
OBAMA: — for America.
RUSH: You hear this?
OBAMA: The land of the free.
RUSH: You hear this?
OBAMA: The notion that we would start down that slippery slope —
OBAMA: — makes absolutely no sense. It’s contrary to who we are.
RUSH: Oh, yeah, it’s contrary to who we are. It’s not our values. It’s not who we are, certainly not our values. He just compared Ted Cruz to the Castros, folks. Hee-hee. From the guy who’s conducting surveillance with drones all over the Middle East, from the guy who’s in charge of the Kill List, from the guy who’s pulling the trigger killing Muslims all over the world from drones. Barack Obama is claiming that he finds the notion of surveilling neighborhoods where Muslims are present offensive!
You know, you put things together. Don’t forget the story we had in Politico yesterday, after Brussels. The first story from The Politico, “‘Why Do They Hate Us So Much?'” None of this has made any sense to me within the sphere of common sense. The sphere of common sense is this: On 9/11, we’re minding our own business, and the next thing we know 3,000 Americans are dead because 19 militant Islamists have hijacked airplanes, flown two of them into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon. A fourth was probably intended the White House. There have since then been a few additional attacks.
But since 9/11, since 19 militant Islamic hijackers, many of them Saudi Arabian, under the direction of Osama Bin Laden and other leaders of Al-Qaeda, ever since then it has been the obsession of the Democrat Party that there not be a single word of criticism of Islam.
Now, in the sphere of common sense, this is really curious. After each subsequent attack by militant jihadists, radical Islamists, after each one, Brussels just being the most recent, the first thing that happens is that members of the Washington establishment, predominantly Democrats, and certainly from the Regime, stand up and tsk-tsk-tsk us and warn us to not say anything about Islam, to not say anything about Muslims, to remain silent about radical Islam. No, no, no, no. You are being discriminatory. You’re being bigoted or whatever you are if you at all acknowledge the perpetrators, if you ask questions, you’re not to go there.
In the realm of common sense, none of this computes. This is as if Mars attacked the United States, and we were told, “Do not dare say anything about Mars. Do not say one word about Martians,” everybody would say, “But, but, but.” Don’t care. Not all Martians did it. Just a precious few, and they by no means speak for the whole planet. Or some silly comparison. After every attack we are not to verbalize what everybody knows. We’re not to ask questions. We are not to make reference in any way, shape, manner, or form. The first person that does, powerful forces array themselves in line and single-handedly start attacking whoever it is that makes the obvious observation.
And it’s always puzzled me. We know who attacked the World Trade Center. We know who did Brussels. We know who did Paris. We know where they came from. We know who teaches them. We know who inspires them. We know where to go to find out what they think. And yet don’t you dare, don’t you dare even bring it up. Why?
In World War II, do you realize that we had all kinds of surveillance programs to find out if the enemy might have been working within our shores. And when a famous Democrat president, FDR, said (imitating FDR), “You know what, I see some people that look strangely like those people that blew us up on Pearl Harbor.” He rounded up 110,000 of ’em and he put ’em in the same place out in California. It is true. No “but, but, but.” It is true. It’s since been condemned, of course. Well, actually it hasn’t been condemned.
Any other instance of lawbreaking, whenever you find out that there is a tendency of certain neighborhoods, certain people, certain wherever, even without profiling, just using statistics, anecdotal evidence, when you have good intel, an idea that something’s gonna happen, we surveil, we’ve got drones flying all over the world. We are surveilling. Who knows what kind of drones we’re flying over our own country and who they are spying on. I’ll bet you we got some drones flying over some good old boys at NASCAR tracks. I’ll betcha we got drones surveilling all kinds of Americans. If not drones, we’ve got agents surveilling. But do not ever suggest surveillance of members of the religion of peace. Don’t ever. Don’t even talk or go there. It doesn’t make any sense.
Obamacare profiles by race. They believe certain groups don’t receive adequate health care. I mean, this administration is obsessed with race. This administration is obsessed with the differences between us. They profile and surveil and who knows what else. But on this, this doesn’t make any sense. In the realm of common sense, this doesn’t make any. In fact, it’s worse than not making any sense. It is so pointedly purposeful that it’s suspicious.
Why are we not to mention the obvious? Why are we not to acknowledge the obvious? Why are we not to see it? What happens to those of us who do see it and comment on it? We just want to make the neighborhood safe. “You can’t…” And then the whole world lines up, and we have the president of the United States equating Ted Cruz to the Castros.