Congressman Trey Gowdy Excoriates The Media - did not do their jobs on Benghazi.

 

The Media is supposed to provide oversight, that is why the media has special privileges. 

0-04

terrible act in Benghazi and make no

0-08

mistake justice will be done

0-10

that was the president of the united

0-12

states over a year ago

0-16

we're investigating exactly what

0-18

happened but my biggest priority now is

0-22

bringing those folks to justice

0-24

that was the president of the united

0-27

states over a year ago no one has been

0-31

arrested no one has been prosecuted

0-36

no one has been brought to justice we

0-38

don't even have access to the witnesses

0-41

you and the media were good enough for

0-45

my 16 years as a prosecutor not to tell

0-47

me how to do my job and so far in

0-49

Congress shall have been good enough not

0-50

to tell me how to do my job

0-52

I'm not telling you how to do your job

0-53

but I'm going to ask you some questions

0-55

and if you can't answer these questions

0-57

then I'll leave you to draw whatever

0-59

conclusions you want to draw about

1-01

whether or not the media has provided

1-03

sufficient oversight can you tell me why

1-05

chris stevens was in Benghazi the night

1-08

that he was killed

1-09

do you know does it bother you whether

1-14

or not you know why chris stevens was in

1-16

Benghazi do you know why we were the

1-19

last flag flying in Benghazi after the

1-21

British had left and the Red Cross had

1-23

been bombed

1-25

do you know why request for additional

1-28

security were denied

1-30

do you know why an ambassador asking for

1-34

more security days and weeks before he

1-38

was murdered and those requests went

1-41

unheeded do you know the answer to why

1-43

those requests went unheeded do you know

1-48

why no assets were deployed during the

1-50

siege and I've heard the explanation

1-52

which defies logic frankly that we

1-54

couldn't have gotten there in time but

1-56

but you know they didn't know when it

1-58

was going in

1-59

so how can you possibly site as an

2-01

excuse

2-02

do you know whether the president called

2-05

any of our allies and said can you help

2-08

we have men under attack can you answer

2-12

that

2-12

do any of you know why Susan Rice was

2-15

picked the secretary state did not go

2-18

she says she doesn't like sunday talk

2-20

shows that's the only media venue she

2-22

does not like if that's true why would

2-26

Susan Rice on the five sunday talk shows

2-29

do you know the origin of this mythology

2-33

that it was spawned as a spontaneous

2-36

reaction to a video

2-38

do you know where that started you know

2-41

how we got from no evidence of that to

2-44

that being the official position of the

2-46

administration in conclusion Congress is

2-50

supposed to provide oversight the voters

2-53

are supposed to provide oversight and

2-55

you were supposed to provide oversight

2-58

that's why you have special liberties

2-59

and that's why you have special

3-01

protections I am NOT surprised that the

3-04

president united states call this a

3-06

phony scandal

3-07

I'm not surprised as Secretary Clinton

3-10

asked what difference does it make

3-12

I'm not even surprised that Jay Carney

3-14

said Benghazi happened a long time ago

3-17

I'm just surprised at how many people

3-19

bought it

 

Dr. John Lott discussion on Gun Rights, Gun Rights Policy Conference & The Supreme Court.  Background checks on private transfers, individual right for self-defense The Heller Decision. Trump vs Crooked Hillary

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states, which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

 

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

 

0-17

nightmare for anybody on the other side and if you want proof of that

0-21

look at the Katie Couric movie and see how much how much time they gave him

0-25

four hours of interview they couldn't they look at it and said what do we do

0-31

with this we can't make him look bad so Stephanie shoe tag or whatever name is

0-36

mispronounced intentionally said just cut it up don't tell anybody even talk

0-40

to him it'll never get out

0-42

well it out the hot new york times bestselling author more guns less crime

0-48

now in its third edition and his new book my favorite the war on guns mr.

0-52

John Latin

1-01

well thanks very much for having me back before I get started I want to go and

1-08

come in a little bit about what Rick actor was saying you're here we have a

1-12

situation where anybody who's read my work knows that there's basically two

1-16

groups of people who benefit the most from owning guns the people are most

1-20

likely victims of violent crime and unfortunately that's one identifiable

1-25

group it's basically poor blacks who live in high-crime urban areas and the

1-30

other group that benefits the most are people who are relatively weaker

1-33

physically women and the elderly and so rick is basically doing the Saints work

1-39

out there trying to make sure that the people who are the most vulnerable out

1-43

there are able to go and defend themselves in one thing I've kind of run

1-47

into he mentions the anti-gun politicians in these urban areas is how

1-53

many times you run across Democrats who when you look at their policies they are

1-58

actually disarming these particular groups of people you know after

2-03

Washington DC's Heller decision they enacted new gun-control laws that the

2-09

Washington Post found cost eight hundred twenty dollars to go through the process

2-14

to go in licensed and registered a handgun in Washington DC

2-20

who do you think they stopped from being able to go and owned guns by having

2-24

those types of rules it in colorado in $MONTH 2013 when they were passing their

2-31

background checks on private transfers I got a call from some state legislators

2-37

and they asked me what amendment i would put up in my suggestion was to put up an

2-43

amendment that would exempt people below the poverty level from having to pay the

2-47

new state tax on transferring guns with the exception of two program Democrats

2-53

every other democrat in the State House voted against that exemption

2-58

I mean I could go on and I give a lot of examples in the war on guns on this but

3-02

how many taxes can you think of where Democrats will fight tooth and nail

3-06

against exempting people below the poverty level from having to

3-10

you know what's the cost of that you again it's the very type of people that

3-15

he's fighting for to be able to go and protect themselves on their own

3-19

who are the ones who are most harmed by this you know the reason I wrote the war

3-26

on guns this year is it's hot I mean we always tell ourselves that this

3-30

elections the most important but it's hard to think of another election i

3-34

would argue that as much as $MONEY at stake just in terms of what is involved

3-39

in terms of the Supreme Court mean right now you basically have a 4 to 4 tie with

3-46

the after Justice Scalia's death earlier this year in terms of justices who

3-52

believe that there's an individual right for self-defense and those who don't

3-56

whoever points Scalia's replacement is going to determine the outcome of that

4-01

and there's cases that we've lost in places like California that look like

4-06

they may be going to the Supreme Court or whoever points him is going to decide

4-11

whether or not the Heller decision was overturned or not in the Heller decision

4-14

couldn't have been a more basic or starting point that you could have had

4-21

on this because all the Heller decision did was say that the government could

4-25

not completely goin band Guns it had a complete ban on handguns but if even

4-31

though you could technically own a rifle or shotgun for all practical purposes

4-36

you could use it in self-defense because there was a five-year prison term just

4-41

for pulling a bottle bullet in the chamber of a rifle or putting a shotgun

4-45

shell and a shot cut and sew the supreme court said that for all practical

4-50

purposes

4-51

everybody all citizens were prevented from using any type of gun for

4-56

self-defense in DC so if thats overturn the only thing that's going to really

5-00

change that the government against going to have the power to go on band Guns

5-05

presumably places like DC will change but you also have cases like californium

5-11

for people who don't live in California one thing you need to realize is that

5-16

since 2001 when they introduce some quote safety regulations on handguns so

5-22

basically

5-24

the argument is you should be able to drop a handgun from the top of a tall

5-28

building onto concrete and still have it function properly there been over 1,200

5-36

models of handguns that have been banned for sale in California only one new

5-40

handgun model over the entire period time that's been allowed probably in a

5-45

few years all handguns will be effectively banned for sale in

5-50

California

5-50

well if Hillary wins this election then what you're going to have is a situation

5-56

where my guess is the supreme court at that time would say it's okay to

6-02

effectively ban handguns through safety regulations if the if if Trump wins and

6-10

. people that he's talked about appointed to the Supreme Court then my

6-13

guess is that type of law will be struck down as not accomplishing its goal and

6-20

also effectively banning citizens in California from owning an entire class

6-26

of guns

6-27

I mean it's already very restrictive what they're allowed to going on now

6-32

there's lots of issues i could go into in the book or talk about in the time

6-37

that we have the book goes through a range of different types of issues

6-41

can I just ask well how many people have been at the last gun rights policy

6-47

conference

6-48

ok so about twenty percent maybe less

6-52

I'm just trying to think what i should talk about here so you have talked

6-58

before about background checks won't go through as much as I've done previously

7-03

but they're couple basic issues because right now from Nevada and may we have

7-09

new initiatives on background checks on private transfers we see obviously the

7-15

push at the national level probably the one type of law that Hillary Clinton's

7-20

been pushing has been background checks on private transfers surely after each

7-25

of the mass public shootings that we've had President Obama's the one law that

7-30

he's mentioned each time that we need to have now of course it would be nice if

7-34

there was a reporter sometime

7-36

would ask mr. president you say how important this law is after each of

7-41

these mass public shootings can you point to one single mass public

7-44

shootings that would have been stopped if this law in effect because he can't

7-49

not only during his presidency but years before there would have been one that

7-54

was stopped but there are a couple points to make your one is something I

8-00

was just talking about that is these background checks aren't costless if you

8-05

want to go and transfer gun in washington DC cost a hundred twenty-five

8-08

dollars to do it in New York City there's one shop they'll do it 425

8-14

others will do it for more you look across the country we're talking about

8-18

non-trivial costs that are there and again

8-21

who did they stop from buying guns but may not stop you or I from buy a gun but

8-26

basically poor minorities who live in high-crime urban areas are the ones who

8-31

will be stopped from ammonia done for protection but it's much worse than that

8-36

i had mentioned you before that there's 2.4 when democrats will or gun control

8-42

advocates will say they've been 2.4 million dangerous prohibited people have

8-46

been stopped from buying guns how that's wrong that virtually all those something

8-50

over ninety-nine percent of those are mistakes but I haven't told you about

8-54

before is that who gets hit the most with those mistakes

9-00

basically it's minorities again people tend to have names similar to others in

9-06

their racial group Hispanics have named some growth Hispanics blacks have names

9-11

similar the blacks forty percent of Vietnamese in the united states have the

9-16

same last name

9-17

and so what happens is is that when you have let's say a criminal that you're

9-24

trying to stop and you have somebody who you're looking for just similar names

9-29

and birthdays you're going to create a lot of what we call Faust false

9-34

positives a lot of mistakes that are there thirty percent of black males in

9-38

the united states are legally prohibited from owning guns because of past

9-42

criminal history

9-43

who are the most likely to have their names confused with other law-abiding

9-47

blackmails now that's no reason

9-50

by the government should be making these mistakes if a private company made

9-54

mistakes like this at 100 the rate that the federal government does the company

9-58

would be sued out of existence under federal law the reason why companies

10-03

don't make these mistakes but the federal government does is the federal

10-06

government simply doesn't use all the information that has available when you

10-10

buy a gun and you fill out the 4473 there you put down your name

10-16

put down your social security number put down your address put down your birthday

10-20

when a private company does a background check they use all that information even

10-25

though the government has that information all they use is roughly

10-30

similar names so middle name could be completely different phonetic spelling

10-37

for names is well they're really looking for I've never been able to get them

10-41

pinned down exactly what they mean by phonetically similarly spellings and

10-46

birthday they don't use the social security number and they don't use the

10-49

address and so it's because it's so broad like that they make a lot of

10-54

mistakes and again i would argue that the mistakes that they make are

10-58

basically races but there's no reason what they have to do that it's something

11-02

that they could easily fix if they just had the federal government have to meet

11-07

the same types of standards that the federal government forces private

11-12

companies to make when they do background checks so there are lots of

11-16

other issues i could get into on this another thing that President Obama

11-21

constantly raises when he's talked about the mass public shootings is the claim

11-27

that somehow these types of attacks are unique to the United States he says that

11-32

these types of things just never happened in other countries sometimes we

11-36

refer to it is never happening in in developed countries

11-41

anyway you want to try to go into find that simply false when i try to go

11-47

through in the book is list out each of the cases of mass public shootings using

11-51

the FBI traditional definition of of mass public shootings in europe and the

11-57

united states you may not realize this but in the European Union over the first

12-01

seven years of the Obama press

12-03

you can see they had 25 mass public shootings the United States over that

12-08

same period time also had 25 mass public shootings you also have to do these

12-14

things on a per capita rate if you look at casualties per capita in the European

12-19

Union during the first seven years of the Obama administration you had a

12-24

casualty rate that was fifty percent higher per capita than what we had here

12-28

in the United States this is gonna be one country to look at you look at

12-32

France for example just France last year had for mass public shootings the total

12-39

casualties from those for mass public shootings was 532 if you look over the

12-45

entire first seven years of the Obama presidency there were total casualties

12-51

of 396 you had more casualties in one year in a country that had 150

12-58

population that the United States has then you had I see people taking notes

13-03

you don't it's all in the book

13-05

okay put it the you see more you saw more casualties in one year in a country

13-17

150 united states by hundred forty more than you had in the united states over

13-23

seven years

13-24

it's not even close but you know that one thing I could talk about a tiny bit

13-29

Oh before I get to that well you look at the media coverage last fall i don't

13-36

know if you remember this

13-37

there was this huge media sensation Wall Street Journal had multiple stories on

13-41

all the all the networks did about this study the claim that even though the

13-46

United States had less than five percent of the world population we supposedly

13-50

accounted for thirty-one percent of the mass public shootings around the world

13-55

from 1966 through 2012 anybody remember seeing the headlines it was all over the

14-00

place anyway when the story started coming out the end of last summer I got

14-06

a couple calls from reporters like at the washington post and what have you

14-09

and I said well i have a hard time believing that I've done some work on my

14-14

own could I see what

14-15

copy of the studies oh no the author said that only journalist could see this

14-22

he wasn't going to share it with researchers until later and I tried to

14-26

press on them at the time that was kind of a strange request to make it didn't

14-31

really have any impact and you know I showed him my work and I tried to tell

14-37

them look you can't put much weight in something if people are going to tell

14-43

you the cases or how they put them together so anyway and I contacted the

14-48

author the guy name's Adam Lang properties at the university of alabama

14-51

and I'd ask them for a copy of the states and not he's not releasing it

14-57

into the paper finally came out in january and i read it and i said i still

15-02

don't know what's in it and so I contact him i said look I can't figure out what

15-07

your cases are could you give me a list of these mass public shootings is not

15-12

not gonna share with you and I said well can you at least tell me how you

15-17

collected these cases because you have to realize trying to find cases of four

15-22

more people killed let's say in Africa in the nineteen seventies with the late

15-28

nineteen sixties i'm not even sure how to go about finding something like that

15-33

and so he said no i said can you tell me what languages you looked at or at least

15-38

some of the because the thing is for the United States it's easy to find these

15-42

things because we have databases for new stores we have thinks if you're any

15-46

lawyers in here you know nexus and westlaw that you can go and check these

15-50

things on he said now the only thing you could tell me was quote it took a lot of

15-55

time guys said well you know it'd be just nice if I could check these things

16-01

because you don't even have the total number of cases by continent for me to

16-05

be able to go and check this anyway I've gone back and looked at these now the

16-13

thing is I've convinced myself even for large cases uh you know let's say 15 or

16-19

more people killed i know i'm missing cases around the world because I can

16-24

guarantee you

16-25

South American countries that may have or Central America

16-28

countries that may have murder rates 80 times are not you know 20 times higher

16-33

than the United States rate or an Africa that maybe 20 times higher they simply

16-39

don't get news coverage on even some large shootings that I've discovered and

16-44

so but if you look at mass public shootings in which 15 or more people are

16-51

killed

16-52

what you find is that the United States is below the rest of the world in terms

16-57

of mass public shootings Africa has casualty or a death rate from mass

17-03

public shootings from 1970 through march of this year that's about four hundred

17-08

eighty percent higher than the United States you have South America that has a

17-13

rate that's going to be about five hundred percent higher than the United

17-16

States you have other places around the world even Europe is sixty-five percent

17-22

higher than the rate in the United States about the only place around the

17-26

world that has a lower rate is India and Pakistan and it's only about seven

17-31

percent lower death rate from mass public shoot you know the thing is when

17-35

you look at this type of thing I just give me one example only by luck i came

17-41

across a police report for five years during the early nineteen nineties from

17-46

from the Solomon Islands and now the solomon islands are are in a country

17-55

that has 500,000 people and they basically band Guns a couple years

18-00

before this report was done so in one reason why spend additional time looking

18-06

at this is because the gun control advocates AC guns were banned in the

18-10

Solomon Islands and no gun deaths occurred afterwards anyway I just

18-15

happened to come across this police report and there were three big mass

18-19

public shootings in the five years after guns were banned there in the country

18-24

now you think you have to understand is that when you have three big mass public

18-28

shootings in a country of 500,000 the per capita rate is like off-the-charts

18-33

there is even assuming that they didn't have any other mass public shootings

18-38

over the rest of time so what I try to do is I kind

18-41

detective the Solomon Islands police department and I said look I have it for

18-45

these five years could you help me out i said no i could help you out and and

18-52

after a while it dawned on me that they had like no desire to help me up because

18-57

they figured what's the worst the best that's going to happen

19-00

we're going to have some guy who does research in the United States published

19-04

a study that talks about all the mass public shootings in the Solomon Islands

19-08

they want tourists to come there they don't you know they can't think of any

19-12

positive benefits not like they have a Freedom of Information Act where I can

19-17

go and i tried to check into this but there's no freedom of information act

19-22

request there to go and get the data and the thing is there lots of parts of the

19-26

world like this not only can't you find it's not like the rest of the world was

19-32

on the internet 1966 or 1970 all right and it's not like they have databases

19-38

for that so the numbers that i just gave you showing that the United States is

19-43

well below the average and the rest of the world is an under estimate of the

19-49

rest of the world and how bad they are because i know we're missing lots of

19-52

cases even when you confine yourself to cases where there 15 or more now I can

19-59

go and talk about this mass public shootings for hours i mentioned

20-04

something else just this last week we had a lot of news coverage on the polls

20-09

that show made the claim that gun ownership in the United States has been

20-14

falling here here's the irony just done a few weeks earlier I wrote a piece for

20-20

Fox News where there had been a survey come out by Q which is hardly known as

20-26

being a conservative group showing that over the previous three years gun

20-31

ownership in the united states that increased by seven percentage points

20-34

when they came out there was like no news coverage on it at all no mainstream

20-39

news coverage on their poll number but this other poll that showed that gun

20-44

ownership had fallen to less than thirty percent and households got a lot of news

20-50

coverage and the thing is you see this time after time I try talking

20-54

people at fox and some other places i said look most the polls show no drop

20-59

there's some that shown increase why don't you provide some context at least

21-04

when you go in you do this one serving the rest of media wasn't worthwhile even

21-09

contacting them about it you know gallop in 2012 had a survey that showed at that

21-16

time record gun ownership you can go back and do new searches on it you will

21-21

not find one national media outlet that gave any attacking find local mainstream

21-28

media outlets that give it any attention

21-30

why does the media do this why did they go and give attention to surveys that

21-35

show drops and gun ownership but ignore ones where it's constant or its increase

21-40

i think there's a simple reason for this they want to make gun owners feel

21-44

isolated that they're somehow different make them feel that others are getting

21-49

rid of their guns maybe they should think of doing it too or at least not

21-53

consider going buying guns because they're somehow ostracise from the rest

21-59

of society and you know it's unfortunate but this gives you an idea of how

22-05

monolithic monolithic this is even in what you would regard as kind of more

22-12

neutral mainstream media outlets and I think it has a real impact on people's

22-18

perceptions

22-19

now what how much time do I have left seven minutes

22-25

well i mean i could go and talk about other things but I'm happy to go and

22-30

take questions from people in the audience there now there's a microphone

22-36

over there anybody wants to ask questions don't all rush

22-43

the I don't know maybe I should just take that as people want me to keep

22-48

talking okay going up there

22-53

I got a question do you have any grasp on how much the existing background

22-58

check system is costing us

23-01

well there are lots of ways that cost people just in terms of time nobody has

23-05

an estimate of that you know the thing is even the net annual reports that used

23-11

to be released up through 2010 the Obama administration stop releasing them my ID

23-17

my theories for why they stopped releasing them I my guess is a lot of

23-22

the numbers probably look worse than they used to in terms of the problems

23-25

but you know to me

23-29

the big question is the cost that it imposes in terms of the people who are

23-34

obtaining guns and who and particularly prices out of being able to get it and

23-39

there's no reason why we should essentially have this tax on people

23-45

buying guns if you're going to have this cost

23-50

I would go and argue if you believe you really believe that background checks

23-54

reduce violent crime and I don't and I have a lot of data in the war on guns

23-59

that response to claims on this what you should do is you should make people you

24-05

should pay for the side of general revenue rather than just attacks on I'm

24-09

the person who's buying the gun

24-11

1. lot of like it intercede a quick question earlier awr hawkins heavy gave

24-18

a listing a partial listing of all the mass casualty shootings over the last

24-22

all about seven or eight years and compared to the number that had a

24-25

background check it seems to me that the research might be worthwhile to find out

24-29

what percentage of mass casualty shooters say since 2000 have undergone a

24-34

background check because that statistic in terms of the percentage that had

24-39

gotten a background check and

24-41

committed mass casualty shooting that statistic might be a very effective

24-45

hammer for us already did that

24-48

I mean I've already it's all already is a jab by the right so all already in the

25-00

book so they basically since 2000 there's not one of the mass public

25-09

shootings that would have been stopped by having these background check laws on

25-14

private transfers so we understand it for hours worth of data dumb was

25-20

probably a little bit difficult for them course if you could take one piece of

25-25

information that you would like to encourage to be forced to contain to

25-29

have in her whatever it was that you put out what would you like to see in the

25-35

movie

25-37

what would you write of what you had told her to be in the movie

25-40

well Oh about four hours a little bit misleading in the sense that they often

25-46

it if you ever get interviewed and something like this you'll find that

25-50

they often tend to ask the same questions over and over again in order

25-54

to hopefully get you to say it a little bit differently in a way that they think

25-58

they can use at that point I mean Katie Couric was not a friendly interviewer

26-02

but what I tried it if anybody who's watched the movie knows that one of the

26-08

big things that they were trying to push are these background checks on private

26-13

transfers and so that's one of the things that came up many times in my

26-17

point to them was the same . i make in the book and made to you and that is the

26-24

current system is a mess

26-26

you can't there's no dissipation you can have for a system where probably over

26-31

ninety-nine percent of the these denials are mistakes where it's law-abiding

26-37

citizens who are being stopped simply because they have a name

26-41

roughly similar to somebody that you want to stop

26-44

there's no justification for have been bringing this up to gun control

26-48

advocates for 15 years they have like no desire to fix it it's basically

26-52

convinced me that they view this

26-54

as a benefit from the system most rather than a problem and and one thing I

27-00

haven't mentioned before this mention is the problem has gotten worse under obama

27-05

in multiple ways but at least one way that we know for sure and that is at

27-10

least under past presidents they would go and have people to check to see

27-15

whether mistakes that were made in most cases not know but at least after a year

27-20

year-and-a-half you'd eventually get a letter in the mail that said whoops we

27-24

made a mistake we thought you were somebody else

27-27

hopefully you can take this letter and be able to go and buy a gun

27-31

what's happened now is president obama has removed all the people that did any

27-36

checking nobody's doing the checking anymore double checking now you can go

27-40

and appeal but most people are going to find it a daunting task and are going to

27-45

find it necessary to go and hire lawyers so not only you having a system that

27-49

goes and over stops minorities blacks and Hispanics but then middle-income and

27-57

poor people in that area who are falsely flag are finding that they don't have

28-02

the thousands of dollars to go and be able to get through the process to go

28-07

and fix it so what I was telling Katie Couric was pretty much what i just told

28-10

you just now and that is I was talking about the mess the system was making how

28-17

was discriminated against poor people the costs that were there and saying i

28-22

also don't believe that it reduces crime that if you do the research to correctly

28-27

and not the way Bloomberg does it or the way some of these public health people

28-31

do in the book goes through it explains the mistakes and helps you understand

28-36

what the problems are with the way they do it you know we have a costly mess

28-41

that's discriminatory and hurting and if in this army the most vulnerable people

28-46

in our society

28-51

one more question what we've got

28-54

hold on just one second we've got a question and answer session at five

28-57

thirty ok so we're going to have to move with the doctors for responsible gun

29-02

ownership but John thank you very much sure it will start with you at the

29-05

question-and-answer on the next 15 30 okay okay we've got to keep moving on

29-12

doctors for responsible gun owners you guys pop on a job thank you very much

29-16

excellent he's the greatest radio interview in the world you ask him a

29-25

question he just answers and then

 

Jon Voight's plea to save America This will be the most important election in American history we will once a country of freedom and now we're becoming a country of tyranny

 

 

 

 

Jon Voight

Actor

Jonathan Vincent "Jon" Voight is an American actor. He is the winner of one Academy Award, having been nominated for four. He has also won four Golden Globe Awards and nominated for eleven.

 

Voight received critical acclaim for his performance as a ruthless bank robber in Runaway Train (1985). During the 1990s, Voight made somewhat of a comeback, starring in Michael Mann's cult classic Heat (1995) opposite Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino.He portrayed the antagonists in Mission: Impossible (1996), Enemy of the State (1998) and as an unscrupulous showman attorney in Francis Ford Coppola's The Rainmaker (1997), which earned him a Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Voight gave critically acclaimed biographical performances during the 2000s, appearing as sportscaster Howard Cosell in Ali (2001) for which he was nominated for an Academy Award, as Nazi officer Jürgen Stroop in Uprising (2001), as Franklin D. Roosevelt in Michael Bay´s Pearl Harbor (2001) and as Pope John Paul II in the eponymous miniseries (2005). Voight also appears in Showtime's Ray Donovan TV series as Mickey Donovan, a role that brought him newfound critical and audience praise and his fourth Golden Globe win in 2014.

The 77-year-old Ray Donovan actor not only defended Donald Trump‘s leakedlewd comments, but also called outRobert De Niro for speaking out against the Presidential nominee.

“I am so ashamed of my fellow actorBobby DeNiro‘s rant against Donald Trump. What foul words he used against a presidential nominee. who has worked harder then any other man I know in the past year and a half to get a good message to the American people,” Jontweeted. “I don’t know of too many men who haven’t expressed some sort of similar sexual terms toward women, especially in their younger years. Donald Trump‘s words were not as damaging asRobert DeNiro‘s ugly rant. Trump‘s words did not hurt anyone. Can you imagine. if any Republican said words like Robert DeNiro used – against Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama? All hell would break loose.”

0-00

My dear fellow Americans we were all

0-03

feeling tremendous anxiety with only a

0-06

few weeks left to the election

0-08

this will be the most important election

0-09

in American history we will once a

0-11

country of freedom and now we're

0-14

becoming a country of tyranny we are

0-17

witness to our own people burning down

0-19

and losing our cities Ferguson Missouri

0-21

walking orlando florida Baltimore where

0-24

all witness to our own people killing

0-26

our policemen Islamic terrorists have

0-29

killed thousands of people all over our

0-31

country and Hillary and Obama want to be

0-35

politically correct and pretend all the

0-36

killings are not happening

0-38

how many Americans are aware of george

0-41

soros an evil man who turned hundreds of

0-45

Jewish people over to the Nazis to be

0-47

exterminated during World War Two it was

0-50

interviewed on 60 minutes and was asked

0-53

as he feel guilty for what he's done and

0-56

arrogantly he said absolutely not i

0-59

didn't do it someone else would have

1-00

sources a billionaire who make most of

1-04

his money manipulating currencies and

1-06

almost bankrupt in many countries he

1-09

supports hate groups were responsible

1-11

for taking down our cities and he's a

1-13

close friend of Hillary Clinton and a

1-15

major supporter campaign robert de niro

1-19

is a millionaire as are so many of our

1-22

Hollywood stars were voting for Hillary

1-24

and who have absolutely no tolerance for

1-26

any one of a different opinion

1-28

forgetting that that is what our country

1-30

is founded on freedom of choice but they

1-34

will not be affected by Hillary's open

1-36

borders only are poor and middle class

1-39

will suffer thousands of refugees will

1-42

will flood our nation and no one will

1-45

know the good guys from the bad guys

1-47

it will kill our economy which is it at

1-49

an all-time low now under

1-51

the use of Obama's presidency and

1-53

Hillary boasts of how proud she will be

1-55

to continue Obama's legacy no one can

1-59

afford health insurance now prices for

2-02

healthcare gone through the roof

2-04

thanks to obamacare are once reasonable

2-07

health care is gone with Hillary as

2-10

president we will lose our Second

2-11

Amendment with our right to bear arms

2-13

freedom of religion will be attacked and

2-16

Hillary will try to stop all

2-17

conservative voices on TV and radio are

2-21

highest courts will become socialist and

2-25

she will restrict what America was

2-27

founded on our freedom to become a small

2-29

business owner and pursuing our own

2-31

personal dreams she has blonde hair

2-35

hands from the magazine terrorist raid

2-36

for of our American patriots died and

2-40

when the parents stood over their loved

2-42

ones coffins she lied to them about the

2-44

cause of their sons deaths pendulum of

2-48

freedom is not balanced Hilary and her

2-53

followers around a crude campaign to

2-55

stop integrate all of trumps followers

2-57

her words were echoed loud and clear for

2-59

all Americans to hear Hillary said

3-01

Trump's followers are basket of

3-03

deplorable they are unredeemable

3-06

may God protect the real truth and

3-10

mcdonald Trump win this presidency he

3-14

will save our America and he will

3-16

certainly make it great again

 

Is Islam a religion of peace? There are no limits on criticism of Christianity. Why should there be of Islam?

Is Islam a religion of peace? Is it compatible with Western liberalism? Or does Islam need a reformation, just as Christianity had the Protestant Reformation? Somali-born author and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains.

I was raised a practicing Muslim and remained one for almost half my life. I attended madrassas, that is, Islamic schools, and memorized large parts of the Quran. As a child, I lived in Mecca for a time and frequently visited the Grand Mosque. As a teenager, I sympathized with the Muslim Brotherhood.

At 22 while my family was living in Kenya, my father arranged my marriage to a member of our family clan, a man that I had never met. I ran away, made my way to Holland, studied there and eventually was elected a member of the Dutch parliament. Now I live in the United States.

In short, I have seen Islam from the inside and the outside.

I believe that a reform of Islam is necessary and possible. And only Muslims can make that reform a reality. But we in the West cannot remain on the sidelines as though the outcome of this struggle has nothing to do with us. If the jihadists win and the hope for a reformed Islam dies, the rest of the world will pay a terrible price. The terror attacks in New York, London, Madrid, Paris and many other places are only a preview of what is to come.

For this reason, I believe that it’s foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been simple: Islam is not a religion of peace.

When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case: There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, and apostasy—that is, to leave Islam.

Those who tolerate this intolerance do so at their peril.

As someone who has known what it is to live without freedom, I watch in amazement as those who call themselves liberals and progressives—people who claim to believe so fervently in individual liberty and minority rights—make common cause with the forces in the world that manifestly pose the greatest threats to that very freedom and those very minorities.

In 2014 I was invited to accept an honorary degree from Brandeis University for the work I have done on behalf of women's rights in the Muslim world. That invitation was withdrawn after professors and students protested my criticism of Islam. My subsequent "disinvitation," as it came to be called, was no favor to Muslims—just the opposite. By labeling critical examination of Islam as inherently "racist," we make the chances of reformation far less likely. There are no limits on criticism of Christianity at American universities…or anywhere else for that matter. Why should there be of Islam?

Instead of contorting Western intellectual traditions so as not to offend our Muslim fellow citizens, we need to defend both those traditions and the Muslim dissidents who take great risks to promote them. We should support these brave men and women in every way possible.

Imagine a platform for Muslim dissidents that communicated their message through YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. These are the Muslims we should be supporting—for our sake as much for the sake of Islam.

In the Cold War, the West celebrated dissidents such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, and Václav Havel, who had the courage to challenge the Soviet system from within. Today, there are many dissidents who challenge Islam, but the West either ignores them or dismisses them as "not representative." This is a grave mistake. Reformers such as Tawfiq Hamid, Asra Nomani & Zuhdi Jasser, and many others must be supported and protected. They should be as well known as Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov, and Havel were in the 1980s.

If we do in fact support political, social and religious freedom, then we cannot in good conscience give Islam a free pass on the grounds of multicultural sensitivity. We need to say to Muslims living in the West: If you want to live in our societies, to share in their material benefits, then you need to accept that our freedoms are not optional.

Islam is at a cross roads of reformation or self-destruction.

But so is the West.

I'm Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University for Prager University.

Congressman and Chairman Trey Gowdy - Opening remarks at Sanctuary Cities Hearings

Gowdy gives indication of his thoughts on Sanctuary Cities

Chairman Trey Gowdy opening statement during the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security hearing titled, “New Orleans: How the Crescent City Became a Sanctuary City.”

What are the five biggest problems facing black Americans? Where do things like racism and police brutality rank? What about the absence of black fathers? Taleeb Starkes, author of Amazon #1 bestseller "Black Lies Matter", lists the five. They may surprise you.

What are the five biggest issues facing blacks in America?  Here’s my list.

Problem 5.  The Victim Mentality

Nothing holds someone back more than seeing himself as a victim. Why? Because a victim is not responsible for his situation. Everything is someone else’s fault. And the victim sees little chance of improving his life. How can he get ahead if someone is holding him back? All this makes the victim unhappy, frustrated and angry.

This is how too many blacks see themselves – as victims. So much so that their victim status becomes their primary identity and their ruling ideology. I call it victimology. Unfortunately, many black churches preach this “victimology,” many black parents pass it on to their children, inner-city schools teach it to their students and the black media reinforce it. Meanwhile, the NAACP and other black grievance groups fundraise on it.

Problem 4.  Lack of Diversity

Blacks repeatedly demand an “honest dialogue or debate about race.” But how can there ever be an honest dialogue about race between blacks and whites when there is virtually no honest dialogue between blacks and blacks? It’s hypocritical. And if a black doesn’t think, “whites are ultimately responsible for black people’s problems,” they’re labeled a “sell-out,” ”Uncle Tom,” or “race-traitor.”

As long as this type of groupthink exists, race-reverends of the Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson type will continue to be celebrated while independent black thinkers such as Professors Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams will be shunned.

The honest race dialogue and debate -- that first has to happen -- is not between blacks and whites but between blacks and blacks. We demand diversity from others, but need to practice it ourselves where it really matters -- in thought, opinion, and even political affiliation.

Problem 3.  Urban Terrorism

As just about everyone knows, but too few talk about publicly, in majority black cities, violent black on black crime is rampant. A Department of Justice study from 1980-2008 revealed that blacks accounted for almost half of the nation’s homicide victims (47.4%) and more than half of the offenders (52.4%) all while only being 13% of America’s population.

The Tuskegee Institute conducted a study of all known lynchings of blacks that occurred between 1882-1968. During this 86-year span, which is essentially the post-Civil War era up to the Civil Rights era, 3,446 Blacks where reportedly lynched. Presently, black-on-black murder eclipses the number of blacks lynched over the course of 80 years roughly every six months.

Unbelievably, the culpability for this disproportionate amount of mayhem actually lies with a menacing 2-3% minority within the black populace. I call them urban terrorists. And since they’re literally spawned from problem #2, the black community protects them.

Problem 2. Proliferation of Baby Mamas

The disintegration of the nuclear family has led to an astronomical increase of single-mother households. According to the Moynihan Report, in 1965, nearly 25 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. The report’s author Daniel Patrick Moynihan said this was a disaster in the making. He was, of course, vilified by so-called black leaders and their progressive allies. But he was right. Today the out of wedlock birth rate is nearly 75 percent. and even higher in some urban areas.

To be clear, Baby Daddies share this responsibility with Baby Mamas. Yet, while Baby Daddies are blamed and rarely shown compassion, Baby Mamas are rarely blamed and receive both compassion and support. This lopsided dynamic and the previously listed pathologies stem directly from the number one problem facing the black community...

Problem 1.  Unquestioning Allegiance to so-called Progressive Policies

Unwavering loyalty to progressive, liberal policies is the primary reason these dire conditions persist. It both makes them possible and perpetuates them. It’s no coincidence that progressivism is the common thread that binds predominately black cities where single-parent homes, failing schools, rampant poverty and crime predominate.

Look at cities like Detroit, Philadelphia and Baltimore. They’ve been run by progressive Democrats for decades. If their liberal policies were at all effective, these cities should have become models of economic growth and prosperity. Instead, they’re models of dysfunction. By fostering and exploiting the victim mentality, discouraging self-examination, subsidizing baby-mamas, and making excuses for black thugs, so-called progressive policies don’t alleviate the problems that afflict the black community, they aggravate those problems.

You may have noticed that racism did not make the list.  Why not? It’s simple: There will be no solution to the problems afflicting black America until more blacks recognize that the issues plaguing our community are ultimately self-inflicted.

Does racism exist? Sure. But there are other problems far more serious. And waiting until there are no more racists will mean waiting, and making excuses, forever.

I’m Taleeb Starkes for Prager University.

 

 

About the AuthorTaleeb Starkes Taleeb Starkes is the author of an Amazon #1 selling book that confronts the criminal and dysfunctional subculture within the Black community titled, “The Un-Civil War: BLACKS vs NI**ERS.” Follow Taleeb Starkes on Facebook & Twitter.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Despite an affidavit signed by Secretary Clinton on Aug. 8, 2015, stating all of her records were turned over to State, in just the last month, State received “a number of disks” from the FBI containing at least 14,900 emails of former Secretary Clinton’s with the possibility for tens of thousands more, according to Under Secretary of Management Kennedy.
• State staff was unable to obtain FOIA-able records from former Secretary Clinton during her tenure because they were not informed that those records existed.
• Although Secretary Clinton testified before the Benghazi Committee that State had 90-95 percent of her emails, State testified they could not properly fulfill Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests because they did not have her records.
• State’s FOIA process is an outdated, paper-based system that has failed to provide adequate responses to FOIA requesters until forced to do so by court order.
• Since 2008, State’s FOIA budget has almost tripled from $12.9 million to $33.4 million yet weaknesses persist.

PURPOSE:

• To examine the FOIA processes at State and specifically in the Office of the Secretary.

BACKGROUND:

• According to the State Inspector General, there are numerous weaknesses in the FOIA operations at the Office of the Secretary.
• From 2009 through 2013, State lost an untold number of federal records to inappropriate record keeping practices by Secretary Hillary Clinton and her senior staff.
• Due to State’s inadequate record keeping, hundreds of FOIA requesters received incomplete responses and it remains unclear whether those requesters will ever receive a full and complete response.

KEY VIDEOS:

Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): “So who is? Who knows (how many Hillary Clinton work emails State obtained after Dec. 5)? Ambassador Kennedy?

Ambassador Kennedy: “Mr. Chairman, to — we’ve received a number of disks from the FBI. We are in the process of inputting them into our classified analysis system and counting them. And we know of 14,900 odd documents and the FBI has mentioned that there could be tens of thousands others in the string of disks that we’re processing now.”

 

 

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): “Secretary Clinton told the FBI under penalty of not telling the truth that Colin Powell’s advice, email, had nothing to do with her decision to set up her unique email arrangement with herself.”

 

 

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI): “How was the Department able to close a request for correspondence covering Secretary Clinton when the Department did not have access to all of the email correspondence from the Secretary?”

 

What if everything you've heard about income inequality is wrong? What if it's actually a good thing for there to be people who are rich and people who aren't? John Tamny, the editor of RealClearMarkets, clarifies one of the big misunderstandings of our time.

 

There has been a lot said and a lot is written about income inequality – about how unfair it is that a few people are very rich and the rest of us aren’t; that the income gap between the wealthy and even the middle-class, let alone the poor, is so large.

Help me pay for the podcast hosting.

 

There’s only one problem with this complaint.

It’s wrong.

Income inequality is actually a good thing -- when it is the product of a free market economy.

And your own life proves it!

An economy is made up of millions of individuals making decisions about their own lives – where and how much they want to work, what they want to buy, and so on.

You are one of those individuals.

In a country like the United States, you are free to pursue a path in life that you believe best suits your talents. That talent might be teaching, or making music, or banking, or starting a small business, or raising a family. Whatever it is, this freedom helps to make life enjoyable, exciting and meaningful.

But it’s also an expression of inequality. This is simply because we’re all different. We have different talents, different temperaments, different ambitions.

That’s okay because – again in a free society – we can seek out opportunities that play to our personal strengths; that distinguish us from others.

If you find what you’re really good at and work hard, you might have great success and make a lot of money. If you’re an outstanding athlete, I’ll buy a ticket to see you play. If you’re a savvy investor, I’ll give you some of my money to invest.

As long as you have the freedom to guide your own destiny, you have a chance to reach your full potential – achieving success, however you define it. But if someone, say, a government bureaucrat, told you that your ambition had limits, that there was a ceiling above which you could not rise, I doubt you’d be happy about it. You’d feel like you were in a straightjacket.

Forced equality means less opportunity to pursue what makes you individually great..

But what about the growing gap between the rich, the 1%, and the rest of us, the 99%, that one hears so much about? Isn’t that a bad thing?

Again, the answer is no.

Here’s why:

In a free market economy people become wealthy making what the rich enjoy today into something almost everybody can enjoy tomorrow. The rich are the test buyers.

Consider the cell phone. Now we all have them, but when Motorola manufactured the first one in 1983 it was the size of a brick, had a half-hour of battery life, reception was terrible, and calls were very expensive. It cost $4000. But if no one had bought that $4000 brick, there wouldn’t be a $40 cell phone today.

In the 1960’s a computer cost over a million dollars. Nowadays, thanks to billionaires like Michael Dell, we have incredibly advanced computers that cost us a few hundred dollars.

Remember what an out-of-reach luxury flat screen TV’s once were? Only the rich could afford them. Today your living room is essentially your own private cinema.

The free market is about turning scarcity into abundance. What was once available to the few is now available to the many. Wealth inequality is an important corollary to that truth.

So, should I resent the people who became wealthy because they have more money than I do, or should I be grateful for the economic system that allows them to enrich my life and the lives of millions of other people?

This feature of the free market – income inequality – can appear terribly unfair. But with a little further investigation, the real picture becomes clear. Income inequality makes what once seemed like impossible luxuries available to almost everyone; it provides the incentive for creative people to gamble on new ideas; it promotes personal freedom, and rewards hard work, talent, and achievement.

In sum, income inequality signals that individual liberty, opportunity, and innovation are all present in a free economy. Pretty good for something that’s supposed to be so bad.

Two final points:

The 1% Club is always open to new members. And you don’t have to be in the top one percent to have a very good life. And that, not the existence of the very wealthy, is what matters most.

I’m John Tamny, editor of Real Clear Markets, for Prager University.

Are the Police Racist? Does the truth MATTER? Not to groups like Black Lives Matter.

Do they disproportionately shoot African-Americans? Are incidents in places like Ferguson and Baltimore evidence of systemic discrimination? Heather Mac Donald, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute, explains.

Does the truth matter?

Not to groups like Black Lives Matter. That’s tragic for many reasons, not the least of which is that black lives are being lost as a result.

When it comes to the subject of American police, blacks, and the deadly use of force, here is what we know:

A recent “deadly force” study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones in simulated threat scenarios. Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. In Houston, he found that blacks were 24 percent less likely than whites to be shot by officers even though the suspects were armed or violent.

Does the truth matter?

An analysis of the Washington Post’s Police Shooting Database and of Federal Crime Statistics reveals that fully 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by cops. By contrast, only four percent of black homicide victims are killed by cops.

But isn’t it a sign of bias that blacks make up 26 percent of police-shooting victims, but only 13 percent of the national population? It is not, and common sense suggests why. Police shootings occur more frequently where officers confront armed or violently resisting suspects. Those suspects are disproportionately black.

According to the most recent study by the Department of Justice, although blacks were only about 15 percent of the population in the 75 largest counties in the US, they were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults. In New York City, blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, commit under two percent of all shootings in the city, though they are 34 percent of the population. New York’s crime disparities are repeated in virtually every racially diverse city in America. The real problem facing inner-city black communities today is not the police but criminals.

In 2014, over 6,000 blacks were murdered, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. In fact, a police officer is eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. If the police ended all use of lethal force tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on the black death-by-homicide rate.

In Chicago, through just the first six-and-a-half months of 2016, over 2,300 people were shot. That’s a shooting an hour during some weekends. The vast majority of the victims were black. During this same period, the Chicago police shot 12 people, all armed and dangerous. That’s one half of one percent of all shootings.

Does the truth matter?

If it does, here’s a truth worth pondering:

There is no government agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police. The proactive policing revolution that began in the mid-1990s has dramatically brought down the inner-city murder rate and saved tens of thousands of black lives. Unfortunately, that crime decline is now in jeopardy.

As I write in my book, The War on Cops, police officers are backing off of proactive policing in black neighborhoods thanks to the false narrative that police officers are infected with homicidal bias. As a result, violent crime is going up, in cities with large black populations, homicides in 2015 rose anywhere from 54 percent in Washington DC to 90 percent in Cleveland. Overall, in the nation’s 56 largest cities, homicides in 2015 rose 17 percent, a nearly unprecedented one-year spike. 

Many law-abiding residents of high-crime areas beg the police to maintain order — precisely the type of policing that the ACLU, progressive politicians, and the Obama Justice Department denounce as racist. This is tragic because when the police refrain from proactive policing, black lives are lost.

Lost because of a myth.

The best research and data reach this conclusion: there is no evidence that police are killing blacks just because they are black.

You now have the truth. Does it matter?

I’m Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute for Prager University.

Donald Trump Speech - Making America Safe Again Rush Limbaugh - The Speech the media does NOT want you to hear!

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich praised Republican candidate Donald Trump's address on how he would handle the threat of the Islamic State, calling it "the most important foreign policy speech since Ronald Reagan." Adding that "it really does set the stage for a debate for the American people about what's threatening us and what we should do about it."

Gingrich said that Trump "did just a remarkable job, in my judgment, of identifying the enemy [and] describing accurately how big the problem is… I think the contrast between what… Donald Trump did and what Hillary Clinton is couldn't be clearer. This is a Grand Canyon-wide chasm of two different views."

Trump's ISIS Speech Profundities That the Drive-Bys Don't Want You to Hear

 

RUSH:  It all makes sense.  Trump gives his vaunted, anticipated, major address yesterday, foreign policy, ISIS, this kind of stuff.  You'd never know it, but Trump's speech contained a whole bunch of profundities.  Trump's speech contained some amazing things, but you're not hearing about that.  All you're hearing about it was typical Trump bigotry, typical Trump ignorance, typical Trump demonstrating he's unfit and unqualified for the office. 

Just typical coverage by the Drive-Bys.  And then after that they're ignoring it, and they're ignoring it because there's things in there, in Trump's speech, that I'm convinced that they do not want certain people to know that he said.  And I will explain what I'm talking about as the program gets underway because that's what the program's for.  It's for me to explain to you what's going on and what I think about it. 

Telephone number is 800-282-2882 if you want to join us.  If you want to send an email, I scan them, occasionally select one to reference.  It's [email protected]. 

Let's go straight to Newt Gingrich and his reaction last night on the Fox News Channel to Trump's foreign policy speech yesterday.  This is what the Newtster, Mr. Newt, had to say.

GINGRICH:  This in some ways is the most important foreign policy speech since Ronald Reagan.  The contrast between what Donald Trump did and what Hillary Clinton is couldn't be clearer.  This is a Grand Canyon-wide chasm of two totally different worldviews.  This was truly a historic speech and it will be interesting to see if the mainstream media can actually focus on the speech.

RUSH:  Not gonna happen.  That was last night.  Trump's speech was yesterday afternoon.  We're coming up on 24 hours since Trump gave the speech, and there's not a peep, there's not a single peep in the Drive-By Media anywhere close to what Newt's talking about.  Did you hear what Newt just said here?  He said in some ways it's the most important foreign policy speech since Ronald Reagan.  Now, we all know that Newt is given to hyperbole.  But that's Newt. 

We also know that Newt is a Trumpist. But at the same time Newt has had plenty of criticism of Trump. He's had plenty of constructively negative things to say about Trump. So he's not one of these sycophants that's all-in and defends Trump no matter what.  And I tend to think -- you know, the Trump speech happened yesterday while this program was on the air, and it's not possible for me to get into something in detailed fashion while the program is underway.  All I can do is, you know, maybe roll some sound bites from it, but, I mean, my awareness and knowledge is strictly surface in that circumstance. 

It wasn't 'til yesterday afternoon and last night that I was able to get into this.  And I saw some things that, to me, were profound.  And they might be to you, too.  But nobody's gonna know it. I'm not telling you this to say, "Hey, folks, this could be the turnaround."  That's not my point.  The point is that what Trump said versus what Hillary Clinton has said she wants to do, it's a 180.  It's a total reverse of what the two parties are reputed to stand for. 

Rather than tease you here, let me tell you what Trump said he's gonna do.  You've heard that the Drive-Bys -- I'm sure you've heard this -- that Trump, God, what a bigot, God, what a racist, God, he discriminates against everybody. 

Trump said that we're gonna vet these people, and we're gonna find out why they're coming here, and we're gonna institute requirements.  They gotta come here and essentially love America. They gotta want to become a part of America and we're gonna find out what biases they have. And if they have any desire to come here and kill Americans, they're not getting in.  And the Drive-Bys said he's obviously biased toward Muslims.  Why would they think that? 

Why would they think when Trump says, "And if you have designs on coming into this country and killing Americans, you're not getting in," and the Drive-By reaction is, "See, he hates Muslims."  Why would they think that he's talking about Muslims?  Why would they think that at all?  Who's got the bias here? 

Anyway, Mrs. Clinton on one hand has said that she wants to be, actually I think it's Trump's term, Angela Merkel.  She wants 500,000 Syrian refugees and Islamic immigrants and so forth, in the country every year, right?  Some number like that, it's a pretty large number, 500,000.  Donald Trump says, "Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, no way. We gonna vet these people and we're gonna put them under tight examination, and if we find that they are coming here to rabble-rouse, to make trouble, if we find they hate Americans and want to inflict harm, we're not gonna let 'em in." 

Now, who is it that lesbians and gays and women consider to be their defenders and their number one protectors?  It'd be the Democrat Party.  Gays and lesbians, the LGBTQ community, along with practically every other minority group, believes that the Republican Party's out to get 'em. And that their savior, their protectors, their defenders, the people looking out for 'em happen to be the Democrat Party and whoever is running for president.  So in this situation, it's Hillary Clinton. 

Who does Hillary Clinton want to let into this country just because?  Just because they are Islamists, just because they're Syrian, just because?  She wants to let into this country people who, as part of their religion, must discriminate against gays and lesbians.  We know how Islam regards women, and we know how Islam regards homosexuality. 

What candidate in a foreign policy speech yesterday made it clear he doesn't want those people in the country?  And what candidate has just put up the green light and said come on in?  Hillary Clinton.  The Democrat candidate, the Democrat nominee for president, representative of the Democrat Party openly, willingly wants to admit people to the country who have not very pleasant thoughts and ideas about women and homosexuals. 

And over here the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, is the guy who doesn't want those people to come in by virtue of his speech yesterday.  So we've got a reversal here of 180 proportion.  We have the Republican candidate for president essentially suggesting that if you want to come into this country and attack Americans because of their gender or because of their sexual orientation -- if you want to come to America and you have a problem with sexual orientation or with women or any other minority group -- we're not gonna let you in.

And naturally, the Republican's being called a bigot. The Republican's being accused of discrimination.  And it's the Democrat who's letting sworn enemies of various of their constituents groups into the country.  This is why I think the Drive-Bys are not going into much detail talking about this speech, and there's no other way to analyze this.  Now, the one thing that you have to accept here is that the religion of Islam is what it is regarding women and homosexuals. 

Now, we know that in Saudi Arabia, which is (for lack of a better word) the headquarters of modern Islam... (interruption) Yeah, infidels as well.  We know what Islam says about nonbelievers.  We know what Islam says about women because we see how women are treated.  We just got... I watched this incredible... I heard about it yesterday and I just watched it. The Drive-By Media were making the biggest deal out of the fact the first woman to wear a burqa won a medal in the Olympics. 

What does that tell you?  The first woman to wear a burqa!  Well, we have here quite openly what Islam thinks of women by virtue of the way they're treated, the way they're forced to dress, the way they can't drive, the penalties if they veer from the rules and tenets.  Same thing: We know that homosexuals are beheaded in places like Iran and a Saudi Arabia if they're discovered to be homosexuals.  Now, some people may not want to believe that.  There may be some devoted Democrat voters who simply are not gonna accept that. 

They may not know that that's part and parcel of the religion -- and when they're told, they might not want to accept it because they won't be able to understand the Democrat candidate openly welcoming people like that into the country.  You remember when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was running Iran? He came to the United Nations one year in October, the annual General Assembly meeting.  And they invited him to address the student body of Columbia in New York.  And he went!

And he's giving his speech. The speech ends, and it goes to the Q&A.  A student raises his hand, asks the Iranian president about homosexuals in Iran and how they're treated.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "We don't have any of those in Iran," and the Columbia student audience began to laugh and chuckle.  And Ahmadinejad said, "Oh, do you know some?  Can you tell us where they live?"  The room got kind of quiet.  But I still suggest that many of these traditional Democrat voters will not accept this.  They don't think that's the truth about Islam. 

Even after Orlando, look at the Drive-By Media.

Even after Orlando, the Drive-Bys and the Democrats have done everything to say that was not about Islam. "No, no, no! That was... What? Workplace violence! That was somebody off his rocker for the moment. That was somebody insane. No, no.  That had nothing to do with Islam."  That shouldn't surprise you.  Every terrorist act that happens in this country, the Drive-Bys and the Democrats say, "Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no! That has nothing to do with Islam.  Islam is a religion of peace.  There is no terrorism."

Anyway, it is what it is.  I mean, Trump did vow -- and his foreign policy approach was -- to defend America at every turn.  Whatever his policies are, they are rooted in the defense and the protection of United States and its people.  He's gonna keep Club Gitmo open.  He wants to continue his discussion about modernizing NATO and so forth.  The Drive-Bys are out, of course, characterizing it as a speech by a nobody who knows nothing, who's an idiot, who's unfit. He's unsuited, he's ignorant, doesn't know what he's talking about. 

But I tell you, when you boil this down, when you actually look at what Trump said -- and I'm sure that some of the things that I'm referring to here are why Newt had his reaction about how important a foreign policy speech it was.  We are in a serious world war.  There is an all-out war on Western Civilization, and there's only one candidate willing to even admit that and then devise a foreign policy designed to thwart it. 

The other candidate won't even admit there's a war on Western Civilization because in many ways, the Democrat Party is a combatant in trying to undermine Western Civilization.  Many of its constituent groups are part of the army trying to undermine Western Civilization.  The Democrat Party seems to find common ground with every anti-American group they can out there. They find common ground with every "minority" no matter what. 

It's like Scott Walker said (paraphrased), "Mrs. Clinton, you're throwing gasoline on Milwaukee here with these comments of yours," 'cause what we had in Milwaukee is a definite misstep by a citizen, the young Sylville whatever his name is. Smith? The young man shot by the cops.  The guy was a perp.  This was not police misconduct.  There was no moral equivalence here.  There was no, "Both sides are guilty here." But Mrs. Clinton comes out with her statement, "Well, the situation just shows how we need respect for the cops and the cops need respect for the people."

As though whatever went on in Milwaukee, both sides are guilty! That's the moral equivalence we get out of Democrats, and it's not true, and Scott Walker, the governor, said (paraphrased), "Don't say that. Mrs. Clinton, you're just encouraging these people. You're giving them justification for what they're doing and there isn't any."  And so it goes.  So we do have the Democrat candidate by virtue of being a Democrat, who is openly and bragging about how big a person she is, how big their hearts are.

What great compassion they have, by admitting all of these people in the hundreds of thousands (is her objective) who are admitted... I don't want to say "enemies," but they don't like certain Americans.  ISIS... (interruption) I know. ISIS, by the way, their latest atrocity... Did you hear about this? (interruption) Yeah.  ISIS found a bunch of people in Iraq that they claim were working for the Iraqi government. The six citizens of Iraq denied it, said they weren't working for the government.  ISIS said, "Screw you! We think you are," and they boiled them in tar.

In public! They boiled them in tar.  And this group has openly said, "Oh, yeah. We got a bunch of our guys in that bunch of Syrian refugees that are gonna be admitted into your country," and the party that's got the borders open and welcoming all that into the country is the Democrat Party, and here's Donald Trump over here saying, "Unh-uh.  Not on my watch.  We're gonna real strict on who gets in here."  It is the only sensible approach to take, and you are not hearing about it because the narrative on Trump is that he's unfit.

He's unsuited, he's dense, he's stupid, he's inexperienced, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's too narcissistic, and all of that.  So they can't portray Trump as a serious guy on an issue. When he gets serious, they can't portray his policies as worthwhile.  So they trash them as the usual Republican bigotry, usual Republican discrimination, that kind of thing.  And then they stop talking about it 'cause they don't want draw any more attention to it.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Okay.  Here are the correct numbers.  Hillary Clinton wants to increase the number of Syrian refugees by 500%, and that number translates to 65,000 a year.  The current number Syrian refugees getting into America via Obama dictates is 10,000 a year.  Hillary wants to up that to 65,000, not to mention the new overall Islamic or Muslim immigrants that she wants to admit into the country.  And look, folks, it is what it is.  You can get mad at me.

You leftists out there, you can get mad at me all you want.  I know that hearing the truth sometimes is challenging for you.  But here you have the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, who wants to interview these people to find out, "What kind of Americans do you have problem with? You're not an American; you want to come to America. Do you hate gays, do you hate women, do you think women are lesser citizens, do you think gays ought not be able to practice openly?" Whatever.  And if they answer honestly, they're not getting in. 

Now, what do you want?  Do you want to admit people into this country who are genuinely oriented against women and gays and lesbians and transgenders?  That's what Mrs. Clinton wants to do, with no questions asked.  I mean, it's clear as it can be.  None of this is arguable.  Now, you might say, "Hillary wouldn't purposely do this!"  Oh, really?  They've got the southern border wide open.  They're letting all kinds of people come into this country, people that do drugs. Trump's also spelled that out, too. 

What do you mean, "They wouldn't ever let that happen."  Who do you think is letting all this happen?  Who do you think not only is letting it happen, who do you think's causing much of this?  It's your good old Democrat Party.  And Mrs. Clinton's been right there at the top of it for 30 years right in the mix of all this.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One more Trump bite from his speech before we go to the break.  This is Trump spelling out yesterday -- it's in Youngstown, Ohio, by the way -- the end of nation building, which, by the way, is exactly what the Democrats accused George W. Bush of doing.  We have this senior foreign policy reporter at CNN saying Trump is only going to extend the Bush policies, and here's Trump basically telling everybody how he is going to be doing much of the exact opposite.  And here's what he said about ending the era of nation building.

TRUMP:  When I become president, the era of nation building will be brought to a very swift and decisive end.  (applause) A new approach which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East must be to halt the spread of radical Islam. (applause)

RUSH:  Listen to the applause here.  Kept going.

TRUMP:  All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which shares this goal will be our ally.  Some don't share this goal.  We cannot always choose our friends, but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.

RUSH:  The left hates that.  We don't have enemies.  The Republicans are the enemy.  Trump is the enemy.  Talk radio is the enemy.  Conservatism's the enemy.  Not ISIS.  Not Black Lives Matter.  Not Syrians.  No, no, no, no.  We only have our enemies in America. 

But this is right on the money.  This nation building business, if you don't know what that means, the simplest way to say what it means is that we're not gonna be the world's policeman anymore.  Well, we may do that, but we're not gonna hang around and try to remake nations in our image, like Bush tried to do in Iraq by turning it into a democracy. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Edmund in Lexington, Illinois.  It's great to have you up first today, sir.  Hi.

CALLER:  Hi.  Rush, I was gonna say, your first comments about the Muslims and how the Democrats really should loathe the anti-gay, anti-women group as a whole but they don't. Your message will really resonate with the average Democrat, and I think just like there's two types of Republicans, there's two types of Democrats.  There's the generic Ohio Democrat; there's the Pennsylvania Democrat. 

That's far different than the Democrat in Washington, DC, who runs the press.  So I think if that Trump can get that message out, the message that strangely enough, he's the anti-war candidate.  Strangely enough, he's not the guy getting quarter-of-a-million dollars for a speech at Wall Street.  I mean, he has many ways to attract the average Democrat, even though it seems like everything you hear about him, "Ah, this just doesn't work."

RUSH:  Let me ask you about that.  I'm gonna accept your premise only for the moment, and ask you this question: Are you comfortable with...? Are you a Trump supporter?  I should get that out of the way first.

CALLER:  Yes, I am.

RUSH:  Okay.  Are you comfortable with Trump making appeals like this that you think will work to Democrats?  As you said, he's the anti-war candidate. In many ways, he has more in common with the average Democrat than your average Republican.  Does that bother you at all?

CALLER:  No, it doesn't.  I mean, I think most Republicans, honestly, in retrospect probably wish they were anti-war, you know, in the Iraq war with Bush II.  So that doesn't bother me at all.  I think it just removes a talking point that they can't go to.  They can't go to the... How can they go to the anti-women talking point when he could respond with, you know, "Are you kidding me?  Look who you want to bring into the country: A group that has the death penalty for being openly homosexual in 10 countries?"

RUSH:  Right.

CALLER:  "How does that fit with your progressive views?"

RUSH:  Exactly.  And Trump does not want to let those people in, and Hillary does.  The Democrat Party does.  And they want them to come in in droves.  Let me take issue with your premise, because this is an important point -- and I hope you're right.  I have long believed what you just said, that the Democrat Party is made up of common, ordinary, everyday people that just happen to be Democrats because they grew up that way and to them the Democrat Party is FDR and JFK and all that. 

But I'm not so sure.

I think the Democrat Party has become almost thoroughly radicalized. 

I don't know if there are that many of those Democrats left.  That's a recent opinion, a recent discovery, and it has surprised me.  I am genuinely surprised at how little time it has taken for the full breadth of the Democrat Party to become totally extreme radicalized.  And even if you're right out there, Edmund -- and even if there are Democrats that are not the radical leftists that their elected leaders in Washington are, they still have one thing in common with those elected leaders in Washington: When it comes to Republicans, they hate. 

Even your JFK Democrats, even your FDR Democrats, even the Democrats... You said there are two kinds.  You got these radical, extreme leftists that are doing God knows what, and then you've got the rank-and-file that may not even really know all that. They may not really think that. They're just loyal to the name "Democrat."  Even if you're right, the one thing those two different groups of Democrats have in common is their hatred for anything Republican, and that's Trump's biggest obstacle, I think, is they have a genuine institutional hatred because they've been conditioned to have it for God knows how long.

Their whole lives. 

This one's pretty crystal clear.  Trump didn't say it the way I'm saying it, by the way.  I am summarizing what Trump said.  I'm giving you the practical, real world result of what Trump said.  All Trump said is, "If you have designs..." And I'm paraphrasing even this. He said, "If you have designs of coming to America and killing Americans or discriminating against Americans, you're not coming in."  Okay, I'm telling you what that means.  Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has no such test. 

"If you are a minority, and if you have any likelihood of registering to vote Democrat, we want you."  That's the only bar you have to cross.  If you want in this country, you have to make them convinced that you're gonna register Democrat -- that you want to register Democrat, you're gonna vote Democrat -- and everything else will be overlooked.  Now, you hope that the average Democrats that you know out there that might listen to me would hear this and be gotten to.  I do, too.  I've hoped this for a long time, but I just don't know.  Anyway, it's a good call, Edmund.  I appreciate it.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  You know, the Drive-Bys are just so bent out of shape over what they think is Trump's extreme vetting policies when it comes to deciding who gets admitted to the country and who doesn't.  It's like everything else.  It's like immigration.  There are so many things about immigration people don't know. 

Do you realize from 1924 to 1965 there wasn't any immigration?  Every time I say this, it reaches people who've never heard it and can't believe it.  From 1924 to 1965 zip, zero, nada immigration.  It was thought that we needed that much time to assimilate all the people who emigrated to the country beginning in the late 1800s through World War I and so forth, Ellis Island, they came in through many different ports of call.  And they had to be assimilated. 

And Teddy Kennedy, Teddy Kennedy came along in 1965 and with the renewed immigration act or whatever that thing was called, and the modern era of immigration which has led to massive illegal immigration was begun.  And that got so out of control that in 1986 the Simpson-Mazzoli act was passed, and that granted amnesty to about three million illegals who were here at the time, and the assurance would be that no more would be permitted. 

But since the Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass of dependent people, uninterested or incapable of self-sufficiency and self-reliance, we keep the borders open.  And since the Chamber of Commerce wants those people for cheap labor, the Republican Party's been brought on board to now support the whole concept of amnesty.  But from '24 to '65 there wasn't any. 

By the same token, folks -- what are the years here?  The US government policy from 1952 until around 1990, I'm not sure if it was '90, '91, '92, but from 1952 to 1990, we had what would be called today extreme vetting policies, in order to keep undesirable people out of the country.  That's what the federal government's job is.  To defend and protect the citizens, to uphold the integrity of the country and its borders. 

But now in a globalist world where nations' borders are to be deemphasized, there really aren't nation states anymore, we want to get to that point, why, if anybody wants to go anywhere, we find a way to let 'em, and particularly if they want to go to America because we need to cut America down to size.  That's what the rest of the world thinks, and the American people have seen fit to elect presidents who happen to agree with the rest of the world, that the US needs to be cut down to size.  The Nationality Act of 1952 is what I'm talking about. The Nationality Act of 1952, even Jimmy Carter cited it to justify his ban on Iranians coming to the US after the Iranian hostage crisis.  Did you know that?  I'm sure you didn't.  Some of you probably did. 

But when the Iranians in 1979 took all those Americans hostage, Jimmy Carter banned all Iranians from coming into the country, as a retaliatory step, and he cited the Nationality Act of 1952 to do it.  It was passed in 1952.  It was intended to keep communists out, but it was used and applied to other undesirables.  Large parts of the Nationality Act of 1952 are still in effect, including a prohibition against people who believe in polygamy or who promote it.  Which, of course, is a tenet of Sharia law. You can have as many wives as you want. 

In addition, we have used religion to keep people out.  You can't convince Millennials today of that.  They don't think America was ever that audacious. Yeah, we used to be keep certain religions out of the this country on purpose, if they were at war in certain places.  And people say, "No, we never did, you can't prove it."  Yes, I can.  You take a look at the form that anybody seeking asylum has to fill out, one of the questions, "What religion are you?"  Especially because most people seeking asylum claim that they're fleeing religious persecution or religious war in their homeland. 

Well, you gotta ask 'em, "Okay, where are you from, what religion are you, what religion's being persecuted?" You have to track all that down.  We've always asked people what their religion is, and we've used it to keep people out.  There's nothing new here with what Donald Trump wants to do.  None. 

And all Trump is saying is, any undesirables, you want to come into this country and kill Americans, we're not gonna let you.  And we're gonna interview you and vet you, and we're gonna find out.  If you come from a religious belief or political belief that thinks America is the enemy and you need to kill them or discriminate, we're not gonna let you in.  I would think that would be very important to gays, lesbians, transgenders, infidels.  And over here it's the Democrat Party that wants to let all those people in.  It's almost an exact role reversal. 

Greetings, and welcome back.  It's Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB Microphone at 800-282-2882. 

Back to the Trump speech yesterday, foreign policy speech.  Newt Gingrich said it was the foreign policy speech of all foreign policy speeches since the Reagan era.  Newt says it's that important.  We resume now with Trump explaining his extreme vetting.  And you will hear that he gets sustained applause during this.

TRUMP:  I call it extreme vetting. (applause)  In addition to screening out all members of the sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles, or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.  (applause) Those who do not believe in our constitution or who support bigotry and hatred will not be admitted for immigration into our country.  (applause) To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world (applause) that have a history of exporting terrorism.  Not for us.  Not for us.  (applause and chants)

RUSH:  "Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump."  What do you think he's talking about there?  That's exactly what I mentioned at the top of the program.  When he's talking about we must screen out any who have hostile attitudes toward our country or its principles or who believe Sharia law should supplant American law, that means, if you want to come in here and you don't like our gays and you don't like our lesbians and you don't like our transgenders and you don't think they should be allowed to do any of that, and you don't like the way women have all the freedom they have in this country, we're not letting you in here.  We do not believe in that, and we don't want you to come in here and undermine our country, and we're gonna find out, we're not gonna let you in. 

People go yeah, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump."  Now, stop and think of this.  Who is it that is stating flat-out an open defense of homosexuality and its itinerant behaviors, transgenderism, lesbianism and people that don't believe in Islam, who is it that's saying his foreign policy is going to be such that those people are not gonna get in here, they're not gonna be allowed to practice their hatred or their bigotry or whatever?  The Republican candidate. 

This has gotta be a head-scratcher for activist gays, politically activist gays, most of whom are very liberal and support Democrats.  Because over here Hillary Clinton, no such circumstances.  If they want to come in, she wants to let 'em in. Really the only criteria the Democrats have when it comes to immigration -- and you can laugh, or you can get mad.  I'm here to tell you, the primary criteria the Democrats have, let's be specific.  These 60,000 refugees from Syria she wants to let in, Obama's letting 10,000 in.  She wants to up that by 500%.  So what, 50,000, 60,000 a year.  You know why?  The odds are they're gonna vote Democrat. 

That's the primary concern the Democrats have when it comes to immigration.  That's why they support illegal immigration.  That's why they support the immigration of people who are impoverished, undereducated. They're not able to fend for themselves, take care of themselves. They're not capable of self-reliance. They automatically arrive in America dependent, guaranteed to register and vote Democrat.  That's the number one criteria.  Not whether they hate gays, not whether they hate lesbians or transgenders or Christians or any of that.  Imagine, imagine this role reverse. 

Now, grab sound bite 21.  Walid Phares this afternoon on Fox Business Channel.  Neil Cavuto said -- no, actually Charles Payne is sitting in for Cavuto, and Charles Payne said to Walid Phares, "Are the people screening immigrants who want to come to the US currently missing something in the process? They're not focused enough with respect to allegiance to dangerous terror groups?"

PHARES:  Since 2009, the Obama administration has denied for these agencies to use any reference to jihadi ideology.  So you are checking an individual coming from Aleppo, coming from Mosul, coming Cypress, without even considering that this person is part of this ideology.  So you check on the police record, you check on his or her psychological situation, has there been any crime in their lives, everything checks, go in.  The one thing that is important is the jihadi ideology, no check.

RUSH:  In other words, what he's saying is the current policy, the current vetting policy is not permitted. It is not permitted to find out if they are jihadists, if they're militant Islamists, if they are terrorist related, not permitted to ask that under the Obama administration.  Not permitted to ask it. 

What Trump is suggesting is that's gonna change.  Trump's saying to hell with that, we're gonna find out who's coming in here and we're gonna find out why they want in and we're gonna leave no stone unturned in finding out who they are and why they want come in and we're going to find out. And the anybody that wants come in here, that wants to disrespect or country, that want to hurt Americans, to discriminate, we're not gonna let them in.  Which is consistent with American foreign policy from the get-go.  Well, I shouldn't say the get-go.  I mean, the early days of the country they let anybody in. We were interested in growing the population. 

But in the modern era, we have always vetted people coming into the country. We have always been responsible about it.  The current Regime is not.  And this is all Trump is saying in his foreign policy speech.  And all of these details that you're learning here are exactly why the media is not spending a lot of time on the details of the speech.  The only thing you're hearing probably is that Trump once again displayed his lunatic lack of understanding, his unfitness for office or whatever it is, however it is they're characterizing it.  But substance-wise, you look at the people who heard it and knew what he was talking about, Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump, standing ovation, 13, 15 seconds long.  

END TRANSCRIPT

 

0-00

>> GENTLEMEN, LET ME ASK YOU TO

0-02

STAND BY, HERE HE IS, DONALD

0-07

TRUMP.

0-07

>> IT'S GREAT TO BE WITH YOU

0-08

THIS AFTERNOON AND TODAY WE

0-10

BEGIN A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW

0-13

TO MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN.

0-16

IN THE 20th CENTCENTURY, THE UN

0-25

STATES HAS DEFEATED FASCISM,

0-29

NAZIISM AND COMMUNISM.

0-30

NOW A DIFFERENT THREAT

0-32

CHALLENGES OUR WORLD, RADICAL

0-35

ISLAMIC TERRORISM.

0-38

THIS SUMMER THERE'S BEEN AN ISIS

0-39

ATTACK LAUNCHED OUTSIDE THE WAR

0-41

ZONES OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

0-43

HARD TO BELIEVE, EVERY 84 HOURS.

0-46

HERE IN AMERICA WE HAVE SEEN ONE

0-49

BRUTAL ATTACK AFTER ANOTHER.

0-52

13 WERE MURDERED AND 38 WOUNDED

0-56

IN THE ASSAULT ON FT. HOOD.

1-00

THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING

1-02

WOUNDED AND MAIMED 264 PEOPLE

1-07

AND ULTIMATELY LEFT FIVE DEAD,

1-10

INCLUDING TWO OF OUR GREAT

1-13

POLICE OFFICERS.

1-14

IN CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE, FIVE

1-17

UNARMED MARINES, UNBELIEVABLE

1-21

PEOPLE, BY THE WAY, WERE SHOT

1-25

AND KILLED AT A MILITARY

1-29

RECRUITING CENTER.

1-31

LAST DECEMBER 14 INNOCENT

1-33

AMERICANS WERE GUNNED DOWN AT AN

1-35

OFFICE PARTY IN SAN BERNARDINO.

1-37

ANOTHER 22 WERE VERY GRAVELY

1-42

INJURED.

1-46

IN JUNE AMERICANS WERE EXECUTED

1-48

AT THE PULSE NIGHTCLUB IN

1-49

AMERICA.

1-50

ANOTHER 53 WERE BADLY INJURED.

1-52

IT WAS THE WORST MASS SHOOTING

1-55

IN OUR HISTORY AND THE ATTACK BY

1-58

FAR THE WORST ON THE LGBTQ

2-04

COMMUNITY.

2-04

AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, WE CAN

2-10

NEVER EVER ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN

2-15

AGAIN.

2-16

[ APPLAUSE ]

2-20

THANK YOU.

2-21

IN EUROPE WE HAVE SEEN THE SAME

2-24

CARNAGE AND BLOODSHED INFLICTED

2-26

UPON OUR CLOSEST ALLIES.

2-29

IN JANUARY OF 2015, A FRENCH

2-33

SATIRICAL NEWSPAPER, "CHARLIE

2-34

HEBDO," WAS ATTACKED FOR

2-36

PUBLISHING CARTOONS AFTER THE

2-39

PROPHET MOHAMMED.

2-40

12 WERE KILLED, INCLUDING TWO

2-43

POLICE OFFICERS AND 11 WERE

2-45

WOUNDED.

2-45

TWO DAYS LATER, FOUR WERE

2-48

MURDERED IN A JEWISH

2-51

DELICATESSEN.

2-52

IN NOVEMBER OF 2015, TERRORISTS

2-54

WENT ON A SHOOTING RAMPAGE IN

2-56

PARIS THAT SLAUGHTERED 13 0

3-00

PEOPLE AND WOUNDED ANOTHER 368

3-05

PEOPLE.

3-05

SOME IN VARY, VERY, VERY BAD

3-11

SHAPE TODAY.

3-15

FRANCE IS SUFFERING GREATLY AND

3-17

THE TOURISM INDUSTRY IS BEING

3-19

MASSIVELY AFFECTED IN A MOST

3-22

NEGATIVE WAY.

3-22

IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR,

3-23

TERRORISTS DETONATED A BOMB IN

3-25

BRUSSELS AIRPORT KILLING 32 AND

3-29

INJURING 340 PEOPLE.

3-32

THIS JULY IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE

3-36

AN ISLAMIC TERRORIST TURNED HIS

3-38

TRUCK INTO AN INSTRUMENT OF MASS

3-40

MURDER, PLOWING DOWN AND KILLING

3-43

85 MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN AND

3-48

WOUNDING 308 PEOPLE.

3-52

TERRIBLE.

3-53

AMONG THE DEAD WERE TWO AMERICAN

3-57

S -- A TEXAS FATHER AND HIS

4-00

11-YEAR-OLD SON.

4-01

A FEW WEEKS AGO IN GERMANY A

4-04

REFUGEE ARMED WITH AN AX WOUNDED

4-06

FIVE PEOPLE IN A GRUESOME TRAIN

4-11

ATTACK.

4-12

ONLY DAYS AGO AN ISIS KILLER

4-15

INVADED A CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN

4-16

NORMANDY FRANCE, FORCED AN

4-18

85-YEAR-OLD PRIEST TO HIS

4-20

KNEES -- A PRIEST WHO WAS

4-22

BELOVED, WHO WAS BELOVED, BEFORE

4-26

CUTTING HIS THROAT AND JUST

4-30

UNTHINKABLE OTHER THINGS.

4-34

OVERSEAS ISIS HAS CARRIED OUT AN

4-36

ABSOLUTE ATROCITY AND ONE AFTER

4-42

ANOTHER.

4-44

CHILDREN SLAUGHTERS, MEN AND

4-46

WOMEN BURNED ALIVE, GIRLS SOLD

4-48

INTO SLAVERY, CRUCIFIXIONS,

4-50

BEHEADINGS, DROWNINGS, ETHNIC

4-52

MINORITIES TARGETED FOR MASS

4-57

EXECUTION.

5-00

HOLY SITES DELEGSECRATED.

5-05

CHRISTIANS DRIVEN FRIR OM THEIR

5-11

HOMES AND EXECUTED.

5-12

ISIS ROUNDING UP WHAT IT CALLS

5-13

NATIONS OF THE CROSS, NATIONS OF

5-14

THE CROSS, IN AN ABSOLUTE AND

5-16

TOTAL GENOCIDE.

5-18

WE CAN NOT LET THIS EVIL

5-24

CONTINUE.

5-25

[ APP

5-33

[ APPLAUSE ]

5-35

THANK YOU.

5-39

NOR CAN WE LET THE HATEFUL

5-43

IDEOLOGY OF RADICAL ISLAM, ITS

5-46

OPPRESSION OF GAY, WOMEN,

5-47

CHILDREN AND NON-BELIEVERS BE

5-49

ALLOWED TO RESIDE OR SPREAD

5-51

WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTRIES.

5-54

[ APPLAUSE ]

5-58

WE WILL DEFEAT RADICAL ISLAMIC

6-02

TERRORISM JUST AS WE HAVE

6-03

DEFEATED EVERY THREAT WE FACED

6-06

AT EVERY AGE AND BEFORE.

6-08

BUT WE WILL NOT -- WE WILL

6-10

NOT -- REMEMBER THIS DEFEATED

6-14

WITH CLOSED EYES OR SILENCED

6-16

VOICES.

6-16

WE HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT DOESN'T

6-17

WANT TO SAY THE WORDS.

6-21

ANYONE WHO CANNOT NAME OUR ENEMY

6-26

IS IS NOT FIT TO LEAD OUR

6-31

COUNTRY.

6-35

ANYONE WHO CANNOT CONDEMN THE

6-37

HATRED, OPPRESSION AND VIOLENCE

6-39

OF RADICAL ISLAM LACKS THE MORAL

6-43

CLARITY TO SERVE AS OUR

6-47

PRES

6-54

PRESIDENT.

6-54

THE RISE OF ISIS IS THE DIRECT

6-56

RESULT OF POLICY DECISIONS MADE

6-58

BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND SECRETARY

7-01

OF STATE CLINTON.

7-02

LET'S LOOK BACK AT THE MIDDLE

7-04

EAST AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF

7-07

2009 BEFORE THE OBAMA/CLINTON

7-10

ADMINISTRATION TOOK OVER.

7-12

LIBYA WAS STABLE, SYRIA WAS

7-17

UNDER CONTROL, EGYPT WAS RULED

7-20

BY A S.EECULAR PRESIDENT AND AN

7-25

ALLY OF THE UNITED STATES.

7-28

IRAQ WAS FACING A REDUCTION IN

7-30

VIOLENCE.

7-31

THE GROUP WE NOW CALL ISIS WAS

7-33

CLOSE TO BEING EXTINGUISHED,

7-35

IRAN WAS BEING CHOKED OFF BY

7-37

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS.

7-39

FAST FORWARD TO TODAY.

7-43

WHAT WE HAVE -- AND THINK OF

7-45

THIS, AND THE DECISIONS MADE BY

7-50

THE OBAMA/CLINTON GROUP HAVE

7-53

BEEN ABSOLUTELY DID SASSASTROUS.

   

8-00

 

LIBYA IS IN RUINS, OUR

   

8-03

 

AMBASSADOR IS DID AND ISIS HAS

   

8-05

 

GAINED A NEW BASE OF OPERATIONS.

   

8-07

 

SYRIA IS IN THE MIDST OF A

   

8-09

 

DISASTROUS CIVIL WAR.

   

8-11

 

ISIS CONTROLS LARGE PORTIONS OF

   

8-14

 

TERRITORY.

   

8-14

 

A REFUGEE CRISIS NOW THREATENS

   

8-16

 

EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES.

   

8-19

 

IN EGYPT TERRORISTS HAVE GAINED

   

8-21

 

A FOOTHOLD IN THE SINAI DESERT

   

8-23

 

NEAR THE SUEZ CANAL, ONE OF THE

   

8-25

 

MOST ESSENTIAL WATERWAYS OF THE

   

8-27

 

WORLD.

   

8-28

 

IRAQ IS IN CHAOS AND ISIS IS ON

   

8-32

 

THE LOOSE.

   

8-33

 

ISIS HAS SPREAD ACROSS THE

   

8-35

 

MIDDLE EAST AND INTO THE WEST.

   

8-39

 

IN 2014, ISIS WAS OPERATING IN

   

8-40

 

SEVEN NATIONS.

   

8-41

 

THEY WERE IN SEVEN NATIONS.

   

8-44

 

TERRIBLE BUT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.

   

8-46

 

TODAY THEY'RE FULLY OPERATIONAL

   

8-49

 

IN 18 COUNTRIES WITH ASPIRING

   

8-52

 

BRANCHES IN SIX MORE FOR A TOTAL

   

8-57

 

OF 24 AND MANY BELIEVE THAT

   

9-00

 

NUMBER IS 28 TO 30 COUNTRIES.

   

9-01

 

THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW.

   

9-04

 

THE SITUATION IS LIKELY WORSE

   

9-05

 

THAN THE PUBLIC HAS ANY IDEA.

   

9-07

 

A NEW CONGRESSIONAL REPORT

   

9-11

 

REVEALS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION

   

9-12

 

HAS THE GROWTH OF

DOWN PLAYED    

9-17

 

ISIS FROM 40% SAYING THEY HAVE

   

9-19

 

EFFORTS TO MANIPULATE THEIR

   

9-22

 

FINDINGS.

   

9-23

 

TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK MUCH

   

9-24

 

BETTER THAN IT IS.

   

9-28

 

IT'S BAD.

   

9-29

 

AT THE SAME TIME, ISIS IS TRYING

   

9-34

 

TO INFILL RATETRATE REFUGEE FLOO

   

9-36

 

EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES.

   

9-38

 

IRAN, THE WORLD'S LARGEST STATE

   

9-40

 

SPONSOR OF TERRORISM IS NOW

   

9-42

 

FLUSH WITH $150 BILLION IN CASH

   

9-44

 

RELEASED BY THE UNITED STATES

   

9-46

 

PLUS, IF YOU REMEMBER FROM TWO

   

9-48

 

WEEKS AGO, ANOTHER $400 MILLION

   

9-51

 

IN ACTUAL CASH THAT WAS

   

9-53

 

OBVIOUSLY USED FOR RANSOM.

   

9-57

 

WORST OF ALL, THE NUCLEAR DEAL

   

10-00

 

PUTS IRAN, THE NUMBER-ONE STATE

   

10-03

 

SPONSOR OF RADICAL ISLAMIC

   

10-07

 

TERRORISM ON A PATH TO NUCLEAR

   

10-10

 

WEAPONS.

   

10-16

 

THE OBAMA/CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

   

10-19

 

HAS UNLEASHED ISIS AND PUT

   

10-22

 

IRAN -- WHICH "DEATH TO

CLANTS    

10-24

 

AMERICA" IN A DOMINANT POSITION

   

10-25

 

OF REGIONAL POWER AND, IN FACT,

   

10-28

 

ASPIRING TO BE A DOMINANT WORLD

   

10-32

 

POWER.

   

10-32

 

IT ALL BEGAN IN 2009 WITH WHAT

   

10-34

 

HAS BECOME KNOWN AS "PRESIDENT

   

10-38

 

OBAMA'S GLOBAL APOLOGY TOUR."

   

10-41

 

WE ALL REMEMBER.

   

10-42

 

[ BOOS ]

   

10-42

 

WE ALL REMEMBER.

   

10-45

 

IN A SERIES OF SPEECH, PRESIDENT

   

10-48

 

OBAMA DESCRIBED AMERICA AS

   

10-49

 

ARROGANT, DISMISSIVE, DERISIVE

   

10-52

 

AND A COLONIAL POWER.

   

10-57

 

HE WAS DESCRIBING US.

   

10-58

 

HE INFORMED OTHER COUNTRIES THAT

   

10-59

 

HE WOULD BE SPEAKING UP ABOUT

   

11-01

 

AMERICA'S PAST ERRORS.

   

11-05

 

HE PLEDGED WE WOULD NO LONGER BE

   

11-07

 

A SENIOR PARTNER THAT SOUGHT TO

   

11-09

 

DICTATE OUR TERMS.

   

11-10

 

HE LECTURED CIA OFFICERS OF THE

   

11-12

 

NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR

   

11-15

 

MISTAKES AND DESCRIBED

   

11-16

 

GUANTANAMO BAY AS A RALLYING CRY

   

11-18

 

FOR OUR ENEMIES.

   

11-27

 

PERHAPS NO SPEECH WAS MORE

   

11-29

 

MISGUIDED THAN PRESIDENT OBAMA'S

   

11-29

 

SPEECH TO THE MUSLIM WORLD

   

11-31

 

DELIVERED IN CAIRO, EGYPT, IN

   

11-32

 

2009.

   

11-33

 

I REMEMBER IT WELL.

   

11-34

 

IN WINNING THE COLD WAR,

   

11-37

 

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN

   

11-38

 

REPEATEDLY TOUTED THE

   

11-40

 

SUPERIORITY OF FREEDOM OVER

   

11-42

 

COMMUNISM AND CALLED THE USSR

   

11-46

 

THE EVIL EMPIRE.

   

11-48

 

YET WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA

   

11-50

 

DELIVERED HIS ADDRESS IN CAIRO,

   

11-53

 

NO SUCH MORAL COURAGE COULD BE

   

11-55

 

FOUND OR WOULD BE FOUND.

   

11-57

 

INSTEAD OF CONDEMNING THE

   

12-02

 

OPPRESSION IS WOMEN AND GAYS IN

   

12-04

 

MANY MUSLIM NATIONS AND THE

   

12-06

 

SYSTEMIC VIOLATION OF HUMAN

   

12-07

 

RIGHTS OR THE FINANCING OF

   

12-09

 

GLOBAL TERRORISM, PRESIDENT

   

12-11

 

OBAMA TRIED TO DRAW AN

   

12-14

 

EQUIVALENCY BETWEEN OUR HUMAN

   

12-16

 

RIGHTS RECORD AND REMEMBER THIS,

   

12-18

 

OUR HUMAN RIGHTS AND THEIRS, THE

   

12-22

 

RECORDS ARE UNBELIEVABLE AND

   

12-28

 

UNMISTAKABLE.

   

12-30

 

HIS NAIVE WORDS WERE FOLLOWED BY

   

12-32

 

EVEN MORE NAIVE ACTIONS.

   

12-33

 

THE FAILURE TO ESTABLISH A NEW

   

12-35

 

STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT IN

   

12-39

 

IRAQ AND THE ELECTION-DRIVEN

   

12-43

 

TIMETABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL

   

12-43

 

SURRENDERED OUR GAINS IN THAT

   

12-45

 

COUNTRY AND LED DIRECTLY TO THE

   

12-46

 

RISE OF ISIS.

   

12-48

 

WITHOUT QUESTION.

   

12-48

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

12-59

 

THE FAILURES IN IRAQ WERE

   

13-01

 

COMPOUNDED BY HILLARY CLINTON'S

   

13-03

 

DISASTER, TOTAL DISASTER, IN

   

13-07

 

LIBYA.

   

13-07

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SINCE SAID

   

13-08

 

THAT HE REGRETS AND REALLY

   

13-12

 

REGRETS LIBYA AND THE MISTAKE HE

   

13-14

 

MADE, HE CONSIDERS IT HIS WORST

   

13-17

 

MISTAKE.

   

13-18

 

ACCORDING TO OF

THEN SECRETARY    

13-20

 

DEFENSE ROBERT GATES, THE

   

13-21

 

INVASION OF LIBYA WAS NEARLY A

   

13-23

 

SPLIT DECISION BUT HILLARY

   

13-25

 

CLINTON'S FORCEFUL ADVOCACY FOR

   

13-27

 

THE INTERVENTION WAS THE

   

13-30

 

DECIDING FACTOR.

   

13-31

 

THAT'S WHY WE WENT IN.

   

13-38

 

WITH ONE AFTER ANOTHER HILLARY

   

13-39

 

CLINTON'S POLICIES LAUNCHED ISIS

   

13-41

 

THE WORLD STAGE.

ON TO    

13-48

 

YET AS SHE THREW THE MIDDLE EAST

   

13-49

 

INTO VIOLENT TURMOIL THINGS

   

13-51

 

TURNED OUT REALLY TO BE NOT SO

   

13-54

 

HOT FOR OUR WORLD AND OUR

   

13-58

 

COUNTRY, THE MIDDLE EAST IN

   

14-01

 

PARTICULAR.

   

14-02

 

THE CLINTONS MADE ALMOST $60

   

14-04

 

MILLION IN GROSS INCOME WHILE

   

14-05

 

SHE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE

   

14-14

 

UNBELIEVABLE.

   

14-14

 

INCIDENT AFTER INCIDENT PROVES

   

14-16

 

AGAIN AND AGAIN HILLARY CLINTON

   

14-18

 

LACKS THE JUDGMENT -- AS SAID BY

   

14-21

 

BERNIE SANDERS -- STABILITY, AND

   

14-23

 

TEMPERAMENT AND THE MORAL

   

14-25

 

CHARACTER TO LEAD OUR NATION.

   

14-29

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

14-40

 

IMPORTANTLY, SHE ALSO LACKS THE

   

14-43

 

MENTAL AND PHYSICAL STAMINA TO

   

14-46

 

TAKE ON ISIS AND ALL OF THE MANY

   

14-51

 

ADVERSARIES WE FACE NOT ONLY IN

   

14-52

 

TERRORISM BUT IN TRADE AND EVERY

   

14-54

 

OTHER CHALLENGE WE MUST CONFRONT

   

14-57

 

TO TURN OUR GREAT COUNTRY

   

15-02

 

AROUND.

   

15-04

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

15-08

 

IT IS NOW TIME FOR A NEW

   

15-13

 

APPROACH.

   

15-13

 

OUR CURRENT STRATEGY OF NATION

   

15-15

 

BUILDING AND REGIME CHANGE IS A

   

15-18

 

PROVEN ABSOLUTE FAILURE.

   

15-24

 

WE HAVE CREATED THE VACUUMS THAT

   

15-25

 

ALLOW TERRORISM TO GROW AND

   

15-29

 

THRIVE.

   

15-30

 

I WAS AN OPPONENT FROM THE IRAQ

   

15-31

 

WAR FROM THE BEGINNING.

   

15-35

 

A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME

   

15-37

 

AND MY OPPONENT.

   

15-38

 

THOUGH I WAS A PRIVATE CITIZEN

   

15-40

 

WHOSE PERSONAL OPINIONS ON SUCH

   

15-42

 

MATTERS WERE REALLY NOT SOUGHT,

   

15-44

 

I NONETHELESS PUBLICLY EXPRESSED

   

15-46

 

MY PRIVATE DOUBTS ABOUT THE

   

15-51

 

INVASION.

   

15-55

 

THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE INVASION

   

15-56

 

I SAID IN AN INTERVIEW WITH NEIL

   

16-00

 

CAVUTO TO WHOM I OFFER MY BEST

   

16-02

 

WISHES FOR A SPEEDY RECOVERY

   

16-04

 

THAT "PERHAPS WE SHOULDN'T BE

   

16-06

 

DOING IT YET."

   

16-07

 

AND THAT THE ECONOMY IS A MUCH

   

16-12

 

BIGGER PROBLEM.

   

16-15

 

IN AUGUST OF 2004, VERY EARLY

   

16-17

 

RIGHT AFTER THE CONFLICT, I MADE

   

16-20

 

A DETAILED STATEMENT TO

   

16-20

 

"ESQUIRE" MAGAZINE IN AN

   

16-22

 

INTERVIEW.

   

16-22

 

HERE IS THE QUOTE IN FULL.

   

16-24

 

"LOOK AT THE WAR IN IRAQ AND THE

   

16-27

 

MESS WE'RE IN.

   

16-29

 

I WOULD NEVER HAVE HANDLED IT

   

16-32

 

THAT WAY."

   

16-32

 

THIS WAS RIGHT AFTER THE

   

16-34

 

INVASION.

   

16-34

 

DOES ANYBODY REALLY BELIEVE THAT

   

16-38

 

IRAQ IS GOING TO BE A WONDERFUL

   

16-40

 

DEMOCRACY WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING

   

16-41

 

TO RUN DOWN TO THE VOTING BOX

   

16-43

 

AND GENTLY PUT IN THEIR BALLOT

   

16-45

 

AND THE WINNER IS HAPPILY GOING

   

16-48

 

TO GO AND STEP UP AND LEAD THE

   

16-53

 

COUNTRY?

   

16-54

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

16-56

 

COME ON.

   

17-04

 

I THEN CONTINUED "TWO MINUTES

   

17-05

 

AFTER WE LEAVE THERE'S GOING TO

   

17-06

 

BE A REVOLUTION AND THE MEANEST,

   

17-09

 

TOUGHEST, SMARTEST MOST VICIOUS

   

17-11

 

GUY --" IN THIS CASE GUY, " --

   

17-17

 

WILL TAKE OVER AND HE'LL HAVE

   

17-19

 

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION,

   

17-23

 

WHICH SAD"

   

17-24

 

WHICH SADDAM HUSSEIN DID NOT

   

17-25

 

HAVE.

   

17-25

 

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THIS

   

17-28

 

WHOLE THING?

   

17-33

 

HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF YOUNG

   

17-34

 

PEOPLE KILLED AND WHAT HAPPENED

   

17-35

 

THE PEOPLE COMING BACK WITH NO

   

17-36

 

ARMS AND NO LEGS?

   

17-38

 

NOT TO MENTION, IN ALL FAIRNESS,

   

17-40

 

THE OTHER SIDE, THE TREMENDOUS

   

17-43

 

DAMAGE DONE.

   

17-43

 

ALL THOSE IRAQI KIDS WHO HAVE

   

17-46

 

BEEN BLOWN TO PIECES AND IT

   

17-48

 

TURNS OUT THAT ALL OF THE

   

17-50

 

REASONS FOR THE WAR WERE

   

17-55

 

BLATANTLY WRONG.

   

18-00

 

ALL OF THIS DEATH AND

   

18-01

 

DESTRUCTION FOR NOTHING.

   

18-02

 

SO I'VE BEEN CLEAR FOR A LONG

   

18-04

 

TIME THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE

   

18-07

 

GONE IN BUT I HAVE BEEN JUST AS

   

18-09

 

CLEAR IN SAYING WHAT A

   

18-11

 

CATASTROPHIC MISTAKE HILLARY

   

18-13

 

CLINTON AND PRESIDENT OBAMA MADE

   

18-15

 

WITH THE RECKLESS WAY IN WHICH

   

18-18

 

THEY PULLED OUT.

   

18-23

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

18-31

 

AFTER WE HAVE MADE THOSE

   

18-33

 

HARD-FOUGHT SACRIFICES AND GAINS

   

18-34

 

WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER MADE SUCH A

   

18-36

 

SUDDEN WITHDRAWAL ON A TIMETABLE

   

18-42

 

ADVERTISED TO OUR .

MENNES    

18-44

 

THEY SAID "WE'RE MOVING OUT.

   

18-45

 

HERE'S OUR TIME, HERE'S OUR

   

18-47

 

DATE."

   

18-47

 

WHO WOULD DO THIS BUT AN

   

18-49

 

INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT?

   

18-52

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

19-01

 

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ HAD BEEN

   

19-01

 

DECIMATED AND OBAMA AND CLINTON

   

19-02

 

GAVE IT NEW LIFE AND ALLOWED IT

   

19-04

 

TO SPREAD ALL ACROSS THE WORLD.

   

19-06

 

BY THAT SAME TOKEN, PRESIDENT

   

19-09

 

OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD

   

19-10

 

HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO BUILD A

   

19-13

 

DEMOCRACY IN LIBYA TO PUSH FOR

   

19-14

 

IMMEDIATE REGIME CHANGE IN

   

19-17

 

SYRIA, OR TO SUPPORT THE

   

19-21

 

OVERTHROW OF THE MUBARAK IN

   

19-24

 

EGYPT.

   

19-24

 

ONE MORE POINT ON THIS.

   

19-25

 

I HAVE LONG SAID THAT WE SHOULD

   

19-27

 

HAVE KEPT THE OIL IN IRAQ.

   

19-32

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

19-41

 

I HAVE SAID IT OVER AND OVER AND

   

19-42

 

OVER AGAIN.

   

19-43

 

ANOTHER AREA WHERE MY JUDGMENT

   

19-45

 

HAS BEEN PROVEN CORRECT.

   

19-45

 

I SAID IT SO MANY TIMES,

   

19-48

 

VIRTUALLY EVERY TIME I WAS

   

19-49

 

INTERVIEWED, KEEP THE OIL, KEEP

   

19-51

 

THE OIL.

   

19-52

 

ACCORDING TO CNN, ISIS MADE AS

   

19-54

 

MUCH AS $500 MILLION IN OIL

   

19-57

 

SALES IN 2014 ALONE.

   

19-58

 

THAT'S BEFORE THEY REALLY GOT

   

20-00

 

STARTED.

   

20-01

 

FUELLING AND FUNDING ITS REIGN

   

20-06

 

OF TERROR.

   

20-07

 

IF WE HAD CONTROLLED THE OIL

   

20-09

 

LIKE I SAID WE SHOULD WE COULD

   

20-10

 

HAVE PREVENTED THE RISE OF ISIS

   

20-12

 

IN IRAQ.

   

20-13

 

BOTH BY CUTTING OFF A MAJOR

   

20-16

 

SOURCE OF FUNDING AND THROUGH

   

20-18

 

THE PRESENCE OF U.S. FORCES

   

20-22

 

NECESSARY TO THE OIL

SIAFEGUARD    

20-24

 

AND VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE

   

20-25

 

PRODUCTS NECESSARY FOR US TO

   

20-26

 

HAVE THE OIL.

   

20-38

 

I WAS SAYING THIS CONSTANTLY AND

   

20-40

 

CONSISTENTLY TO EVER WHO WOULD

   

20-41

 

LISTEN.

   

20-42

 

I SAID "KEEP THE OIL, KEEP THE

   

20-44

 

OIL, KEEP THE OIL.

   

20-45

 

DON'T LET SOMEBODY ELSE GET IT."

   

20-49

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

20-53

 

IF THEY HAD LISTENED TO ME THEN,

   

20-55

 

WE WOULD HAVE HAD THE ECONOMIC

   

20-57

 

BENEFITS OF THE OIL WHICH I

   

20-59

 

WANTED TO USE TO HELP TAKE CARE

   

21-01

 

OF THE WOUNDED SOLDIERS AND

   

21-03

 

FAMILIES OF THOSE WHO DIED IN

   

21-06

 

THE WAR.

   

21-09

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

21-14

 

IN ADDITION TO WHICH, THOUSANDS

   

21-15

 

OF LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

   

21-16

 

THIS PROPOSAL BY ITS VERY NATURE

   

21-19

 

WOULD HAVE LEFT SOLDIERS IN

   

21-20

 

PLACE OF OUR ASSETS.

   

21-24

 

WE WOULD HAVE HAD SOLDIERS THERE

   

21-25

 

GUARDING THIS VALUABLE SUPPLY OF

   

21-28

 

OIL.

   

21-29

 

IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN WE WON A

   

21-34

 

WAR, TO THE BELONGED THE

VICTOR    

21-38

 

SPOILS.

   

21-39

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

21-42

 

INSTEAD ALL WE GOT FROM IRAQ AND

   

21-46

 

OUR ADVENTURES IN THE MIDDLE

   

21-48

 

EAST WAS DEATH, DESTRUCTION, AND

   

21-52

 

TREMENDOUS FINANCIAL LOSS.

   

22-04

 

BUT IT'S TIME TO PUT THE

   

22-06

 

MISTAKES OF THE PAST BEHIND US

   

22-08

 

AND CHART A NEW COURSE.

   

22-09

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

22-10

 

IF I BECOME PRESIDENT THE ERA OF

   

22-13

 

NATION BUILDING WILL BE BROUGHT

   

22-16

 

TO A VERY SWIFT AND DECISIVE

   

22-20

 

END.

   

22-23

 

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

   

22-33

 

A NEW APPROACH WHICH MUST BE

   

22-34

 

SHARED BY OUR ALLIES OVERSEAS

   

22-36

 

AND OUR FRIENDS IN THE MIDDLE

   

22-37

 

EAST MUST BE TO HALT THE SPREAD

   

22-40

 

OF RADICAL ISLAM.

   

22-45

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

22-50

 

ALL ACTIONS SHOULD BE ORIENTED

   

22-52

 

AROUND THIS GOAL AND ANY COUNTRY

   

22-54

 

WHICH SHARES THIS GOAL WILL BE

   

22-55

 

OUR ALLY.

   

23-01

 

SOME DON'T SHARE THIS GOAL.

   

23-03

 

WE CAN NOT ALWAYS CHOOSE OUR

   

23-04

 

FRIENDS BUT WE CAN NEVER FAIL TO

   

23-06

 

RECOGNIZE OUR ENEMIES.

   

23-11

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

23-18

 

AS PRESIDENT, I WILL CALL FOR AN

   

23-21

 

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FOCUSED

   

23-22

 

ON THAT GOAL.

   

23-23

 

WE WILL WORK SIDE BY SIDE WITH

   

23-25

 

OUR FRIENDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST,

   

23-26

 

INCLUDING OUR GREATEST ALLY,

   

23-30

 

ISRAEL.

   

23-31

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

23-46

 

WE WILL WORK WITH ANYONE WHO

   

23-49

 

RECOGNIZES THAT IDEOLOGY OF

   

23-51

 

DEATH MUST BE EXTINGUISHED.

   

23-52

 

WE WILL ALSO WORK VERY CLOSELY

   

23-55

 

WITH NATO ON THIS NEW MISSION.

   

24-00

 

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY SAID NATO WAS

   

24-02

 

OBSOLETE BECAUSE IT FAILED TO

   

24-03

 

DEAL ADEQUATELY WITH TERRORISM.

   

24-04

 

SINCE MY COMMENTS, THEY HAVE

   

24-07

 

CHANGED THEIR POLICY AND NOW

   

24-10

 

HAVE A NEW DIVISION FOCUSED ON

   

24-14

 

TERROR THREATS, VERY GOOD.

   

24-15

 

VERY, VERY GOOD.

   

24-18

 

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN FIND

   

24-20

 

COMMON GROUND WITH RUSSIA IN THE

   

24-23

 

FIGHT AGAINST ISIS.

   

24-26

 

WOULDN'T THAT BE A GOOD THING.

   

24-30

 

WOULDN'T THAT BE A GOOD THING.

   

24-32

 

THEY, TOO, HAVE MUCH AT STAKE IN

   

24-34

 

THE OUTCOME IN SYRIA AND THEY

   

24-37

 

HAVE HAD THEIR OWN BATTLES WITH

   

24-39

 

ISLAMIC TERRORISM JUST AS BAD AS

   

24-41

 

OURS.

   

24-41

 

THEY HAVE A BIG, BIG PROBLEM IN

   

24-44

 

RUSSIA WITH ISIS.

   

24-48

 

MY ADMINISTRATION WILL

   

24-50

 

AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE JOINT AND

   

24-51

 

COALITION MILITARY OPERATIONS TO

   

24-52

 

CRUSH AND DESTROY ISIS.

   

24-58

 

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION TO CUT

   

24-59

 

OFF THEIR FUNDING, EXPANDED

   

25-01

 

INTELLIGENCE SHARING AND CYBER

   

25-03

 

WARFARE TO DISABLE THEIR

   

25-05

 

PROPAGANDA AND RECRUITING, THEIR

   

25-09

 

RECRUITING IS TAKING PLACE RIGHT

   

25-11

 

NOW AND THEY'RE SETTING RECORDS.

   

25-13

 

IT'S GOT TO BE STOPPED.

   

25-15

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

25-27

 

WE CAN NOT ALLOW THE INTERNET TO

   

25-28

 

BE USED AS A RECRUITING TOOL AND

   

25-30

 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES BY OUR ENEMY

   

25-32

 

WE MUST SHUT DOWN THEIR ACCESS

   

25-34

 

TO THIS FORM OF COMMUNICATION

   

25-35

 

AND WE MUST DO IT .

IMMEDIATE LY    

25-43

 

IMMEDIATELY.

   

25-43

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

25-45

 

UNLIKE HILLARY CLINTON, WHO HAS

   

25-48

 

RISKED SO MANY LIVES WITH HER

   

25-48

 

CARELESS HANDLING OF SENSITIVE

   

25-52

 

INFORMATION, MY ADMINISTRATION

   

25-53

 

WILL NOT TELEGRAPH EXACTLY

   

25-56

 

MILITARY PLANS AND WHAT THEY

   

26-00

 

ARE.

   

26-01

 

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

   

26-12

 

AND BY THE WAY, WHAT'S HAPPENED

   

26-13

 

WITH HER 33,000 E-MAILS IS AN

   

26-17

 

ABSOLUTE DISGRACE TO THE UNITED

   

26-19

 

STATES OF AMERICA.

   

26-23

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

26-28

 

[ CROWD CHANTING "TRUMP" ]

   

26-40

 

I'VE OFTEN SAID THE GREAT

   

26-42

 

DOUGLAS MacARTHUR AND THE GREAT

   

26-43

 

GENERAL GEORGE PATTON WOULD BE

   

26-44

 

IN A STATE OF SHOCK IF THEY WERE

   

26-46

 

ALIVE TODAY TO SEE THE WAY

   

26-49

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA AND HILLARY

   

26-50

 

CLINTON TRIED TO RECKLESSLY

   

26-52

 

ANNOUNCE THEIR EVERY MOVE BEFORE

   

26-53

 

IT HAPPENS.

   

26-55

 

[ LAUGHTER ]

   

26-55

 

LIKE THEY DID IN IRAQ.

   

26-57

 

SO THAT THE ENEMY CAN PREPARE

   

27-03

 

AND ADAPT.

   

27-07

 

THE FIGHT WILL NOT BE LIMITED TO

   

27-11

 

ISIS.

   

27-11

 

WE WILL DECIMATE AL QAEDA AND

WE    

27-14

 

WILL SEEK TO STARVE FUNDING.

   

27-22

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

27-23

 

FOR IRAN-BACKED HAMAS AND

   

27-24

 

HEZBOLLAH.

   

27-24

 

SO IMPORTANT.

   

27-29

 

WE CAN USE EXISTING U.N.

   

27-31

 

SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS TO

   

27-33

 

APPLY NEW AND EVEN STRONGER

   

27-37

 

SANC

   

27-40

 

SANCTIONS MILITARY, CYBER AND

   

27-41

 

FINANCIAL WARFARE WILL ALL BE

   

27-43

 

NECESSARY TO DISMANTLE ISLAMIC

   

27-48

 

TERRORISM BUT WE MUST USE

   

27-50

 

IDEOLOGICAL WARFARE AS WELL,

   

27-52

 

VERY IMPORTANT.

   

27-53

 

AND THEY USE IT ON US BETTER

   

27-55

 

THAN WE HAVE EVER EVEN THOUGHT

   

27-57

 

OF USING IT ON THEM.

   

27-59

 

BUT THAT WILL CHANGE.

   

28-01

 

JUST AS WE WON -- THANK YOU.

   

28-03

 

JUST AS WE WON THE COLD WAR IN

   

28-06

 

PART BY EXPOSING THE EVILS OF

   

28-09

 

COMMUNISM AND THE VIRTUES OF

   

28-10

 

FREE MARKETS SO, TOO, MUST WE

   

28-13

 

TAKE ON THE IDEOLOGY OF RADICAL

   

28-18

 

ISLAM.

   

28-18

 

WHILE MY OPPONENT ACCEPTED

   

28-20

 

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN

   

28-21

 

FOUNDATION DONATIONS FROM

   

28-24

 

COUNTRIES WHERE BEING GAY IS AN

   

28-26

 

OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY PRISON OR

   

28-29

 

DEATH, MY ADMINISTRATION WILL

   

28-30

 

SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE OPPRESSION

   

28-31

 

OF WOMEN, GAYS, AND PEOPLE OF

   

28-34

 

DIFFERENT BELIEVES.

   

28-39

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

28-45

 

OUR ADMINISTRATION WILL BE A

   

28-46

 

FRIEND TO ALL MODERATE MUSLIM

   

28-50

 

REFORMERS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND

   

28-52

 

WILL AMPLIFY THEIR VOICES.

   

28-53

 

THIS INCLUDES SPEAKING OUT

   

28-54

 

AGAINST THE HORRIBLE PRACTICE OF

   

28-56

 

HONOR KILLINGS WHERE WOMEN ARE

   

28-58

 

MURDERED BY THEIR RELATIVES FOR

   

29-00

 

DRESSING, MARRYING, OR ACTING IN

   

29-01

 

A WAY THAT VIOLATES

   

29-04

 

FUNDAMENTALIST TEACHINGS.

   

29-07

 

OVER 1,000 PAKISTANI GIRLS ARE

   

29-09

 

ESTIMATED TO BE THE VICTIMS OF

   

29-11

 

HONOR KILLINGS BY THEIR

   

29-13

 

RELATIVES EACH YEAR.

   

29-14

 

RECENTLY, A PROMINENT PAKISTANI

   

29-17

 

SOCIAL MEDIA STAR WAS STRANGLED

   

29-19

 

TO DEATH BY HER BROTHER ON THE

   

29-21

 

CHARGE OF DISHONORING THE

   

29-23

 

FAMILY.

   

29-24

 

IN HIS CONFESSION, THE BROTHER

   

29-26

 

TOOK PRIDE IN THE MURDER AND

   

29-27

 

SAID "GIRLS ARE BORN TO STAY

   

29-29

 

HOME AND FOLLOW TRADITIONS."

   

29-33

 

SHOCKINGLY, THIS IS A PRACTICE

   

29-34

 

THAT HAS REACHED OUR OWN SHORES.

   

29-38

 

ON SUCH CASES AND MANY, MANY

   

29-42

 

CASES IT HAPPENED BUT ONE

   

29-44

 

INVOLVES AN IRAQI IMMIGRANT WHO

   

29-45

 

WAS SENTENCED TO 34 YEARS IN

   

29-47

 

JAIL FOR RUNNING OVER HIS OWN

   

29-49

 

DAUGHTER, CLAIMING SHE HAD BEEN

   

29-51

 

TOO WESTERNIZED.

   

29-56

 

TO DEFEAT ISLAMIC TERRORISM WE

   

29-59

 

MUST ALSO SPEAK OUT FORCEFULLY

   

30-01

 

AGAINST A HATEFUL IDEOLOGY THAT

   

30-05

 

PROVIDES THE BREEDING GROUND FOR

   

30-07

 

VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM TO GROW.

   

30-09

 

IT'S A BREEDING GROUND.

   

30-10

 

IT'S A TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE

   

30-14

 

BREEDING GROUND.

   

30-17

 

A NEW IMMIGRATION POLICY IS

   

30-19

 

NEEDED IMMEDIATELY AND AS WELL.

   

30-23

 

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

   

30-32

 

THE COMMON THREAD LINKING THE

   

30-35

 

MAJOR ISLAMIC TERRORIST ATTACKS

   

30-36

 

THAT HAVE OCCURRED ON OUR

   

30-38

 

SOIL -- 9/11, . HOOD

THE FT    

30-42

 

SHOOTING, THE BOSTON BOMBING,

   

30-43

 

THE SAN BERNARDINO ATTACK, THE

   

30-46

 

ORLANDO ATTACK, IS THAT THEY

   

30-47

 

HAVE INVOLVED IMMIGRANTS OR THE

   

30-49

 

CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS.

   

30-51

 

CLEARLY NEW SCREENING PROCEDURES

   

30-53

 

ARE NEEDED.

   

31-01

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

31-01

 

A REVIEW BY THE U.S. SENATE

   

31-05

 

IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE HAS

   

31-08

 

IDENTIFIED 380 INDIVIDUALS

   

31-10

 

CHARGED WITH TERRORISM OR

   

31-11

 

TERRORISM-RELATED OFFENSES

   

31-13

 

BETWEEN 9/11 AND 2014 AND MANY

   

31-18

 

MORE SINCE THEN AND THIS YEAR IS

   

31-19

 

A RECORD FOR IDENTIFICATION.

   

31-22

 

IT'S GOTTEN WORSE, FAR WORSE.

   

31-24

 

WE ALSO KNOW THAT ISIS RECRUITS

   

31-26

 

REFUGEES AFTER THEIR ENTRANCE

   

31-28

 

INTO THE COUNTRY AS WE HAVE SEEN

   

31-29

 

WITH THE SOMALI REFUGEE

   

31-34

 

POPULATION IN MINNESOTA.

   

31-35

 

BEYOND TERRORISM AS WE HAVE ALSO

   

31-37

 

SEEN IN FRANCE, FOREIGN

   

31-39

 

POPULATIONS HAVE BROUGHT THEIR

   

31-44

 

ANTI-SEMITIC ATTITUDES WITH

   

31-45

 

THEM.

   

31-45

 

IN COLOGNE, GERMANY, ON NEW

   

31-48

 

YEAR'S EVE, WE HAVE SEEN THE

   

31-49

 

REPORTS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND

   

31-53

 

ASSAULT FAR GREATER THAN ANYBODY

   

31-55

 

KNOWS.

   

31-55

 

PEW POLLING SHOWS IN MANY OF THE

   

31-58

 

COUNTRIES FROM WHICH WE DRAW

   

31-59

 

LARGE NUMBERS OF IMMIGRANTS

   

32-00

 

EXTREME VIEWS ABOUT RELIGION

   

32-02

 

SUCH AS THE DEATH PENALTY AND

   

32-04

 

FOR THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED THE

   

32-07

 

DEATH PENALTY IS VERY, VERY

   

32-10

 

COMMON IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE

   

32-14

 

FAITH THAT THEY DEMAND YOU HAVE.

   

32-17

 

A TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WILL

   

32-18

 

ESTABLISH A CLEAR PRINCIPLE THAT

   

32-20

 

WILL GOVERN ALL DECISIONS

   

32-22

 

PERTAINING TO IMMIGRATION AND

WE    

32-25

 

WILL BE TOUGH AND WE WILL BE

   

32-29

 

EVEN EXTREME, EXTREME.

   

32-33

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

32-36

 

WE SHOULD ONLY ADMIT INTO THIS

   

32-38

 

COUNTRY THOSE WHO SHARE OUR

   

32-39

 

VALUES AND RESPECT OUR PEOPLE.

   

32-42

 

IN THE COLD WAR WE HAD AN

   

32-47

 

IDEOLOGICAL SCREENING TEST.

   

32-49

 

THE TIME IS OVERDUE TO DEVELOP A

   

32-53

 

NEW SCREENING TEST FOR THE

   

32-57

 

THREATS WE FACE TODAY.

   

32-59

 

I CALL IT EXTREME VETTING.

   

33-01

 

I CALL IT EXTREME, EXTREME

   

33-07

 

VETTING.

   

33-07

 

OUR COUNTRY HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS,

   

33-10

 

WE DON'T NEED MORE AND THESE ARE

   

33-13

 

PROBLEMS LIKE WE'VE NEVER HAD

   

33-17

 

BEFORE.

   

33-18

 

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

   

33-23

 

IN ADDITION TO SCREENING OUT ALL

   

33-25

 

MEMBERS OF THE SYMPATHIZERS OF

   

33-27

 

TERRORIST GROUPS, WE MUST ALSO

   

33-30

 

SCREEN OUT ANY WHO HAVE HOSTILE

   

33-32

 

ATTITUDES TOWARD OUR COUNTRY OR

   

33-33

 

ITS PRINCIPLES OR WHO BELIEVE

   

33-35

 

THAT SHARIA LAW SHOULD SUPPLANT

   

33-40

 

AMERICAN LAW.

   

33-44

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

33-44

 

THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN OUR

   

33-47

 

CONSTITUTION OR WHO SUPPORT

   

33-49

 

BIGOTRY AND HATRED WILL NOT BE

   

33-51

 

ADMITTED FOR IMMIGRATION INTO

   

33-53

 

OUR COUNTRY.

   

33-57

 

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

   

34-01

 

ONLY THOSE WHO WE EXPECT TO

   

34-03

 

FLOURISH IN OUR COUNTRY AND TO

   

34-07

 

EMBRACE A TOLERANT AMERICAN

   

34-10

 

SOCIETY SHOULD BE ISSUED VISAS.

   

34-18

 

TO PUT THESE NEW PROCEDURES IN

   

34-20

 

PLACE WE WILL HAVE TO

   

34-21

 

TEMPORARILY SUSPEND IMMIGRATION

   

34-22

 

FROM SOME OF THE MOST DANGEROUS

   

34-23

 

AND VOLATILE REGIONS OF THE

   

34-26

 

WORLD.

   

34-27

 

THAT HAVE A HISTORY OF EXPORTING

   

34-30

 

TERRORISM.

   

34-30

 

NOT FOR US.

   

34-30

 

NOT FOR US.

   

34-44

 

[ CROWD CHANTING "TRUMP."

   

34-47

 

]

   

34-47

 

THANK YOU.

   

34-47

 

AS SOON AS I TAKE OFFICE I WILL

   

34-50

 

ASK THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE

   

34-50

 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

   

34-52

 

TO IDENTIFY A LIST OF REGIONS

   

34-55

 

WHERE ADEQUATE SCREENING CANNOT

   

34-58

 

TAKE PLACE.

   

34-59

 

THERE ARE MANY SUCH REGIONS.

   

35-06

 

WE WILL STOP PROCESSING VISAS

   

35-08

 

FROM SUCH AREAS UNTIL IT IS SAFE

   

35-10

 

TO RESUME BASED ON NEW

   

35-12

 

CIRCUMSTANCES OR NEW PROCPROCED.

   

35-18

 

THE SIZE OF CURRENT IMMIGRATION

   

35-19

 

FLOWS ARE SIMPLY TOO LARGE TO

   

35-24

 

 

PERFOR    

35-25

 

PERFORM ADEQUATE SCREENING.

   

35-29

 

WE ADMIT ABOUT 100,000 PERMANENT

   

35-31

 

IMMIGRANTS FROM THE MIDDLE EAST

   

35-32

 

EVERY YEAR.

   

35-33

 

BEYOND THAT WE ADMIT HUNDREDS OF

   

35-36

 

THOUSANDS OF TEMPORARY WORKERS

   

35-37

 

AND VISITORS FROM THE SAME

   

35-39

 

REGIONS.

   

35-40

 

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

   

35-47

 

IF WE DON'T CONTROL THE NUMBERS,

   

35-48

 

WE CAN'T PERFORMED A "SCREENING,

   

35-50

 

THERE'S NO WAY IT CAN TAKE

   

35-54

 

PLACE.

   

35-59

 

BY CONTRAST MY OPPONENT WANTS TO

   

36-01

 

INCREASE -- WHICH IS

   

36-02

 

UNBELIEVABLE.

   

36-03

 

NO MATTER WHO 50%.

   

36-23

 

>> HILLARY CLINTON'S PLAN WOULD

   

36-24

 

MEAN ROUGHLY 620,000 REFUGEES

   

36-29

 

FROM ALL CURRENT REFUGEE SENDING

   

36-31

 

NATIONS IN HER FIRST TERM,

   

36-33

 

ASSUMING NO CUTS TO OTHER

   

36-35

 

REFUGEE PROGRAMS.

   

36-40

 

SO IT COULD GET WORSE.

   

36-41

 

THIS WOULD BE ADDITIONAL TO ALL

   

36-44

 

OTHER NON-REFUGEE IMMIGRATION.

   

36-52

 

UNBELIEVABLE NUMBERS,

   

36-53

 

UNBELIEVABLE NUMBERS.

   

36-55

 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ESTIMATE HEARSE

   

36-57

 

PLAN WOULD IMPOSE A LIFETIME

   

37-01

 

COST OF ROUGHLY $400 BILLION

   

37-05

 

WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE COSTS OF

   

37-07

 

HEALTH CARE, WELFARE, HOUSING,

   

37-09

 

SCHOOLING, AND ALL OTHER

   

37-10

 

ENTITLEMENT BENEFITS THAT ARE

   

37-13

 

EXCLUDED FROM THE STATE

   

37-16

 

DEPARTMENT'S PLACEMENT FIGURES.

   

37-17

 

THINK OF THIS.

   

37-23

 

$400 MILLION.

   

37-24

 

IN SHORT, HILLARY CLINTON WANTS

   

37-25

 

TO BE AMERICA'S ANGELA MERKEL.

   

37-30

 

[ LAUGHTER ]

   

37-31

 

TRUE.

   

37-32

 

AND YOU KNOW WHAT A DISASTER

   

37-34

 

THIS MASSIVE IMMIGRATION HAS

   

37-35

 

BEEN TO GERMANY AND THE PEOPLE

   

37-36

 

OF GERMANY.

   

37-42

 

CRIME HAS RISEN TO LEVELS THAT

   

37-43

 

NO ONE PEOPLE WOULD EVER,

THOULD    

37-46

 

EVER SEE, IT'S A CAT TROPHY.

   

37-51

 

WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS IN OUR

   

37-54

 

COUNTRY.

   

37-54

 

WE DON'T NEED MORE.

   

37-55

 

LASTLY, WE WILL NEED TO RESTORE

   

37-56

 

COMMON SENSE TO OUR SECURITY

   

37-59

 

PROCEDURES.

   

37-59

 

ANOTHER COMMON FEATURE OF THE

   

38-01

 

PAST ATTACKS THAT HAVE OCCURRED

   

38-04

 

ON OUR SOIL IS THAT WARNING

   

38-06

 

SIGNS WERE TOTALLY IGNORED.

   

38-09

 

THE 9/11 HIJACKERS HAD FRAUD ALL

   

38-12

 

OVER THEIR VISA APPLICATIONS.

   

38-14

 

ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THEM IT SAID

   

38-18

 

PRACTICALLY IN BIG BOLD LETTERS

   

38-21

 

"FRAUD."

   

38-23

 

[ LAUGHTER ]

   

38-24

 

AND NOBODY SAW IT.

   

38-27

 

THE RUSSIANS WARNED US ABOUT THE

   

38-28

 

BOSTON BOMBERS HERE ON POLITICAL

   

38-30

 

ASYLUM AND THE ATTACKERS WERE

   

38-33

 

TWICE INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI.

   

38-38

 

VERY SAD.

   

38-38

 

THE FEMALE SAN BERNARDINO

   

38-42

 

SHOOTER ON HER STATEMENTS AND

   

38-44

 

EVERYTHING THAT SHE SAID, SHE

   

38-47

 

WAS HERE ON A FIANCE VISA.

   

38-51

 

WHICH MOST PEOPLE HAVE NEVER

   

38-53

 

EVEN HEARD OF FROM SAUDI ARABIA

   

38-55

 

AND SHE WANTED TO SUPPORT VERY

   

39-00

 

OPENLY JIHAD ONLINE.

   

39-04

 

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WE'RE

   

39-07

 

TAKING IN.

   

39-07

 

A NEIGHBOR SAW SUSPICIOUS

   

39-11

 

BEHAVIOR -- BOMBS ON THE FLOOR.

   

39-14

 

[ LAUGHTER ]

   

39-15

 

AND OTHER THINGS.

   

39-18

 

BUT DIDN'T WARN AUTHORITIES

   

39-22

 

BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T

   

39-23

 

WANT TO BE ACCUSED OF RACIAL

   

39-28

 

PROFILING.

   

39-28

 

NOW MANY ARE DEAD AND MANY MORE

   

39-31

 

ARE GRAVELY WOUNDED.

   

39-33

 

THE SHOOTER IN ORLANDO

   

39-35

 

REPORTEDLY CELEBRATED IN HIS

   

39-39

 

CLASSROOM AFTER 9/11.

   

39-40

 

HE, TOO, WAS INTERVIEWED BY THE

   

39-44

 

FBI.

   

39-44

 

HIS FATHER, A NATIVE OF

   

39-47

 

AFGHANISTAN, SUPPORTED THE

   

39-48

 

OPPRESSIVE TALIBAN REGIME AND

   

39-53

 

EXPRESSED ANTI-AMERICAN VIEWS

   

39-57

 

VERY STRONG LY AND BY THE WAY WS

   

40-01

 

JUST SEEN SITTING BEHIND WHIK A

   

40-03

 

BIG, FAT, SMILE ON HIS FACE ALL

   

40-05

 

THE WAY THROUGH HER SPEECH.

   

40-09

 

HE OBVIOUSLY LIKED WHAT SHE HAD

   

40-13

 

TO SAY.

   

40-14

 

IT'S CALLED WEAKNESS.

   

40-16

 

WEAKNESS.

   

40-16

 

IT'S CALLED STUPIDITY.

   

40-25

 

AND WE'VE HAD IT.

   

40-29

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

40-33

 

.

   

40-34

 

THE FT. HOOD SHOOTER DELIVERED A

   

40-37

 

PRESENTATION TO MENTAL HEALTH

   

40-39

 

EXPERTS IN WHICH HE THREW OUT

   

40-40

 

ONE RED FLAG AFTER ANOTHER.

   

40-47

 

HE EVEN PROCLAIMED "WE LOVE

   

40-49

 

DEATH MORE THAN YOU LOVE LIFE."

   

40-51

 

NOT GOOD.

   

40-52

 

THESE WARNING SIGNS WERE IGNORED

   

40-54

 

BECAUSE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

   

40-55

 

HAS REPLACED COMMON SENSE IN OUR

   

41-01

 

SOCIETY.

   

41-03

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

41-10

 

[ CROWD CHANTING "TRUMP" ]

   

41-21

 

ONE OF MY FIRST ACTS AS

   

41-23

 

PRESIDENT WILL BE TO ESTABLISH A

   

41-24

 

COMMISSION ON RADICAL ISLAM

   

41-25

 

WHICH WILL INCLUDE REFORMIST

   

41-27

 

VOICES IN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY

   

41-30

 

WHO WILL HOPEFULLY WORK WITH US.

   

41-35

 

WE WANT TO BUILD BRIDGES AND

   

41-37

 

ERASE DIVISIONS.

   

41-40

 

THE GOAL OF THE COMMISSION WILL

   

41-41

 

BE TO IDENTIFY AND EXPLAIN TO

   

41-43

 

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THE CORE

   

41-44

 

CONVICTIONS AND BELIEVES OF

   

41-48

 

RADICAL ISLAM TO IDENTIFY THE

   

41-53

 

WARNING SIGNS OF RADICALIZATION

   

41-55

 

AND TO FIND THE NETWORKS THAT

   

41-57

 

SUPPORT RADICALIZATION.

   

42-04

 

THIS WILL INCLUDE FEDERAL

   

42-07

 

INVESTIGATORS AND IMMIGRATION

   

42-10

 

SCREENERS.

   

42-13

 

WHILE I'M AT IT, WE SHOULD GIVE

   

42-15

 

A HAND TO OUR GREAT POLICE

   

42-16

 

OFFICERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

   

42-21

 

OFFICIALS.

   

42-21

 

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

   

42-32

 

[ CROWD CHANTING "TRUMP" ]

   

42-38

 

THANK YOU.

   

42-41

 

WE WILL ALSO KEEP OPEN

   

42-42

 

GUANTANAMO BAY AND PLACE A

   

42-44

 

RENEWED EMPHASIS ON HUMAN

   

42-49

 

INTELLIGENCE.

   

42-49

 

DRONE STRIKES WILL REMAIN PART

   

42-50

 

OF OUR STRATEGY BUT WE WILL ALSO

   

42-53

 

SEEK TO CAPTURE HIGH-VALUE

   

42-55

 

TARGETS TO GAIN NEEDED

   

42-56

 

INFORMATION TO DISMANTLE THEIR

   

43-02

 

ORGANIZATIONS.

   

43-03

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

43-06

 

FOREIGN COMBATANTS WILL BE TRIED

   

43-08

 

IN MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

   

43-13

 

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

   

43-17

 

FINALLY.

   

43-17

 

WE WILL PURSUE AGGRESSIVE

   

43-20

 

CRIMINAL OR IMMIGRATION CHARGES

   

43-23

 

AGAINST ANYONE WHO LENDS

   

43-27

 

MATERIEL SUPPORT TO TERRORISM.

   

43-28

 

THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR

   

43-29

 

THOSE PEOPLE.

   

43-30

 

THERE WILL BE VERY SERIOUS

   

43-34

 

CONSEQUENCES.

   

43-37

 

SIMILAR TO THE EFFORT TO TAKE

   

43-38

 

DOWN THE MAFIA, THIS WILL BE THE

   

43-40

 

UNDERSTOOD MISSION OF EVERY

   

43-42

 

FEDERAL INVESTIGATOR AND

   

43-46

 

PROSECUTOR IN THE COUNTRY.

   

43-55

 

TO ACCOMPLISH A GOAL WE MUST

   

43-57

 

STATE OUR MISSIONS.

   

44-01

 

THEY WILL BE STRIPPED OUT AND

   

44-02

 

REMOVED ONE BY ONE VICIOUSLY IF

   

44-04

 

NECESSARY.

   

44-05

 

VICIOUSLY IF NECESSARY.

   

44-09

 

IMMIGRATION OFFICES WILL ALSO

   

44-10

 

HAVE THEIR POWERS RESTORED.

   

44-16

 

THEY'VE BEEN TAKEN AWAY.

   

44-18

 

THOSE WHO ARE GUESTS IN OUR

   

44-20

 

COUNTRY THAT ARE PREACHING HATE

   

44-22

 

WILL BE ASKED TO RETURN HOME

   

44-24

 

IMMEDIATELY AND IF THEY DON'T DO

   

44-27

 

IT WE WILL RETURN THEM HOME.

   

44-32

 

[ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ]

   

44-35

 

TO MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN WE

   

44-39

 

MUST WORK TOGETHER AGAIN.

   

44-40

 

OUR VICTORY IN THE COLD WAR

   

44-42

 

RELIED ON A BIPARTISAN AND

   

44-45

 

INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS.

   

44-48

 

THAT IS WHAT WE MUST HAVE TO

   

44-53

 

DEFEAT RADICAL ISLAMIC

   

44-56

 

TERRORISM.

   

45-04

 

JUST LIKE WE COULDN'T DEFEAT

   

45-06

 

COMMUNISM WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING

   

45-07

 

THAT COMMUNISM EXISTS OR

   

45-08

 

EXPLAINING ITS HORRIBLE EVILS WE

   

45-10

 

CAN'T DEFEAT RADICAL ISLAMIC

   

45-13

 

TERRORISM UNLESS WE DO THE EXACT

   

45-15

 

SAME THING.

   

45-16

 

WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT IT

   

45-18

 

EXISTS AND EXPLAIN THE

   

45-22

 

DIFFICULTIES.

   

45-22

 

WE HAVE TO HAVE A LEADER THAT

   

45-23

 

CAN DO THAT AND WE DON'T HAVE

   

45-25

 

THAT NOW.

   

45-29

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

45-29

 

BUT THIS ALSO MEANS THAT WE HAVE

   

45-31

 

TO PROMOTE THE EXCEPTIONAL

   

45-33

 

VIRTUES OF OUR OWN WAY OF LIFE.

   

45-35

 

WE HAVE AN EXCEPTIONAL COUNTRY,

   

45-37

 

AN EXCEPTIONAL WAY OF LIFE BUT

   

45-40

 

IT'S BEING TREAD ON BY SICK,

   

45-44

 

SICK PEOPLE.

   

45-45

 

AND EXPECTING THAT AS NEWCOMERS

   

45-49

 

COME INTO OUR SOCIETY THEY WILL

   

45-52

 

LIKE WISE HAVE RESPECT AND DO

   

45-53

 

THE SAME.

   

45-55

 

PRIDE IN OUR INSTITUTIONS OUR

   

45-59

 

HISTORY AND OUR VALUES SHOULD BE

   

46-01

 

TAUGHT BY PARENTS AND TEACHERS

   

46-03

 

AND IMPRESSED UPON, ALL OF THOSE

   

46-06

 

WHO COME INTO OUR SOCIETY AND

   

46-08

 

WANT TO JOIN OUR SOCIETY.

   

46-12

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

46-16

 

ASSIMILATION IS NOT AN ACT OF

   

46-19

 

HOSTILITY BUT AN EXPRESSION OF

   

46-21

 

COMPASSION.

   

46-22

 

OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND OUR

   

46-24

 

AMERICAN CULTURE IS THE BEST IN

   

46-26

 

THE WORLD AND WILL PRODUCE THE

   

46-29

 

BEST OUTCOMES FOR ALL WHO ADOPT

   

46-33

 

IT.

   

46-34

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

46-43

 

[ CROWD CHANTING "USA" ]

   

46-54

 

THIS APPROACH WILL NOT ONLY MAKE

   

46-56

 

US SAFER BUT BRING US CLOSER

   

46-57

 

TOGETHER AS A COUNTRY.

   

47-02

 

RENEWING THE SPIRIT OF

   

47-03

 

AMERICANISM WILL HELP HEAL THE

   

47-04

 

DIVISIONS OF OUR COUNTRY OF

   

47-06

 

WHICH THERE ARE SO MANY.

   

47-09

 

WE HAVE A DIVIDER AS PRESIDENT,

   

47-11

 

WE CALL HIM A GREAT DIVIDER.

   

47-13

 

IT'S THE THING HE DOES BEST.

   

47-17

 

IT WILL DO SO BY EMPHASIZING

   

47-19

 

WHAT WE HAVE IN COMMON, NOT WHAT

   

47-21

 

PULLS US APART.

   

47-25

 

THIS IS MY PLEDGE TO THE

   

47-28

 

AMERICAN PEOPLE AS YOUR

   

47-30

 

PRESIDENT I WILL BE YOUR SINGLE

   

47-33

 

GREATEST CHAMPION.

   

47-39

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

47-39

 

LY FIGHT TO ENSURE THAT EVERY

   

47-42

 

AMERICAN IS TREATED EQUALLY,

   

47-45

 

PROTECTED EQUALLY AND HONORED

   

47-49

 

EQUALLY.

   

47-49

 

[ APPLAUSE ]

   

47-50

 

WE WILL REJECT BIGOTRY AND

   

47-54

 

HATRED AND OPPRESSION IN ALL OF

   

47-56

 

ITS MANY UGLY FORMS AND SEEK A

   

48-00

 

NEW FUTURE BUILD ON OUR COMMON

   

48-02

 

CULTURE AND VALUES AS ONE

   

48-07

 

AMERICAN PEOPLE.

   

48-09

 

ONLY THIS WAY WILL WE MAKE

   

48-12

 

AMERICA GREAT AGAIN AND SAFE

   

48-14

 

AGAIN FOR EVERYONE.

   

48-15

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GOD BLESS

   

48-17

 

YOU.