All Episodes
Previous Next
March 12, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:14
March 12, 2015, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, folks, we have talked about this Iranian nuclear deal.
I know it's not sexy, and I know that it's kind of over there, but we need to bring it back here because it's not good.
It's like everything else happening with this regime.
It just isn't good.
We're not just transforming America.
We are transforming the world, and we are reordering America's position in the world.
We are a country that has been placed into a state of decline on purpose.
And the main objective of this regime is to manage that decline while trying to convince a bunch of low-information clowns that we're not in decline.
And they are succeeding.
It's great to have you back.
800-282-2882.
You want to be on the programme at an email address at rushbow at EIBnet.com.
And we finish with this.
We'll move on to Mrs. Clinton.
And boy, did I hit the nail on the head yesterday by going back to the 90s to explain what Mrs. Clinton is doing today because we had more relics from the 90s pop up last night in defense of Mrs. Clinton.
Madam Albright came up.
Did you see that, Mr. Snirdley?
Albright showed up to defend what Hillary is doing.
And remember the name Donna Shalala?
Well, you know, Donna Shalala was best budge with Janet Ilrinho, who was the Attorney General.
And Donna Shalala was health and human services.
She also does a lot of yoga, like Hillary does.
You can see it.
Well, Donna Shalala has been, after she, when they left the Clinton regime in 2000, Shalala and Reno went on a nationwide trip, traveled the country in Reno's pickup truck.
And they stopped at various campsites and did things.
And then after they got the fun out of the way, Shalala came back and she was appointed president of the University of Miami, which, well, she was president of the University of Miami.
And guess what?
She's now been named the CEO of the Bill Hillary and Chelsea Foundation.
And do you realize that the staff, the employees at the Bill Hillary and Chelsea Foundation are underwritten by a $16 million United States grant?
In other words, taxpayer dollars are used to pay the salaries of people at work at the Clinton Foundation.
This is not the Clinton Global Initiative.
This is the Bill Hillary and Chelsea Foundation.
And Shalala has been, she used to run the University of Wisconsin.
Then she went to the regime.
She went to the Clinton regime, Health and Human Services, and then she went on this nationwide tour with Reno in the pickup truck.
Then she went to the University of Miami, and now she's the Clinton Foundation.
The 90s, the relics of the 90s, Hillary's bringing them all back to life and putting them in positions of prominence, just like they had back in the 90s.
And who was it that identified the 90s as the identifying decade for Mrs. Clinton and the way she does things?
It was I, El Rushbo.
Before we get into more of that in great detail, because the Washington Post had a story that kind of rocked people.
Part of the story did.
It was all about how, you know what, this treatment that Hillary's getting by the media, that's not good.
She's being treated like a Republican.
Now, they didn't say that, but that's what they meant.
And remember, the coverage Republicans get is meant to destroy them.
The coverage drive-by medias give particularly presidential candidates is meant to take them out.
And the Washington Post fears that that's the kind of coverage Mrs. Clinton is getting.
And they wonder out loud if she has the ability to overcome it.
Most Democrats are not battle-tested in that sense.
Most Democrats wouldn't last a week.
The kind of press coverage Republicans get.
And the Washington Post raised that point.
But first, the Iranian nuclear deal.
Now, where this deal stands is the basics of the deal are that we're going to permit the Iranians, if they'll just be patient, to have a nuclear bomb in 10 years.
I mean, if you're going to boil this down to its essence, that's the Obama nuclear deal with Iran.
They can do whatever they want these next 10 years.
They can acquire, they can experiment, they can research, they can develop, but they can't build.
But after 10 years go by, they can.
With the blessing of the United States, the blessing of the world.
Now, John Kerry, the haughty John Kerry, current Secretary of State, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, said yesterday that the deal that's being negotiated is not going to be, would not be legally binding.
Now, I saw that, and I asked myself, well, what's the point if it isn't legally binding?
And that takes us to the letter the 47 Republicans signed, written by Tom Cotton, sent to the Ayatollahs and the Mullahs in Iran, warning them that this deal that they do with Obama is only as good as Obama's time in office, meaning when Obama's gone, this deal is going to be history.
So you mullahs and you Ayatollah's better take that into account as you're negotiating the deal.
This has caused numerous mullahs and Ayatollahs.
In fact, the grand pubah Ayatollah, the Ayatollah Alihamini, to respond to the Republicans, much like the Democrats.
It's amazing when these Democrat and Iranian leaders speak, they sound identical when they're criticizing Republicans or when they're criticizing America.
Okay, so here is the preposterous gibberish from John Kerry.
Kerry, in an often contentious Senate hearing, told lawmakers yesterday the U.S. is not negotiating a legally binding agreement with Iran, meaning future presidents could choose not to implement the accord, which is exactly what the Republicans said and the senators said in their letter to Iran.
And yet Kerry and the Democrats are objecting to it, and Pelosi was livid about it.
More on her in a moment.
A group of 47 Republican senators sent the open letter to Iran's leaders asserting that it could quickly change or discard any agreement once Obama leaves office.
Mr. Kerry, joining other members of the Obama regime and rebuking the GOP senators, said their claims that Congress could nullify or alter a deal had the effect of undermining U.S. foreign policy.
But it is the truth.
And the Iranians should know the truth.
He also said that they were incorrect in their claim that they could alter the terms of the deal.
We've been clear from the beginning.
We are not negotiating a, quote, legally binding plan, Mr. Kerry said.
So it doesn't have to be submitted for approval to Congress.
That's the game they're playing.
They want a deal with Iran.
They desperately want a deal with Iran.
The deal contains or includes the provision for Iran to get the nuclear bomb.
Pakistan, do you know when they got the bomb, Snerdley?
Does your memory they excuse me?
But when did they officially acknowledge that they had the bomb?
It's a recent 1998 happened in the Clinton administration.
Now, Pakistan has never been the same as Iran in terms of foreign policy.
Iran's a definite enemy.
Pakistan ever has been.
But we didn't stand in the way of Pakistan because the Indians had one.
That was stabilizing to give the Pakistanis a nuke or to stand by, let them have it.
But people are using it.
Well, well, we let Pakistan get a nuke.
Why can't we have Iran?
See, what's missing from the Democrat side of this is the concept that we're the good guys.
That's what's missing in this.
Their viewpoint is, who are we to tell any nation they can't have a nuke?
What if somebody would have told us that we can't build one?
What would we have done?
We would have nuked them.
And that's their whole point.
There is no such thing as America as the solution to the problems of the world.
There is no such thing as America as the beacon of freedom in the world.
There is no such thing as America as the good guys.
We're no different than any other nation.
Who are we to say who and who can't have a nuke?
They're hell-bent on the Iranians nuking up.
And part of this is Israel.
Israel is considered a problem in the Middle East by this regime.
And I'm just going to say it flat out.
There's no denying it in the realm of common sense.
And the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon, this regime, the Obama people, look at it as stabilizing the Middle East, which is very, very dangerous.
Now, Kerry's point here about having it be non-binding means it wouldn't have to be submitted for approval like a treaty would for the Senate or anybody in Congress.
So a non-binding agreement means Obama can do whatever he wants, which is the objective.
Now, there's another thing that is happening here.
As you know, Hillary Clinton has really launched an attack on Tom Cotton for his letter, and Cotton just launched back, fired right back at Hillary on Twitter over the fallout over this letter.
Clinton tweeted a warning to those potential Republican candidates who have praised the letter.
GOP letter to Iranian clerics undermines American leadership.
No one considering running for commander-in-chief should be signing that letter, Hillary tweeted.
Cotton fired right back.
No, Hillary Clinton, the letter to Iran helps protect USA from a bad deal.
No commander-in-chief should allow the world's worst regimes to get the world's worst weapon.
I mentioned when I was talking about Walker, I like this cotton guy.
He's unaffected.
He doesn't play by the existing Republican leadership rules of shutting up and not wanting to offend the media.
He just fires back.
And it's like he's just defending himself.
He's defending his actions.
It was Hillary that was attacking him, not the other way around.
He simply defended himself and his actions.
Now, let me take you to audio soundbite number 10.
This is Shannon Coffin.
This is last night on the Kelly Fellow, yesterday on the program.
I didn't spend enough time on this, but I told you I had seen, I had a copy of, my buddy Andy McCarthy had sent me a copy of the separation form that every employee in the State Department has to sign and fill out when they leave the exit document.
And it's full of promises and pledges that you have not kept any classified documents and you've not done this and you've not done that.
Wait a minute.
I don't want to do number 10.
Number 10 is not what I'm thinking about right now.
I'm getting Hillary conflated here with a couple of things.
That soundbite has to do with Hillary and the emails.
What is actually taking place with the Iranian deal now is an attempt in order to sidestep Congress to have the nuke deal with Iran to actually become a UN Security Council resolution legally.
This has been written about by a guy named Jack Goldsmith.
And Goldsmith has figured out a way, Andy Cart McCarthy has been following this and kept me up speed on it.
He has figured out a way that Obama can get this Iranian nuke deal done through the UN Charter by a binding Security Council resolution, which would also ace out the Senate and the Congress from having any say-so in its ratification.
And the technique that Obama is using here has been practiced before.
It's called the international law game.
That's the parlance here.
And the objective is to impose a binding agreement on the United States without complying with the Constitution's treaty requirements.
Now, remember, as I pointed out countless times, the Constitution is the number one obstacle to Obama and the current Democrat Party and their objectives and their agenda.
The Constitution is in their way, be it immigration, whatever they want to do, the Constitution's standing in the way, and they have to find a way around it.
Either to ignore it or to trample it.
And in whatever technique they employ, they're relying on the fact that the Republicans are not going to do anything about it because the Republicans have so stated that they will not use constitutional or power-to-purse means to stop Obama from any of this.
But Cotton, with his letter, has changed that game a little bit.
Tom Cotton's letter to the Iranians has made it clear that the Republicans in the Senate, at least 47 of them, are just not going to stand idly by while Obama negotiates a deal with Iran, excluding them and the treaty ratification process provided for in the Constitution.
So the first technique, the first trick was to make it non-binding.
If it's non-binding, meaning nobody has to agree to it, then there's no reason to ratify it.
Then the letter comes up and that changes the game.
And what is now being suspected now is that the regime is considering going to the United Nations and having this Iranian nuke deal between us and Iran drawn up as a United Nations Security Council resolution, which, of course, obviates the Congress and the Senate.
If it's not a treaty, then the Senate has no say.
If it's a Security Council resolution, that's up to Obama.
That's an executive branch thing.
That's up to him and his ambassador to do what they want to do.
We have a seat on the Security Council, get the Security Council to go along with it, which they would because it's obviously damaging America and favoring one of America's enemies.
They think it'd be a slam dunk.
So that's the way they're going with this.
They are hell-bent on subverting the Constitution.
They want to get a deal with Iran.
They want a deal that gives Iran the bomb in 10 years.
And remember, what they are saying is that they can't stop Iran.
Nobody can stop them.
So they want to use the power of persuasion to convince Iran to never use it.
But they don't want to deny them the bomb because we don't have that right.
Now, the Jack Goldsmith guy, he writes at the lawfairblog.com, and he's cited by people I respect.
So I don't actually, I'm not that familiar with his prior work, but it's been cited to me by people who do.
And here's where we are.
Just in a nutshell, just to review.
John Kerry said the Iran deal is non-binding and could be changed by any future president.
He then attacked the Republican senators for saying the deal was non-binding and could be changed by any future president.
I mean, he attacked them for saying what he's saying.
But they said it in a letter to the Mullahs.
And this is being said, this is undermining American foreign policy.
This is traitorous.
This is near-treated.
It's not.
But that's a sideshow.
Meanwhile, the fate of Israel, the fate of the Middle East, the fate of the United States is going to rest on some secret deal between Obama and a regime full of treacherous Muslim fanatics that is not legally binding.
This is what we signed on for?
This is why we elected Obama.
So we could have a secret deal with a bunch of extremist Muslims about nuclear bombs that they will acquire.
Then that's where Jack Goldsmith comes into play again.
He writes as a legal analyst, maybe a lawyer at Lawfare blog.
He says the case for the president's unilateral authority to conclude the impending Iran deal is easy because it'll likely be a non-binding agreement under international law, which opens up all kinds of presidential authority.
If it's non-binding, there's no treaty requirement.
There's no approval.
There's a ratification requirement.
If anybody can change it or just ignore it, then big deal.
But it's not non-binding for that reason, non-binding to avoid the Constitution.
It's non-binding on purpose to keep the Senate out of the whole thing.
Goldsmith points out that Obama did this via the UN in order to get rid of serious chemical weapons.
And he has also done it on climate change agreements.
In other words, Obama has already tried this technique, committing the United States to various international propositions that would normally require ratification by the United States Senate.
Obama has gone around that by making everything so-called non-binding and having it appear to originate from the United Nations.
He said there may be tricky questions about the sources and proper scope of the president's power to make sole executive agreements that bind the U.S. under international law, but he concludes that Obama is going to do this anyway.
There's nobody to stop him.
So why wouldn't Obama do this?
So brace yourselves.
Here's Dave in Hebron, Kentucky.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Appreciate your patience.
Hey, Russell, good talking to you.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
Okay.
Yeah, I just, earlier in the show, you had mentioned that, you know, Hillary's having a problem.
You know, she's basically just running on the Clinton name.
I mean, she's not, she's not Bill Clinton.
I mean, he was a likable guy.
I mean, I didn't like his policies or anything, but he had the good old boy thing.
He related well with a camera.
He, you know, blue-collar workers can relate to him, and she's just not it.
I mean, she comes off as angry and bitter and entitled, I think.
Well, I think, I think, yeah, the way I've always described it is Bill Clinton is the kind of guy that you wouldn't mind going to a ballgame with, having a couple of beers, and go out and chase women afterwards.
Right.
But Hillary, that's you.
You encounter Hillary when they commit you to the asylum, and she's one of the nurses in there that's always hounding you to stay in your room.
Like Nurse Ratchet.
True.
Well, I mean, you know, and you said the Democrats are panicking.
I mean, you know, I don't like to put down to another Republican, but I think that they're just coming to the realization that they've put out the modern-day version of Bob Cole.
I think they've come to that conclusion long before now.
Otherwise, she wouldn't have gone down in flames in 2008 to a young, skinny guy that nobody had ever heard of other than one speech.
People forget this.
Here is Hillary Clinton.
Don't forget the image now.
Hillary Clinton goddess, powerful, omnipotent, wife of Bill Clinton, the Clintons.
Impossible to beat.
They're everywhere.
And she's up.
People will remember, I got so tired, 2008, I got so tired of my friends being paranoid of Hillary.
I got so tired of everybody I knew scared to death of Hillary Clinton.
I just grew weary of it.
I didn't understand the fear.
I didn't understand why everybody was afraid of her.
They were afraid that she was unbeatable, is what it was.
And so 2008 comes along, and here comes this guy out of nowhere.
But they knew who he was.
He'd given a speech at a convention.
He's young.
Joe Biden called him clean and articulate.
Harry Reid said his secret is that he's a black guy that doesn't sound like a Negro dialect.
Harry Reid did say that.
Harry Reid did say that he's got a gift.
He can turn the Negro dialect off and on.
Harry Reid said that.
And then, you know, some people, a very few, jumped on Harry Reid.
I meant it as a compliment.
I meant it as a compliment.
I'm sure he did.
Because what he was saying was this Obama guy has the ability to fool people.
So there began to be puff pieces written on this guy left and right.
The media just fell in love with Obama.
And we got the Magic Negro column in the LA Times.
And by the time that was written, everybody thought I had written it.
And Hillary was toast.
Hillary was toast with four months left in the Democrat primaries.
Now, if that happened, it means that the Democrats back then already had doubts.
And that the first person that came along that looked like a viable alternative, they went for him.
We're back there again.
Here we are.
Mrs. Clinton, presumptive, everything's repeating itself.
Everybody I know, scared to death that Hillary's going to be the nominee.
Everybody I know, scared to death that she cannot lose.
Everybody I know, scared to death that it doesn't matter who the Republican nominee is.
Everybody I know scared to death that if it's Jeb Bush, we're not going to be able to tell a difference in the two And now we got the email problem and the Washington Post
There is an article in the Washington Post that says that Democrats are worried about timely dispensed talking points and structure and what I think this Washington Post story means that they're questioning that the Washington Post says that there are Democrats,
high-ranking Democrats that are alarmed about Hillary's readiness for the campaign because she doesn't look like she's on top of her game.
She looks like a Republican in terms of press coverage.
And they know what that means.
Press coverage destroys Republicans.
That's its purpose.
And she's getting that kind of press coverage and is not rising above it.
She's not even rising to it to meet it.
She's being treated like a Republican.
Saturday Night Live is mocking her as though she's Sarah Palin.
And even that United Nations press conference where all the questions were supposed to be like the first one from that stooge from Turkey.
Oh, Mrs. Clinton, it's so good to see you again here at the United Nations.
It's so wonderful to have you back.
Tell me, are the Republicans behind this scandal to get you with the emails, Mrs. Clinton?
That's what they hoped every question would be.
Except that didn't happen.
She got peppered with tough questions from informed journalists, shocking everybody, including me.
And so the Democrats said, what the hell is this?
So she was forced into reading those lawyerly talking points.
She didn't even have enough familiarity with those talking points to say them.
She had to read them.
It was obvious she was consulting her notes.
She looked defensive.
She didn't win anybody over.
And at best, you could say she withstood the kick of a mule.
So top Democrats and donors, see, they get excited when the fix is in.
They need the fix to be in.
They can't.
The Democrat donors, the Democrat hierarchy cannot, they will not be comfortable with a Democrat on his or her own.
The game has to be rigged.
The media has to be aimed at destroying the Republican candidate and give the Democrat candidate a free pass.
And that hasn't happened.
So there's very much concern over Mrs. Clinton.
I'm just telling you that if that concern over Mrs. Clinton is surfacing now, she's not the lock that everybody scared to death that she is.
And the Democrat Party, I contend, just like it was in 2008, is prepared to throw her overboard again.
And don't forget it was me and Operation Chaos that sustained her campaign, extended her campaign long into the spring, May and early June.
If it hadn't been for Operation Chaos, Obama would have had that nomination sewn up three months earlier than he did.
Knoxville, Tennessee.
Knoxville, Tennessee.
Hello, Tony.
It's great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Good to speak with you.
Hey, I got a question for you.
Yep.
Or something you can analyze for me.
The Democrats basically are telling us that with regards to immigration reform, we need to bring these people in because they need a better life and they want to better themselves, leave their poor countries.
Earlier during the first hour, you spoke about the schools in Maryland where they want to have two schools primarily for non-English speaking.
Yeah, but don't leave out now.
Don't leave out where the money for those scrolls is coming from.
Oh, yeah, without a doubt.
It's coming from African Americans.
And the NAALCP is not happy about it.
Exactly, because now we are dividing resources.
So my thought process here is, okay, they want to do this.
So the Democrats always tell us what they don't want us to do or what they're afraid of.
They're afraid of here of dispersing resources to non-speaking English immigrants and taking it away from the black community.
So is this an opportunity where you see the Democrats having this backfire where Republicans basically embrace this to better these people?
Because let's face it, if you're coming out of another country to come to the United States, you're not coming here to be status quo.
You're coming here to strive.
That's what the Chinese did.
Vietnamese, Germans, Italians like myself, they came here to strive.
It's a different area.
I think this is going to backfire on the Democrats because they're not going to want to stay poor.
They want to come here to achieve.
And that's going to take away the resources.
Yeah, but those...
Yeah, theoretically, you're right, but that's not who's getting in, my friend.
Those people are being weeded out.
That's the whole point.
You're talking about the B1B visa.
Well, you're not, but that's what you mean.
The quality.
I don't want to go there.
I understand your theory about it backfiring the Democrats importing and legalizing a bunch of essential entrepreneurs that aren't going to want to be wards of the state.
Do you think the Democrats are going to screw this up and import those kinds of people?
They know exactly the kind of people they need, and they know how to identify them, and they know how to keep them that way.
One thing for sure, if you're in poverty and you're voting Democrat, you are staying there.
That's what voting Democrat means, is staying in poverty and having other people blamed for it.
You don't vote Democrat to better yourself.
You don't vote Democrat to expand your freedom and your limits.
You don't vote Democrat for entrepreneurism.
You vote Democrat to stay exactly how you are and be provided for.
I would love that kind of thing to backfire on them, but I don't think they're going to make that mistake.
But I understand you're thinking on that.
I appreciate the call out there, Tony, and I appreciate your patience.
He held on a long time.
Now, look, the Democrat Party needs their donor class to think that their candidate is inevitable.
They don't want the donor class to ever imagine that their candidate might not win.
And that's what Hillary is screwing up.
And that's why there is palpable fear palpitating out there in the Washington Post and other places over Hillary.
Folks, I have to be away tomorrow.
I'm terribly sorry, but I have to be out.
We have Eric Erickson doing the program tomorrow, and I will be back here on Monday.
I'll see you then.
Sorry to be out tomorrow, but it can't be avoided.
▲
Export Selection