All Episodes
Previous Next
March 18, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
March 18, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, your guiding light.
Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man and the truth detector, doctor of democracy, and all of that.
It's great to have you here, folks.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 in the email address L Rushpo at EIB net.com.
You know, this this whole two-state solution is the biggest myth on the face of the earth.
The Palestinians do not want a two-state solution.
The Palestinians want a one state solution.
They don't want there to be an Israel.
All that would have to happen, honestly, folks, all that would have to happen for there to be a Palestinian state, given the politics of the day.
There has been so much pressure for that.
The only reason there isn't a Palestinian state is that the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, will not renounce their objective to wipe Israel off the map.
Now, why in the world would you make a two-state agreement with with people like this?
I've never understood it.
Intellectually, this makes no sense to me.
This entire Middle East peace process, I think has become it it's not what it is.
The entire Mid East peace process by definition has no end.
It's a job.
What do you want to be when you grow up?
I want to be involved in the Palestinian Israeli peace process.
Oh, you want to make a career out of that?
Yes, I do.
I want to be in that.
That's my career.
Really?
Yeah, because I know it's never gonna happen.
It's never gonna get solved.
There's never gonna be a negotiated settlement.
Words, doctors, nurses are never gonna end this.
The Palestinian, the Middle East peace process is in fact a job and a career.
It's a company.
It's an enterprise.
It is not what everybody thinks it is.
The Middle East peace process does not exist.
So that one day there might be a resolution.
The Middle East peace process practically was invented so that diplomats would have something to do.
I challenge you.
Go back, pick any period, go back to the 1960s, go back to the 1970s.
The only thing different is the names of the people involved.
The arguments are the same.
The reasons to do it are the same, the reasons not to do it are the same.
The objections by both parties are the same.
Nothing changes.
Oh, there's skirmishes here and there that change.
Um, say the size of Israel from one year to the next.
You might have a fence built here or there, you might have settlements in the West Bank, but in terms of the big picture, peace in the Middle East.
There's no such thing.
At least it's not going to be achieved by the Middle East peace process.
The Middle East peace process may as well be its own university.
Where you go but you never graduate.
It's always there.
It's always going to be something to aspire to, to be a part of the Middle East peace process.
But the biggest mistake anybody can ever make is to think that the Middle East peace process is going to lead to a solution.
Because it isn't.
It can't.
By definition.
The objectives change.
I mean, one day, you know, one year the objective will be a Palestinian state, the next year the objective will be the Israelis giving up the West Bank or the occupied territory.
Whatever it is, but the the overall thrust of this thing never ever really changes.
And there isn't a solution to it by definition, because the people of, just like Al Sharpton really doesn't want an end to racial strife in America.
Neither do Hamas and Hezbollah want an end to the strife in the Middle East.
Too many people are getting too much money.
Too many people are getting Too famous.
Too many people are getting wealthy.
Too many people are getting notoriety.
Too much business going on here.
There's all kinds of money being allocated, thrown at it, and it's a great chance for you to get your fist full of it.
If you can get yourself involved in this somehow.
But the Palestinians, I mean, this like we had this caller.
Well, Netanyahu doesn't want peace because he he openly rejected a Palestinian state, which means he rejects the two-state solution.
There is no one state solution to this.
Because the Palestinians do not want two states.
They want one.
The Palestinian objective, and by Palestinian, look, Hezbollah, has uh any of the terrorist groups, Hamas, Hezbollah, you name it, and then throw their sponsors in there, Iran.
Has anybody listened to what any Iranian leader has been saying since 1975 and before?
I don't care whether it's Ahmadini Zad, I don't care whether it was the Ayatollah Hamini, I don't care whether it's the current Ayatollah Hamini, I don't care who it is, the current Israeli or the Iranian president is devoted to the end of Israel.
That must happen for the 12th imam to come out of the well.
And they're open about it.
And the people on the Palestinian side of this are the same.
Why do you think, ladies and gentlemen, in every negotiation, have you heard the term right of return?
Do you know what that means?
Tell me, Mr. Stern, I'm trying to put you on the spot, but just you're a good barometer.
What does the right of return mean?
Oh, it's exactly right.
In every negotiation in the so-called Middle East peace process, the insistence of the Palestinians on a right of return by which millions of Palestinians would be permitted to resettle in Israel, and it's a non-negotiable demand.
It's non-negotiable.
If we're going to have a solution to the Middle East peace process, there must be right of return.
Right of return is predicated on the belief that there never was an Israel.
There never should have been an Israel, and there should not now be one.
And the right of return is simply our way of saying Israel is ours, and we want the right to go back to it.
And when we get there, it isn't going to be called Israel anymore.
Well, why in the world, no sane Israeli would agree with that?
It can't possibly ever be agreed to, which is why, and this is just one of the many examples that I could cite to prove to you that peace is not really what's being negotiated here, depending on who you're talking about and how you define it.
This right of return is look at it as an inside outside strategy.
You vote Israel out of existence from within and you terrorize it out of existence from without.
So you terrorize Israel with bombs from Gaza and bombs from Hamas and bombs from Hezbollah, and you bomb all, and then while the peace process is going on, you then demand the right of return.
And both of those stratagems are designed to effectively bring about the end of the Jewish state.
The people who believe in this two-state solution like our caller here from the last hour.
The only people who really believe in it are Western liberals, such as American liberals, Western European socialist liberals.
But Netanyahu has to live in reality.
He cannot live in a gee, I wish it could be better world.
He cannot live in, well, you know what, people can be perfected.
He has to deal with what is.
He cannot make policy on what he hopes might be someday.
He has to deal with the reality.
And it is a reality that I dare say no American can relate to.
His reality is this.
Because he knows you cannot have a Palestinian state in the context of a two-state solution unless the Palestinian state accepts Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and they do not.
And they will never say they do.
The charter.
Folks, this is so academic.
It's it's the charter, you look at Hamas and the Hezbollah charter, the charter calls for the elimination of Israel and the Jewish people.
Now there are people live in Fantasy Island.
Western libs who think this two-state solution.
Diplomats by definition.
Diplomats who don't live in Real.
I think Marie Harf.
Well, you know what we think is if both sides would simply lay down their arms and come to the table and be honest about their feelings for one another and themselves, and we could probably strike a common ground, and therefore we might be able to come to this is the kind of thinking,
this neophyte, ignorant, willfully just oblivious attitude toward evil in the world and the reluctance to recognize that there are good guys and bad guys.
That's the kind of people who think this kind of stuff, the kind of people who will say the Palestinian don't really mean that they want to wipe Israel off the map.
They're just saying that.
Well, Netanyahu can't take that chance.
No Israeli leader can take the chance that they don't really mean it.
A Western liberal might say that because that's what a Western liberal would do.
A Western liberal would say something outrageous and stupid and insane, knowing full well that his voters know he doesn't really mean it, he's just throwing them some red meat.
And so the Western liberal who acts that way thinks that his counterparts on the Palestinian side, they're just doing the same thing.
Come on.
They know they have to live side by side with Israel.
No, they don't want to do that.
So it's it's a hypothetical pretend quasi utopia versus a hard-cold reality.
And the people on the side of reality have to deal with that.
They can't deal in a pretend never never land.
They have to deal with what is real and on the ground, the threats that are posed and the people who make them.
The reason Netanyahu is reviled, the reason Netanyahu is despised.
And I would dare say the reason any prominent conservative is hated and despised is because Netanyahu punctures the fantasy that the liberal utopia is possible.
Netanyahu punctures the fantasy of the Western liberal, that there aren't any bad guys.
They're just two sides with different desires.
Netanyahu punctures holes in their entire belief system and forces them to face the realities that he must when they would prefer not to.
And so they hate him.
Just as they hate any conservative who is effective in blowing up their little security systems that they concoct for themselves.
I must take a brief time out, my friends L. Rushbaugh, the EIB network, and you will get to your phone calls.
And I have not forgotten the NFL, Chris Borland's retirement.
Folks, have no fear.
I'm going to get to that before this program ends today, like I promised.
Charleston, South Carolina, next as we uh we hit the phones is Chris, and welcome, sir.
I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
When you were detailing the comments in the New York Times op-ed, how if a conservative wins an election, that election is said to have taken an ugly turn, it immediately reminded me of the reaction to the Charles Ebdo massacre by the drive-by-speople like Christian Amenpore came on TV to say that the real tragedy in all this and the real thing to be afraid of is that because of it, conservatives might actually start winning election.
Uh well, you you mean in as a result of Netanyahu's win.
Well, no.
What I mean is that that strange relationship that if a conservative wins an election, it's an ugly turn.
And if a horrific tragedy should actually cause conservatives to win elections, the way that they relate negativity to conservatism.
It reminded me of the that kind of thinking is just very jarring.
Well, it is, but I mean that that that's that's who they are.
That's exactly how they look at conservatives and us.
Um you you've uh you've nailed it.
Um the any any time liberalism is shown to be flawed, which is constant, if you ask me.
Anytime a flaw in liberalism is exhibited, people like Christiana Manpoor will fret and wring their hands on the ears.
It could lead to further victories by extremist right wing forces could be in a card between the Russians and the PLO before we know to whatever they come up with.
These people are not grounded in reality.
They but it's it's you're also not going to change them.
Look at CNN.
Since you bring up CNN, they don't have any audience.
They are losing their audience.
Effectively, nobody admits listening to C the only time CNN has an audience of any size is when it's captive, when there's nothing else to turn on.
And that's what happens in airports.
When you're walking around a terminal building between planes, switching planes or leaving or arriving, you look everywhere you see CNN.
Well, you've got no choice.
But when people have a choice, they're not watching it.
So what does CNN do?
Well, they double down on what's causing them to lose audience.
And then they start complaining and moaning and whining about what Fox does.
I talked about this yesterday, about the inability of the left to actually connect to an audience and build a relationship with an audience.
They hold most audiences in contempt.
But since you bring this up, let's uh this is we've got some CNN soundbites here.
Let me grab soundbite number four.
We have a montage here of various CNN people talking about the uh election results in Israel.
And it this is just pathetic.
Listen to this.
Netanyahu ramp what I think is a openly racist campaign at the very end.
It's racism, and it's this idea that Palestinians are not equals, and this is what Israel is founded upon.
His quote was the leftists are bringing Arabs in huge amount to polls using buses.
Was that racist?
The racist appeal.
Critics are saying this is essentially a form of racism.
The Likud Party and the right wing do have a sort of racist policy towards them, and it's very scary for them.
No, that is all just flat-out BS.
It's all lies.
Listen to this one excerpt, if I may, this question.
His quote was this is Aaron Burnett, but are we talking about Netanyahu?
His quote was the leftists are bringing Arabs in huge amounts to polls using buses.
Was that racist?
No!
It isn't ra- What in the name of Sam Hill is racist about that.
A, it was happening.
B, he pointed it out.
C, what is racist about pointing out what is really happening on the ground?
Where is the racism there?
I'll tell you where this comes from.
The liberal mindset is one of such arrogance and superiority that they cannot be defeated legitimately.
Therefore, since their candidate lost, there has To have been some cheating.
There has to have been some under the table dealing.
There has to have been something really dirty about it.
Because everybody knows Netanyahu was supposed to lose.
Everybody knows Netanyahu is going to go down in tubes.
Why?
Because everybody knows Obama wanted his opponent to win.
And everybody knows that Obama wanted Netanyahu gone.
Netanyahu was supposed to lose.
Instead, Netanyahu won in a landslide.
So what do these people do?
Well, they can't sit there and say, yeah, you know what?
We got beat fair and square.
Yep, I guess our ideas are in trouble.
Yeah, I guess we better kind of figure out where we went wrong.
No, they can't ever say that.
So what they have to do is attack and impugn the people who beat them.
And to discredit the victory, to impugn the character of the victors, and to attack the credibility of the people who engineered their defeat.
So it can't be that Netanyahu won.
That's because everybody knows he wasn't gonna.
Everybody knows Herzog was gonna win.
Obama knew it.
Obama sent his campaign team over there.
We spend money on it.
We campaigned for Netanyahu's opponents.
There's no way Netanyahu was gonna win.
They wake up and he won.
So it has to be typical right-wing racism.
It has to be bigotry.
It has to be some form of hatred.
It has to be some form of racism or sexism, maybe, maybe even some fear-mongering thrown in.
Whatever they have to build and construct to explain to themselves that they just had their asses handed to themselves.
It can't be because they deserve to lose because their ideas are full of it.
Brightbird News had a uh little story on CNN today.
And by the way, folks, I realize that we're all tired of talking about the news media's obvious bias.
I I first one to say that.
But this the drive-by coverage of the Israeli elections are pretty telling.
And again, the American media cared so much, they've always cared, never like this, though.
I mean, I've never seen the American media as invested in an Israeli election as this one.
And it's because this time it was personal.
This one was because this is what Obama wanted.
And Obama got involved.
I'm telling you, Obama lost this.
Obama is the loser here, not Herzog.
Obama is a big loser, and that's why the media is so out of sorts today.
This is the kind of rejection that just wasn't supposed to happen.
And uh all day long, CNN has been relentlessly beating the drum and practically celebrating the foregone conclusion that Netanyahu was about to lose the election yesterday.
Every move he made over the past few weeks that outraged Obama and his media buddies was framed by CNN as a blunder.
Even his speech to the joint session of Congress was said to be a blunder and might have spelled doom, might have meant the end of his campaign.
It was such a bad, bad speech because it was so provocative, and it was so clear that nobody could ever agree with the Iranians as long as Netanyahu was in charge.
CNN set up a narrative to explain and gloat over what the polls were saying, which was almost certain to be a Netanyahu defeat.
But then the exit polls from Israel began to come in, and it was the exact opposite of what those in the drive-by's had told themselves was going to happen.
And CNN could not deal with it, and you heard the montage that we just played to illustrate it.
Why, it had to be racism.
Why, it had to be bigotry, why, it had to be hatred.
Why, it had to be something it could not be that Obama really lost.
It could not be that left-wing views were defeated in Israel.
No, it couldn't be.
It had to be that some dirty race carts were Played or some such other thing to explain this.
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News in Washington.
She went there.
She flew all the way over there.
She couldn't wait to go on the air from Israel gloating over to Netanyahu defeat.
And instead, she had to do this.
Netanyahu not only won, he won big, instead of a tie that might have forced Netanyahu to moderate this hardline stances, he now has a clear majority, clear sailing to form a government.
The celebration last night was raucous in his headquarters even before the votes were counted.
They know what this means because he is against a Palestinian state that is a clear reversal of decades of Israeli commitments to the U.S., including Netanyahu's own commitment to President Obama.
Now this also means that the relationship with President Obama is going to be even more poisonous.
It also vindicates Republican congressional leaders for inviting him to appear in Congress.
It has a big effect on America.
Okay, so what's the takeaway here?
Well, the takeaway here is that a a tie uh forcing a runoff would have meant that Obama, I'm sorry, Netanyahu would have to be more reasonable.
Yes, that Netanyahu would have to moderate his filthy hardline stances, but instead, his filthy extremist, mean spirited right wing, hardline stances won a landslide victory.
Which means if Andrea Mitchell, NBC News in Washington, is to be honest, Israel has now become mean-spirited extremist.
Filthy racist pigs.
Hardline.
The whole country is now.
That's what it has to mean, because that's who they elected.
They know what this means because he's against the Palestinian state.
Have you ever wondered, folks, why the American media and the American left is so devoted to a Palestinian state?
Do you know why it is?
You ever thought about it?
You think about it.
I'll tell you later.
I gotta move on here.
I just wanted to put it out there.
There's a reason, it has nothing to do.
It has nothing to do with what the Palestinians want.
Well, I I can't really say that.
It does.
But it it it really it's not about the nuts and bolts of this disagreement.
That has really nothing to do with why the media is sympatical with the Palestinians.
Not to say that they don't agree with what Palestinians, well, that's not, but but there is a reason why it's not just that the media, the leftists in this country support the Palestinians.
It's it's the way they identify with them.
It's how they see them.
They don't see them realistically, but they said they do see them a certain way, and it causes them to ally with the Palestinians, much as they ally with minorities in America, and why.
But while you mull that over and come up with her own answer, we'll go back to the phones here to Steve in um whatever to Delaware, Rohoboth Beach in Delaware.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, uh, Mr. Limbaugh, great to talk to you.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Rush, if I'm not mistaken, after the U.S. midterm elections last November, Barack Obama held a news conference, and in so many words said that the people who stayed home and didn't vote actually were in support of his policies.
So my question is do you think he'll say the same type of thing regarding the re-election Benjamin Netanyahu?
Uh no, I think his reaction and the way he deals with uh with Netanyahu's victory is going to be an entirely different way than the way he deals with his own defeat domestically.
What Obama did uh uh, ladies and gentlemen, when after the 2014 midterms, and Steve here's got it mostly right.
Obama said, Well, yeah, uh the people that showed up, yeah, we lost.
But look at the people that didn't.
The vast majority of people didn't vote, and that's who I'm standing with.
So he made the assumption that the greatest number of people in the election were the people that didn't show up.
That was his majority.
And since they didn't show up and vote against him, they may as well be for him.
And so, in effect, he won.
That's how he looked at it.
I didn't lose.
Have you seen Low Turner?
Hell.
I mean, if you look at the people who turned out, yeah, I lost, but look at the number of people who don't even bother to vote.
That's a winning coalition there.
And that's how he looked at it.
And that's the basis on which he proceeded.
That he didn't lose.
And that's how he's acting.
Okay, you think you beat me?
Watch this.
Try my executive amnesty.
Try more of Obamacare.
Try this, try that.
You think I lost?
You.
Now, in Israel, this is going to be a little bit different situation.
He can't talk about the people that didn't vote, because the turnout was pretty high.
All he can do is what he is naturally inclined to do.
He's just going to ignore this.
And if anything, he's going to double down.
The fact that Netanyahu won is going to be offered as an example of how the world is a more dangerous place.
The fact that Netanyahu won is more evidence than we've ever had that Obama is needed now more than ever.
To provide a moderating tone and a moderating stance to the enhanced extremism that we see popping up all over the world.
Which Obama will say that he quite easily understands it.
I understand this extremism.
I understand people's frustrations.
I wish things were better than they are now.
And we've been working hard for the past six, seven years, whatever it is, and we're going to get there.
But I can understand people's frustrations.
But that doesn't change the fact that we cannot allow this rising tide of extremism to prevail.
So Netanyahu is going to be portrayed as a living example of what's wrong in the world.
And how people are misguided in voting for him.
And how people are voting against their own best interest, God bless them, they don't know it.
They will learn it.
Obama's going to try to save them from themselves anyway.
That's how you do it if you're of that mindset.
You don't lose.
You didn't lose.
Your victors somehow tricked everybody, or the voters were what they always are, stupid.
And just don't get it.
But regardless, the fact that your opponent wins means the world is now more dangerous than ever.
Which means you must be more vigilant than ever in beating it back.
So it'll just be used as the excuse for more executive actions, more amnesty, more whatever Obama wants as a means of fighting the rising tide of mean-spirited racism, bigotry, and extremism that's popping up in way too many parts of the world.
When in fact, what's really popping up all over the world is massive outcries of opposition to people like Barack Obama and others who believe what he believed, who have been trying to implement what they believe and people don't want anymore, but that's what's actually rising up and expressing itself.
But don't ever think Obama's gonna see it that way.
He doesn't have the ability.
He's a narcissist.
He can't possibly, there is no valid criticism.
There is no rejection.
All there is is a bunch of idiots that don't get it.
And if they have to, they'll pay the price.
And he'll double down on whatever it is that all of these people rising up in opposition to him don't like.
And now brief time.
Don't doubt, folks.
I know these people, I know them like they're members of my family.
I know these people better than you will ever understand and believe.
Do not doubt me on this.
Back after this.
Go ahead, folks.
Be honest.
Admit it to yourself.
For sure.
You are addicted to this program.
It's called EIB.
It is an airborne phenomenon spread by casual contact.
And no cure needed.
It is the cure.
When you get EIB, you are saved.
Happy to have you with us, 800-282-2882, and L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Here's Ben in Manhattan as we stay with the phones.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you here.
Hey, good day, sir.
Oh, what a thrill.
EIB is an addiction, isn't it, Rob?
It really is.
It uh doesn't take long either.
Does not take long.
Once you get it, you can't get rid of it.
There's no rehab.
Well, we're loving it, you know.
We're not liking it.
We're loving it.
Well, I appreciate that, sir.
Thank you very much.
Well, I called that we may please have a discussion on three reasons why the same thing couldn't happen here in our country, where a conservative talking fella, Jewish or otherwise, uh, could be elected in the face of massive election frigging.
Now, election freeing, of course, is that combination of election fraud and election rigging that has taken our election since 1960 into the hands of the communist.
And uh now in this one in Israel, Saros and Jarrett, Valerie Jarrett, born in the town of Shiraz, in the country of Iran, sends uh 67 operatives.
You know?
Who is this guy?
What's his name?
I don't know.
Jeremy, Jeremy, uh, you know, Jeremy Bird, help me here.
You know, you gotta work with me on this call, Rush.
Jeremy Bird.
I know, but you're not you're not you're not talking about what you said you wanted to talk about.
You didn't tell me you want to talk about communists and Valerie Jarrett born in Iran or any of that.
You wanted to tell me you wanted to ask about how can a conservative win in America if one can win in Israel.
And I was prepared to discuss that.
But that's not where you're going.
I'm not comfortable with where you're going about communists and Valerie Jarrett, and I don't know where this is going to end up, but it isn't where you said you wanted to talk about.
Now, if anybody wants to talk about you're telling me you you don't think a conservative can win here.
That's what I heard you say, because of uh election frigging, as you call it.
And I wholeheartedly disagree with that.
Scott Walker has shown it can be done.
That's my whole point.
Starting to sound like a broken record here.
It can happen.
I don't care if Valerie Jarrett came from Iran, and I don't care if she's in the White House, and I don't care if they're screwing around with elections.
They can be beat.
We beat them in 2010.
We beat them in 2014.
Obama's not going to be on the ballot tonight.
Hillary can be beat if she is the nominee.
I'm not interested in talking to people who don't think we can win.
We certainly can.
There are examples of it all over the place.
The recipe is very easily discerned.
The real the real obstruction, the real problem to a conservative becoming elected president is not Valerie Jarrett and election fraud, it's the GOP.
They have to nominate one.
The nomination process has to happen.
A conservative candidate has to get nominated.
If a conservative candidate is nominated, in 2016, we're going to win.
No two ways about it.
The evidence is clear.
It has happened before.
It can happen again.
No matter where Valerie Jarrett is or where she came from.
No matter where George Soros is and how much money he spends, they can be beaten.
Because it has happened.
And it can happen again.
Grab audio soundbite number seven.
Barney Frank.
What is he doing now?
He quit Congress.
I don't know.
Is he working for Dolce and Gabbana?
Oh, he's got a story in Politico.
His life is a gig.
I thought he was to work with Dolje Gamana.
Okay, well, anyway, he was on the Huffing and Puffington Post's blog.
Or they've got a live uh video podcast or something.
And this was uh this was yesterday.
He was talking with the host Alyona Minkowski.
Wonder where she was born.
Sounds like she's from a communist country, too.
Alyana Minkowski.
Gotta be aware of her.
And she was interviewing Barney Frank.
And uh this probably hidden communist plant, Alyona, I've learned from the previous caller.
Alyona Minkowski said to Barney Frank, so what are your thoughts about Scott Walker, huh?
Huh?
Scott Walker is dangerous.
We talk a lot about diminishing inequality.
That will not happen if we do not strengthen labor union.
Scott Walker is bragging about his assault on uh on unions.
In fact, he preposterously claimed that the fact that he's been so tough on unions will intimidate uh the Islamic State and Putin.
Hey, listen, I didn't take any crap from these janitors, so you better get out of Ukraine.
Uh ludicrous intellectual, but dangerous politically.
What in the world is he talking about?
Did you hear that?
Gotta take a break, but we're gonna come back to this.
So Barney Frank said that Scott Walker is bragging that his assault on unions has been so tough that it's gonna intimidate the Islamic State and Putin.
Hey, listen, I didn't take any crap from these janitors, so you better get out of Ukraine.
Barney Frank.
And there's one more Barney Frank bite to go, and the NFL.
▲
Export Selection