All Episodes
Previous Next
March 20, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
March 20, 2015, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, folks, that election in Israel, the victory, Benjamin Netanyahu, that has really confounded Obama.
Do you know what Obama did?
He recorded a video address to the people of Iran and blamed the hardliners in both of our countries, he's telling the people of Iran for all the mess that's going on in the Middle East.
It's unprecedented.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Man, oh man, does this guy take defeat and rejection?
Unlike anybody I've ever seen, take it.
He ran straight to the nearest camera and microphone to record an address to the people of Iran.
The dirty little secret is the people of Iran want their government overthrown.
Obama is signing on with the government that the majority of the people of Iran really don't want any part of.
This is uncanny.
Great to have you with us, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbaugh here on Open Line Friday.
This is the one day of the week where you, the listeners, carry the program and I can just mail it in using my own private homebrew server.
I never mail it in.
You know, I've tried.
I've actually tried to sit here and put 75, 50% effort in.
I just can't do it.
I have too much of a conscience.
I have obsessed with my commitment to the audience to meet and surpass expectations.
I've tried to phone it in.
I really have.
I've tried to come in here and say, you know what?
I'm just going to take calls and whatever people say is fine.
And I'm not going to get myself all worked up.
I'm going to take an emotional day off, be here, but I'm just not, and I can't do it.
My existence, my constitution, my commitment to excellence will not allow me to phone it in.
So even with my best efforts, I'm just, I'm unable to disengage, even though I've tried.
And some days I'm going to keep trying just to see if I can actually pull off being lazy one day.
Anyway, telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbo at eibnet.com.
And Open Line Friday is where you get to choose whatever it is we talk about.
It's a one day of the week where there are very, very few restrictions on what callers want to talk about.
President Obama has used the Nowruse statement to speak directly to the people of Iran.
And what he did, he compared Iranian hardliners to Americans who are skeptical of his nuclear deal with Iran.
So here's the President of the United States speaking to the people of Iran.
He is in the process of arranging and negotiating a nuclear deal with the mullahs of Iran, which will give them a nuclear weapon in 10 years, if we are to believe what we're being told about the deal.
And Obama goes on television in Iran to complain about Americans.
And he equates the American people who disagree with him to hardliners in Iran who disagree with their government.
He compares Iranian hardliners to Americans who are skeptical of his deal.
And we have some audio sandbites of this.
This is, it is unprecedented.
An American president addressing the Iranians.
Here, just listen.
Hello, to everyone celebrating Naruz across the United States and in countries around the world.
Nowruz Mubarak.
This year we had the best opportunity in decades to pursue a different future between our countries.
Just over a year ago, we reached an initial understanding regarding Iran's nuclear program.
I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully with diplomacy.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons.
And President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.
Oh my God, folks, be still my beating brain.
What in the world is going on here?
So the president of the United States addresses his people, the Iranians, to everyone celebrating Nauruz across the United States.
Did we let the kids out of school today for Nauruz?
Yeah, we didn't, but we should have.
Nowruz is not a national holiday in America with a sacrilege of that.
Nowruz and in countries around the world, Nauruz Mubrak, he said.
Nowruz Mubrak.
What in the world is going on here?
This year, we have the best opportunity in the decade, pursue a different future.
He's talking to the leaders, the people who are imprisoned by the state sponsors of terrorism, the biggest worldwide sponsors of terrorism.
I believe that our country should be able to resolve this issue.
Why are we even talking to her?
Could somebody answer a question?
Why are we even talking to them?
We're so far gone that we've lost sight of that basic question.
Why in the world are we talking to Iran?
Why are we negotiating the whole subject of nuclear weaponry with them?
Why are we even General Petraeus?
You got to praise his guts.
General Petraeus is out there today saying that Iran is a greater threat to the United States than ISIS.
And Obama doesn't really think either one of them are much of a threat.
He doesn't give ISIS much the time of day.
Everything he does is perfunctory there.
And now he's on Iranian TV.
And don't doubt me, folks, a sizable percentage of the Iranian population does not like its government and would love to be able to get rid of it.
And this is one of the problems that has, I think it's a problem.
There have been a lot of opportunities in the last 10 to 15 years to show solidarity with the people of Iran and to help them pose and create and participate in an uprising against their government.
We're never going to send boots on the ground in Iran.
We're never going to do anything militarily to affect regime change there.
But there are other ways to influence the outcome of events in that country.
And there's a sizable percentage of the population which does not like the mullahs, which does not like the Ayatollah's, the current leadership, and would like a different kind of government.
We have really not fully explored encouraging those people.
Instead, now here's Obama on television siding with the Mullahs and telling the people of her: hey, you know what?
I just got off the phone with the Ayatollah Khamenei and he's issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.
Are you kidding me?
I can't.
Does anybody really believe this?
That the Ayatollah Khamenei has delivered a fatwa against nuclear weapons?
And Obama's on Iranian TV telling them this?
I believe our country should be able to resolve the issue.
What issue?
What are we talking to them about?
What is the issue?
If the Ayatollah Khamini here has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, then why are we talking to them?
What is there to worry about?
What the hell are we negotiating?
If the Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons and President Rouani has said that Iran would never develop nuclear weapons, then what are we talking to them about?
No, I'm not asking it rhetorically.
I'm being serious.
Why are we negotiating?
This doesn't make any sense.
And even if the Ayatollah Khamini had issued a fatwa against that's not fatwas, you don't, there's no such thing as a fatwa against nuclear weapons.
You have fatwa against infidels.
A fatwa is against your enemy.
This is absurd.
But it's beyond absurd.
This is surreal.
So our ally, Israel, has a presidential election.
Netanyahu wins in a landslide, and Obama is so ticked off.
He decides that Israel is not worthy of friendship anymore because this victory of Netanyahu is such a diss that he's going to sidle up to the Iranians.
Here's another excerpt from the president's speech to the people of Iran and all the other nations, including the United States, celebrating Nauruz Mubarak around the world.
The days and weeks ahead will be critical.
Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain.
And there are people in both our countries and beyond who oppose a diplomatic resolution.
To what?
My message to you, the people of Iran, is that together we have to speak up for the future we seek.
It's up to all of us, Iranians and Americans, to seize this moment and the possibilities that can bloom in this new season.
Thank you.
And Naruzatan Peruz.
What in the world, folks, is happening here?
Why, if there's a fatwa in Iran against nuclear weapons, why in the world do we need a diplomatic resolution?
A diplomatic resolution of what?
There are people in both our countries and beyond who oppose the diplomatic diplomatic.
What are we diplomatizing here?
If there's a fatwa against nuke, what?
Are there some rogue elements in Iran developing a nuclear weapon despite the fatwa against it by the Ayatollah Khamenei?
It's all up to us, Iranians and Americans.
We are allied.
We are now allied with the Iranians in that region.
Naruzatin Peruz?
Really?
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, Open Line Friday.
This is ABC's.
Good morning, America.
Morning, George Stephanopoulos speaking with the White House correspondent Jonathan Carl about the Iranian nuclear talks.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, these fatwas, I know a little bit about fatwas.
They have to be published.
In July of 2014, the Iranian website, which is called Senim News, which is linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, published an extensive list of 493 fatwas from the Ayatollah Ayatollah Hominy dating back to 2004.
493 fatwas from the Ayatollah Hominy dating back to 2004, and there wasn't one fatwa forbidding the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
In fact, I looked during the break.
It wasn't a whole lot of time.
The best I could find was that nobody has ever seen this anti-nuclear fatwa.
But it's not on this website where all the other fatwas that have been issued by the Ayatollah Hominy have been posted.
There isn't a single fatwa that forbids the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Now, people like John Kerry, our Secretary of State, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, and a bunch of people on the left have been claiming that this Fatwa against nuclear weapons exists.
They've been claiming it for years.
Obama isn't saying it just happened.
They've thought that there's been a fatwa against nuclear weapons from the Ayatollah Hominy for years, but there's no evidence anywhere that it's ever been issued.
But even, let's say that it has been, hypothetically, let's say there is this fatwa from the Ayatollah Hominy forbidding the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
And let's say nobody can find it, but let's say it's there.
Then somebody explain to me, maybe I'm being a dunce here, why in the world are we talking to them?
If there is a fatwa against and forbidding the development of nuclear weapons, then why do we have to talk to them about it?
Why do we need a diplomatic solution?
What's the problem?
We have a deal with Iran, as best anybody can tell, that assures them in 10 years they'll be able to convert whatever nuclear material they develop in these next 10 years.
They'll be able to convert that for use in a nuclear weapon, but that our policy is going to be to persuade them not to use it as a weapon.
Oh, by the way, I found a Thomas Friedman New York Times column from 2007 that is a direct 180-degree contradiction of what he said that sounded like we had yesterday.
You stand by, because it's going to be fascinating, and I think it's important because it illustrates these people are inconsistent, are all over the board, and write and say things only to further the political agenda of the moment.
But back to this fatwa for just a second.
Let's assume it does exist, even though nobody can find it.
Why are we talking to them if the Iranian mullahs have pledged and if they've forbidden their scientists?
It's what a fatwa is.
A fatwa forbids certain kinds of action, whatever the fatwa states.
A fatwa can also spell out and define and target people for death, for being infidels or what have you.
A fatwa can be whatever the supreme leader wants it to be.
And the American left, Obama, John Kerry, they've been running around for years claiming there's a fatwa against nuclear development in Iran for weapons purposes, and that we have nothing to worry about.
So, why are we talking to him?
I mean, his supreme leader.
What he says goes.
If he issues a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons and somebody does it, supposedly he'd be beheaded.
Nobody disobeys the supreme leader and lives to talk about it.
I know, I know it's absurd.
They want a nuclear weapon.
They have said so, and they have said what they plan to do with it.
All of this is academic.
I'm just presenting the hypothetical here because I don't think any of this makes sense.
If we're going to, I still can't do a joint speech to the people of Iran, and then we criticize hardliners in America and hardliners in Iran.
And by implication, you include Israel in the speech as one of the problems in the area, problems in the region.
Wink, wink, you get my drift.
It's unprecedented.
So, anyway, here's the John Carl soundbite.
I jumped ahead of myself.
I reminded him that I have this Tom Friedman business.
Stephanopoulos says to George Carl or John Carl, so they're closing in on a deal, but they still have gaps in a deal.
Is that right, Jonathan?
They are close.
The deal is almost done.
The biggest remaining question right now is whether or not the Iranian supreme leader, the Ayatollah hominy, will go along with it.
Last night, in that appeal to the Iranian people, the president called the deal an historic opportunity.
Okay, so let's try, ladies and gentlemen, you and me to use intelligence guided by experience to try to figure this out.
They are close.
Closing in on a deal, still some gaps.
They're close, Jonathan Carl says.
The deal's almost done.
The biggest remaining question right now is whether or not the Iranian supreme leader, the Ayatollah hominy.
By the way, did you hear how he pronounced it?
Did you hear how he pronounced it hominy?
I've been doing it as a joke.
Did you hear that?
I told you, Pierre Salinger always pronounced the Ayatollah Khomeini, the Ayatollah hominy.
Everybody else calling him Khomeini.
So I said, well, if it's a hominy, it's a hominy.
I've been calling him Ayatollah hominy.
Jonathan Carl just called in the Ayatollah hominy.
Anyway, the remaining question is whether or not the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah hominy, will go along with it.
How stupid do they think we are?
Whether or not the Supreme Leader will go along with it as though the Supreme Leader doesn't yet know what they're talking about, and at some point they're going to have to run it by him.
Seriously?
Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And we are performing today in a state of total incredulity.
Happy to have you with us.
The telephone number if you want to be on the programs 800-282-2882.
Here's the latest little addition to this.
From thehill.com.
The Obama regime will not commit to making the Iranian deal public after it's done.
Says it right here at thehill.com.
Some details of a nuclear deal with Iran may not be made public.
A senior Obama regime official said yesterday.
With regard to whether the agreement will be made public, certainly the core elements will said Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.
I don't know at this stage because we don't know exactly what form of the agreement would take, whether certain pieces would remain classified and be they're not going to tell us what's in the deal.
He's on TV telling the Iranian people, don't worry, we'll get it done.
We've got hardliners in my country, hardliners in your country, but don't worry.
The Ayatollah has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, so there won't be any nuclear weapons so we can go ahead and make a deal.
Look, I know I'm repeating myself.
Why do we need a deal?
On what are we agreeing?
If the Ayatollah hominy has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, folks, look, the fact is, there is no such fatwa.
Obama is lying.
John Kerry is lying.
The American left is lying.
There is no fatwa.
There is an invaluable Middle East media research institute.
That's what it's called, actually MEMRY.
They have done extensive research into compilations of the Ayatollah Hominy's published fatwas.
No such fatwa has ever been published.
There is no fatwa forbidding the development of nuclear weapons in Iran.
Now, in a Sharia state, particularly the one in Iran that's actually run by the country's top Sharia jurists, the Ayatollah's the Mullahs, fatwas are important statements of governing law.
A fatwa is the equivalent to a statute in the U.S., except a fatwa is created by a supreme leader and his buddies, whereas a statute in this country used to be created in Congress, debated and passed by elected representatives of the people and then sent to the president for his signature.
That's how it used to happen here.
But now Obama is getting close to issuing his own fatwas, such as executive amnesty.
A good example.
But in Iran, fatwas are important statements of governing law.
They're not kept secret.
The people that issue fatwas are proud of them.
They are like statutes in U.S. law.
And despite repeated requests, Iran has never produced the anti-nuclear weapons fatwa from the Ayatollah hominy.
My friend Andy McCarthy has added to this, and indeed, as memory elaborates, the Middle East Media Research Institute, as they elaborate, the Ayatollah hominy was directly asked about the purported fatwa in a 2012 Facebook exchange, and the Ayatollah Hominy refused to answer the question.
Do you believe that this clown was on Facebook?
Are you kidding me?
The Ayatollah Hominy was in a Facebook conversation with people and he was asked, where is the anti-nuke fatwa?
And he refused to answer it.
The Ayatollah hominy?
Wallace was on Facebook.
This deal lets Iran keep 6,000 centrifuges.
Why does Iran need 6,000 centrifuges?
A centrifuge is necessary for the enrichment of uranium.
And uranium essentially has one purpose, and that is to be weaponized and to convert nuke into a nuclear weapon.
And if there is a fatwa against nuclear weapons, they don't need any centrifuges.
And they don't need weaponized uranium.
Therefore, they don't need much less 6,000 of the things.
But the deal that Obama is negotiating with them allows them to keep 6,000 centrifuges.
The deal that Obama is negotiating with Iranians also lifts the arms embargo on Iran, which means that Iran, which remains the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world, will be able to buy their terrorist allies even more toys.
Now, the reason we're lifting the arms embargo on Iran, you know what it is?
Well, it hasn't worked because the Chikoms are letting them have weapons and arms, and the Russians are letting them have weapons and arms, and maybe even a NORCS.
And so we're throwing our hands up in futility and saying, you know, we've got this arms embargo, but it's not stopping them.
And we've got an economic embargo, but it's not stopping them because other nations are trading with Iran and furnishing them weapons and arms.
So we're lifting our embargo.
We're getting rid of our pressure.
We're going to let them keep 6,000 centrifuges.
Obama's addressing the Iranian people, blaming hardliners in his own country for the lack of a deal so far, implied blaming Netanyahu for the same thing in Israel, pledging the people of Iran they're going to get a deal done, all the while citing the Ayatollah hominy saying they have no intention of ever developing a nuclear weapon.
So what is this all about?
I'm asking rhetorically, of course it's about nuclear weapons, and of course it's about Iran securing them.
This much we know.
Let me now go to the Thomas Lupe Friedman column and to set this up, I want to go back to yesterday's soundbite that we played from Thomas Friedman.
He's a New York Times foreign policy columnist slash expert.
And this is from Wednesday night CNN's Aaron Burnett out front.
She said to Tom Friedman, and it's embarrassed me, this guy is a Bible.
He is the gospel in foreign policy to everybody that reads the New York Times.
And it's just, it's, well, it's absurd.
It's dangerous because the guy is so wrong about that.
I don't know, folks.
These are the kind of things that if you think about it too much, it actually makes you question your faith in people to get things right.
But anyway, question from Burnett.
You wrote that Benjamin Netanyahu went for the gutter with the comment to supporters that Arab voters were coming out to vote in huge numbers.
Talk about that, oh, brilliant Friedman.
Tell us about that.
Netanyahu, to save himself, took votes from even farther right parties.
And now he is saddled with the way he did that, this kind of race baiting, and at the same time, with throwing out the window of his election bus, the whole notion of a two-state solution.
The people who are happiest tonight, who are high-fiving and toasting themselves with endless Allahu Akbars, is the Iranian regime in Tehran.
Iran wants a one-state solution.
So there is a constant grinding between Israeli settlers and Palestinians.
Nothing makes Iran happier than Israel opting for a one-state solution.
All right, so Netanyahu has clarified that a number of times, most recently last night with Megan Kelly.
We have audio soundbites of that coming up.
Stand by for that.
But he's being misrepresented purposely, willfully on what he had said about the two-state, one-state solution.
But this is all academic, too, because there's no two-state solution.
The Palestinians do not want an Israeli-state, a Jewish state.
There is no two-state solution.
And I know I'm being repetitive.
But anyway, so you heard Lupi, Thomas Friedman, say this yesterday.
I went back, I got a column of his, New York Times, on March the 7th of 2012.
So this is coming up a three years ago.
Three years ago.
And it's stunning.
Just three years ago, Freeman said the exact opposite of what you just heard him say in that soundbite.
And he quotes Obama from before the election.
The title of the piece is Israel's Best Friend.
Israel's Best Friend.
You know who that is.
That's Obama in Friedman's eyes.
Let me read you excerpts.
The only question I have when it comes to President Obama and Israel is whether he is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the most.
Why?
Well, because the question of whether Israel has the need and the right to preemptively strike Iran as it develops nuclear potential is one of the most hotly contested issues on the world stage today.
It's also an issue fraught with danger for Israel and American Jews, neither of whom want to be accused of dragging America into a war, especially one that could weaken an already frail world economy.
Remember, that's three years ago.
In that context, President Obama, in his interview in the Atlantic and in his address to APEC, offered the greatest support for Israel that any president could at this time.
He redefined the Iran issue.
He said, rightly, that it was not simply about Israel's security, but about U.S. national security and global security.
Obama did this by making clear that allowing...
Now listen to this.
Obama did this three years ago by making clear that allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and then containing it the way the U.S. contained the Soviet Union was not, I repeat, not a viable option.
Because if Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, all the states around it would seek to acquire one as well.
May I translate this for you?
Three years ago, Thomas Friedman quoted Obama as saying that what he's now trying to do with Iran would be a mistake.
Our current deal with Iran is precisely to give them a nuclear weapon.
And then, after 10 years, and then all the while use the power of our speeches and the power of our words and the power of our personality to convince them never to use that weapon.
But the theory is we have no right to tell them they can't have one.
I mean, they're there if they have the ability to make one.
Who are we to tell them they can't?
So the best we can do is negotiate with them that they can have one and that they can't develop it fully for weapon use for 10 years.
And during that time, we'll convince them never to use it.
Okay, that is the current plan.
Let me read this to you again from three years ago.
Obama, in a column about how he's Israel's best friend, according to Friedman, Obama made clear that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and then containing it was not a viable option.
So three years ago, Obama said that the very thing he's trying to do now is not viable.
What's changed?
And of course, three years ago, Thomas Friedman is writing about all this as Obama.
What a brilliant guy.
Oh my God, can we even hope to exist in his countenance?
This guy's so smart, he's the best friend Israel ever had three years ago.
Because three years ago, Obama was totally opposed to Iran getting a nuclear weapon because if they did, then every other state in the region would say, hey, they have one.
We want one.
And we could invariably say, no, you can't.
So we can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon three years ago.
Today, it's exactly what our plan is.
Let them have the nuclear weapon and then contain them.
Convince them never to use it like we did the Soviet Union.
So is now Obama not Israel's best friend?
Because three years ago, he was Israel's best friend by asserting that Iran would never get the nuke.
Three years later, I don't think anybody in their right mind would consider Obama a good, there's no way he's a friend of Israel in any way, shape, manner, or form right now.
Now, one more thing from the Thomas Friedman column three years ago, which is a direct opposite of what he's saying today, direct opposite of what Obama is saying today.
Thomas Friedman, this is March the 7th of 2012, preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn't just in the interest of Israel.
It's profoundly in the security interests of the U.S.
The president told the Atlantic: if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of non-proliferation.
The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound.
Three years ago, this Obama, three years ago, assuring everybody there isn't going to be a nuclear Iran, not on his watch.
And Thomas Lupe Friedman writing a piece about this is the best friend Israel's ever had.
You hear that?
He's really tough.
He's not going to let the Iranians have a nuke.
And now we are going to let Iranians have a nuke.
And we claim that the Ayatollah has a fatwa against them, but nobody can find.
We know that the nuclear deal permits Iran to have a nuclear weapon in 10 years.
Obama doesn't have to face voters anymore, so he can do a 180 here and explain.
It was a lie three years ago.
Thomas Friedman bought it.
Now the Iranians are on the road to getting a nuclear weapon in direct contravention of everything these leftists assured us three years ago, two years ago, last year.
And as always, it's American hardliners in Israel who are the problem, don't you know?
Here's Eric in Margate, New Jersey.
I'm glad you called, sir.
You're up first at Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, great to talk with you.
Thank you, sir.
I wanted to talk about Iran real quick.
I have two points.
Excuse me.
In the 80s, when I was in my 30s, the Iranians took our people hostage when the Ayatollah took over, and they paraded them around for two years blindfolded, which I don't know about you, but after about six months of it, I was getting pretty P.O.
And a lot of people out there didn't let through it.
But in this Iraq war that we just ended, the Iranians were smuggling in IEDs that blew up a lot of our soldiers that are out there that were killed and maimed.
That's right.
And I don't see how we're having any dealings with them at all.
My question: I don't know what we're talking to them about either.
What in the world?
The only reason to talk to these people is to talk them out of or to give them the lay the land.
You will not have a nuclear weapon.
But we're not doing that.
But you're exactly right.
Iran manufactures all those ICEs, IDEs, the incendiary explosive devices, IEDs, that have ruined, wounded, killed American soldiers.
The American hostage crisis gave us nightline.
That's another thing.
And it doesn't make sense.
The world seems like it's upside down.
Happy Nauruz.
Nowruz Marakaba.
Really?
Yes.
How about that?
It is Open Line Friday.
Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Guess who the top violator of women's rights around the world is?
At the UN.
Guess who?
Who is the top violator of women's rights around the world?
Israel.
Israel.
Yes, Israel.
▲
Export Selection