All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
July 14, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
I am your guiding light, your bulwark, your last resort.
Rush Limbaugh here behind the Golden EIB microphone serving humanity.
Great to have you with us, my friends.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
Email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
For the explanation of why do this, and let's, I mean, from Obama's standpoint, why do this?
And by the way, did you see when Obama went out to announce this, he had Biden standing there?
If I'm Hillary Clinton, I don't like that.
Why bring Biden out there?
And Biden was looking defiant, and Biden was looking defiant and proud.
And then I had to say, I remembered all the way back when Biden was put in charge of making sure nobody scammed the stimulus, Obama said nobody gets anything past Joe.
So obviously Biden's there to make sure the Iranians know that they better not cheat.
Because if they do, they're going to have to deal with old Joe here.
Because old Joe, he was right over Obama's right shoulder, left shoulder if you're looking at the TV screen, and just looking defiant and tough and proud.
And unstated in that picture, you're still wondering, is Biden going to run?
If Biden runs, that throws one of the biggest wrenches in the Clinton plans that you can possibly imagine.
But more on that later.
Yesterday, I explained, and I know it's hard.
Why would anybody?
I know you don't want to believe this.
I don't want to believe it.
You don't want to believe that we've actually conceded this way.
You don't want to believe that the Iranians have emerged.
The Iranians, for God's sakes, responsible for the deaths of how many Americans alone, not to mention others.
There's still four Americans being held prisoner, journalists included, in Iran.
This deal doesn't even get them released.
You believe that?
This deal doesn't even get them released.
Things like that were not even discussed.
Well, if you want to know why we're doing this, you have to understand what it's about.
And it is not about Iran and nuclear weapons.
It's about Obama.
Are you, at the same time, asking yourself, or have you heard others ask?
Maybe you've even seen this addressed in the Washington Post today.
People have been noticing and mentioning for a while, but the Post has finally gotten on board now.
Obama hasn't called the Stele family out in San Francisco.
He hasn't lifted a finger.
He hasn't called them.
He hadn't had an emissary call.
This is the woman who was killed by the illegal alien immigrant in San Francisco who was there because San Francisco is a sanctuary city.
You know, hell, Obama called Sandra Fluke for crying out loud.
Obama called Trayvon Martin's mom.
Obama called anybody he couldn't Baltimore.
Obama's calling all over place in Ferguson, Missouri is not called the family of Katie Stele.
You know why?
Because there's no way he can turn that event into being something about him.
It's hard for people, particularly millennials, who have the exact opposite picture of Obama, who Obama really is.
Obama is one of the biggest egoists and egotists and superiorists that we've ever had serve in the White House.
And it is literally all about him.
All of these things are about him.
He doesn't call that family in San Francisco because there's no way he can turn this event into something positive about him.
This is a negative for him and his policies, that whole event.
So he's not going to go anywhere near it.
Now, you might be a member of the new Castrati listening today and shouting, Mr. Limbaugh, Mithrid Limbaugh.
Does that mean that you're thinking Obama doesn't really care about these families when he does call them?
That's pretty much what I'm saying, Mr. New Castrati.
Do you realize how third that is Mr. He's the most compassionate Democrat president we have ever had?
Mr. New Castrati, you've got it all wrong.
Obama calculates everything and how it can benefit him or will it benefit him.
And if it won't, he's not going to touch it.
He's not going to go there.
So if you want to know why we have a deal with Iran that is the way it is, the answer to the question is it doesn't matter what the deal is.
What matters is that there is one.
Here, listen to me explain it from yesterday.
The explanation hasn't changed from day to day.
And this is what I said yesterday, attempting to explain to people why we have this deal.
Obama, folks, this is, can you say the word legacy?
That's all this is.
Look at what Obama finishes.
He wants to say he's the first president to do national health care.
In 200 some odd years, every president theoretically has wanted to do this, but who got it done?
Barack Hussein-O.
And in the midst of terrorism and an uneasy world that is teetering on the edge of terrorism daily, who is it that got a nuclear arms deal with her what the hell that it allows them to have them?
That won't get mentioned.
Who got a deal with Iran?
Not Clinton, not Bush, not Reagan.
Obama got the deal.
That's what he wants.
He wants the legacy.
And remember the old saying, the victors get to write history?
Well, in this case, the victors are the ones that get to pervert it.
So Obama and his merry band and the drive-by media are going to be able to write this great, great presidential legacy of great, great Barack Obama achievements.
And right up there at the top is going to be a nuclear deal with Iran that nobody ever thought possible.
And nobody else ever secured.
The fact that the deal is based on the inevitability of the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon is beside the point.
No other president ever did this, got anywhere close.
Same with national health care.
Same with reducing the deficit by two-thirds.
Obama said that yesterday.
He's reduced the deficit by two-thirds his policies.
He's got a roaring economy going.
It's all about the legacy.
It's all about the ego, folks.
It's all about history.
It's all about 100 years from now, people reading about Obama as the best ever, the most special ever, the most unique ever.
The details are beside the point.
And that's why this deal had to get done and had to get done now before Obama leaves office.
And here's the drive-bys doing exactly what I predicted they would do.
This is just another notch in the president's legacy that has grown measurably.
This is a legacy issue for the president.
As a major legacy item for him, it's a significant development for him, particularly when it comes to painting his legacy.
And of course, he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
A major piece to his legacy.
This would be Barack Obama's foreign policy legacy, the highest foreign policy legacy.
He thinks this is the biggest foreign policy achievement of his presidency.
He made clear he views this as history.
There you have it.
I mean, I called it yesterday.
The media goes out.
That's a montage of media people from CNN and NBC from just this morning.
Now, the guy that couldn't pronounce legacy was Fawaz Gurges.
That's how it's spelled.
I'm sure it's not pronounced that way.
But he was the guy saying, this would be Obama's foreign policy legacy.
Legacy, the highest foreign policy legacy.
But anyway, legacy is what it's all about.
It's all about Obama.
Healthcare, you name it.
You hear any of these people discussing the details of this deal?
Hear any drive-by people talking about it up, down, good or bad?
Significant, insignificant?
Nah.
That's for later.
The current immediate goal for low information consumption is that Obama is the one who demanded he special.
You know, it must have meant something when he was making those speeches in front of those Greek columns.
I guess Obama was the one we were waiting for.
I guess Obama really is the real deal.
That's what this is about.
And to sit here and to go through all the details, evidencing our failure, not going to make a difference to the people who are going to be dazzled and wowed by the fact that Obama did it.
I was even took note this morning.
I was watching CNN and they had some apologists on there for Obama.
I mean, there are people that know this is a disaster.
I mean, even on the Democrat side.
The Democrats kind of caught in the middle here on this because just as the Democrats opposed Obama on that Pan-Pacific partnership, that trans-Pacific, the trade deal that nobody was allowed to see, read, or talk about.
The one the Democrats abandoned him on.
The one that Republicans saved for him.
Yeah, that's another legacy deal, by the way.
The Democrats are in a similar position here.
The Democrats are, by and large, want everybody to believe anyway, by and large, that they are pro-Israel.
This is not pro-Israel.
And they are really caught under intense pressure to not do anything that would deny Obama his legacy.
But there are people that think this deal is bad, that it stinks, that it's rotten, and the Democrats who think that can't and don't dare say so.
So I watched one of these apologists who was clearly troubled by this.
And it was the most, I say outrageous, it wasn't that, it was just, it was kind of insulting and hilarious at the same time.
This guy was ranting and raving and comparing Obama to Reagan dealing with the Soviets.
His point was, well, you remember when Reagan, everybody's talking to the Soviet Union and nuclear disarmament and so forth and Gorbachev and so forth.
And everybody said, Reagan didn't know what he was doing.
And the Soviets were just, the Soviets were running the rings around Reagan and Reagan was silly.
It turns out that Reagan just was one running the rings around the Soviets and it was the Soviet Union and imploded.
And that's what Obama's done here.
Obama has seen to it that Iran's going to implode.
It won't be very long before Iran's going to be giving up.
It was incredible.
And I'm struck by whenever these Democrats get in trouble trying to analyze and actually put Obama somewhere up on this legacy of greatness, they always trot out Ronald Reagan as the comparative.
Even though they despised Reagan, hated Reagan, whenever they want any Democrat president to be thought of as great, they always bring Reagan up as an example of greatness to which, in this case, Obama should be compared.
But there is no similarity between what Obama did here with the Iranians and what Reagan did with Gorbachev, say at Reykjavik or any of the other summits that he had with them.
Reagan did clean the Soviets' clock, and the Soviet Union, as it existed then, is gone.
And that's what Reagan's legacy was in terms of foreign policy, actually abolished and got rid of the Soviet Union.
Obama's not gotten rid of Iran.
Obama has strengthened Iran.
Obama has empowered Iran.
And for this silly idea, this comparison to Reagan, it just added insult to injury.
Now, folks, there's lots of other stuff out there today, too, and lots of it is crucially important.
Some of it very funny, lighthearted, covers the gamut.
And then there are your phone calls we have to get to.
So another obscene profit timeout here, and then back to all the rest of it when we get back.
Welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute.
This is Charles in Martha's Vineyard.
Welcome, sir.
It's great to have you with us.
Hello.
How are you?
I'm fine, sir.
Thank you for the call.
Thanks.
I'd like to just mention that I know you can knock down this deal as much as you want, but at the same time, it does give the United States the means to at least have some check on Iran.
You know, the system before with no deal doesn't give us anything like that.
Well, this is essentially no deal because there's no check.
I mean, there's no, there aren't any time anywhere verifications, inspections.
There's nothing.
We don't have any time anywhere, but at the same time, we still have a say.
And now this process that they're having, we can send people in there to check it out.
We have a say in the process.
How?
The whole deal was that we can call them up when we think they're doing something wrong.
We can have some sort of conference and you were saying before.
You're serious?
I think that this in some way helps us stop them from, I mean, stop the disastrous war from happening in the future.
What's the other option?
I don't hear another way that we can do this.
Like the whole nature of a deal, especially when you're dealing with an evil country like Iran, is that at some point you have to compromise.
Why does the compromise result in them getting nuclear weapons when they do not have them now?
What did we get for this?
Because that's what they want.
What we get is some say in the process they can't have nuclear weapons for it's only not for like for using them against other countries, even such say apparently.
I have to Charles, are you serious about this?
What we get is some say in the process that they can't have nuclear weapons.
That they can't use them for arming themselves purposes.
They use them for whatever.
What power do we have to prevent them from arming themselves in such a way and then using those arms?
What power is in this deal to stop them after they get their weaponized nuclear facilities up and running?
And they've weaponized with a nuclear tip, an ICBM, which we also have not limited their production of.
So they've got a nuclear bomb on the end of a missile.
What power do we have to tell them they can't launch it?
What power do we have before the deal to tell them they can't launch it?
This gives us more of a say, is what I'm trying to say.
Plus, it gives us an end with their population, the medium age, whatever, is like in the 20s.
They like this deal.
And they're the more moderate side of it.
Well, no, but what nobody's mentioning is here, the sanctions were working.
The sanctions is what was preventing them from making speedier progress.
The sanctions were crippling their economy.
The sanctions were growing a generation of Iranians who were going to hate us just the generation before them.
It wasn't strangling.
It didn't have a strangle on the government.
The government was still developing nuclear weapons.
It was hurting the people.
Right.
That's the, yeah, that's by, and the government as well.
I mean, there's no way for that not to happen.
Can you name for me a war in which the American people were victorious that did not harm the citizens of the country with whom we were at war with?
No, you're right.
And that's why wars are almost always unjust.
They always hurt the people.
But that's something that this deal tries to avoid.
I mean, it pushes that off.
God forbid it ever happens.
It pushes it off 10, 15 years.
And it gives us an end in trying to stop them from developing nuclear weapons for arming themselves' purposes.
But they're not going to stop.
They're celebrating even today the fact that they can do this now.
They're happy as clams.
They're just celebrating.
They're dancing in the streets.
They are victorious.
They get their nuclear weapons.
They get the end of sanctions.
This was a total cave.
And it sounds to me like you think it was a victory because they aren't going to hate us anymore.
I think that in some way, I think it gives us a say in this process, something that we didn't have before.
That's what I'm trying to argue.
We did have a say in the process.
We had all kinds of a say in the process.
We had the rest of the world aligned against the Iranians until we gave that up, too.
We had all kinds of a say in the process.
We used to be the United States of America, and we had a say in the process of everything like this that had an impact on U.S. national security.
And that was our job as the leader of the free world and the incumbent responsibility we had to our own people to keep our own people free and safe and protected.
It was about identifying enemies and making sure they could not wreak havoc on our people.
That was the role we used to play.
But now under this regime, that's considered to be unfair.
It's considered to be not right.
We don't have that right.
What right do we have to say they can't bomb us if we can bomb them?
So we have caved on the deal under the premise that maybe they won't hate us as much anymore.
And we've put war off maybe 10 to 15 years.
And now we have the power to persuade them not to bomb us.
What will we cave to in order to keep that from happening 10 years from now?
I seriously want to thank Charles from Martha's Vineyard for calling and hanging in.
What a great illustration.
That's what I encounter every day on my tech blogs, folks.
That's the exact kind of thinking that I encounter every day when they delve into politics.
And it's, you know, for those of you out there who can't imagine people really supporting this because they really support it, they might support it because they're loyal to Obama.
No, no, no.
There are Americans, and you just heard one who thinks this is brilliant.
Because now we're going to have some say-so in whether or not they use their nuclear weapon.
I don't know.
It is absurd.
Look, he made a big deal about the Iranian people being mad at us because of sanctions.
And we don't want them mad at us.
I mean, that's the worst thing to get mad at us and so forth.
The Iranian people did not hate the sanctions.
For those of you who are members of the new castrati, meaning your manhood is gone because of liberalism, the Iranian people are like every other people.
They do not like living in tyranny.
They do not like living in anarchy and punishing denial of freedom circumstances.
The people of Iran did not hate the sanctions.
And the sanctions were not creating a generation of anti-American Iranians.
The Iranian people hate the Iranian regime.
They have to be very careful, though, how they express that, or they could die.
Let me remind some of you, new castrati.
When the former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmedine Zad, came to the United Nations back when George W. Bush was president, and he showed up and he was celebrated as a conquering hero because he was an enemy of Bush.
The left hated Bush.
And here comes Ahmedine Zad.
He's invited to address the student body at Columbia University.
And so he goes in there and he's speaking to him during a QA.
He was asked about homosexuality in Iran because the students there figured that Iran was very enlightened on homosexuality because they're an enemy of the Americans, enemy of the United States, and therefore they must be enlightened.
And Ahmedine Zad, so we don't have any of those.
And the student body at Columbia, however many thousands were, they started laughing.
And Ahmedine Zad, oh, wait, do you know some in Iraq?
Could you tell me where they live?
Because Ahmedine Zad, if they found anybody homosexual in Iran, they're plucked from their homes and they're killed.
They're executed because they are homosexuals.
And yet here we have the new castrati in this country thinking that the Iranians are the good guys and the Iranian people are mad at us.
The Iranian people hate the Iranian regime.
They tried to rise up against the Iranian regime in 2009 and Obama promptly turned his back on them.
He has not done anything to help the dissidents in Iran.
He has empowered the regime that enslaves them and that's why many Iranians hate us because we have let them down.
The sanctions are not a reason why they hate us.
And the sanctions did not only hurt the Iranian people.
The sanctions froze the assets of the mullahs and the military people in many parts of the world.
We weren't able to get, I don't think, to every account that they had, but it was serious.
And we're giving it back to them.
That's more than that.
$150 billion, that's more than that that we froze.
But regardless, it's all going back to them now.
I mean, it's.
There was no need for those of you, there was no need to even go through this lengthy, protracted negotiation.
That was for show, too.
What's essentially happened here is that Obama has called the Ayatollah Hominy and said, go ahead.
And we'll see you in 10 or 15 years.
Go ahead.
That's what's happened here.
And all these negotiations, just public consumption to make it look like serious talks were going on.
And that both sides, in fact, I just saw Christiana Manpour, who's had some work done, by the way.
Sorry, can't help but notice it.
No comment beyond that, but.
And she was telling us that the substance of her report was how Kerry and his counterpart in Iran, oh man, were they going at it every session?
I mean, it got vicious in there.
It got loud.
It was argumentative.
And she asked them, but did it end that way every day?
And she said, Wolf, both Kerry and the Iranian counterpart told me that they made a point at the end of each negotiating session to walk out the door smiling at each other.
And they did it, Wolf.
They did it.
And Wolf was smiling.
He said, oh, man, does that not sound like a beautiful thing?
It's all for show.
There was no reason for us to show up.
We could have accomplished the same thing here with a phone call to the Ayatollah hominy.
Go ahead.
I'm not exaggerating by much here.
And try this.
Any of you New Castrate is still out there.
The Jerusalem Post has a write-up today on this.
Negotiators failed to meet the standard of achieving any time, anywhere access that several members of the U.S. Congress had demanded as part of any nuclear deal.
Now, remember, we just spoke to our caller in Martha's Vineyard, and it doesn't matter.
He believes, and this is all that matters, he believes that we have a say-so.
You heard him.
We have a say-so.
Yeah, they're going to get nuclear weapons, but they're not going to hate us anymore.
And we're going to have a say-so in whether or not they use them.
Well, we're not.
That's what anytime, anywhere negotiations being broomed means.
We do not have a say-so in whether or not they use them or ramp up.
And right here it is in the Jerusalem Post.
Negotiators failed to meet the standard of achieving any time-anywhere access that several members of the U.S. Congress had demanded as part of any nuclear deal.
Instead, in the event Iran objects to an International Atomic Energy Agency request for access to a specific site, a clock will begin that grants the sides 14 days to negotiate.
So if we think there's been a violation, not us, it's the International Atomic Energy Agency.
They're the United freaking nations.
That's who it is.
Remember Mohamed AlBaradai from the Saddam days and the early Iran days?
Yeah, yeah, Mohammed AlBaradai.
Alawakbar.
Well, we suspect a violation.
We have to call those clowns.
And then they make a request to the Iranians.
At which point, a clock begins that grants 14 days to negotiate whether or not to allow the inspection.
There is no any time-anywhere inspection.
And we can't just say, hey, we want to check and see how you're doing here.
We have to go through the IA, EA, AEIA, IKEA, whatever they do.
We have to go through these gowns at the United Nations.
And then there's a two-week negotiation period where we hope to win the talks to let us go check what's happening.
Now, wait.
Now, wait.
Why does the left assume, because Obama's dealing with them, certainly asks the question, why does the left, meaning like our caller from Martha's Vineyard, why does the left always assume that the enemies of America are telling the truth and are not lying to us?
Well, because in this case, they totally trust Obama.
And if Obama says the deal's great and so forth, and then the Iranians are going out, basically echoing what Obama is saying with a little bit more emphasis, in fact, we got a Republican president.
They really believe our enemies.
They never doubt.
Anyway, now, if this 14-day negotiation period expires without an agreement, then there's a joint commission that would have seven days to advise the IAEA on a way forward.
Iran would then have three days to comply with the Commission's final advice, bringing the total time on the clock to 24 days.
Can I go through this again?
Here's what happens since there are no anytime anywhere inspections.
There's no such access.
It's not there.
It was purposely removed by the Iranians, and we agreed to it.
So now if we suspect, think, figure out whatever that they are cheating, what happens then is we call the International Atomic Energy Agency.
They then call the Iranians, which triggers a clock that starts running for 14 days.
So the IAEA and the Iranians begin negotiating whether or not the Iranians will allow the inspection that we have requested.
If the two weeks go by without a resolution between the Iranians and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the joint commission, that's the next entity above the IAEA, the joint commission would then have seven days to advise the IAEA on what to do next.
So the Iranians say no after two weeks, screw you, you can't have your inspection.
So the joint commission says, okay, well, what do we do next?
They got seven days to figure out what to do next.
Iran would then have three days to comply with whatever final advice the joint commission comes up with.
So we think there's been a violation 24 days before anything can happen on it, and the Iranians have to agree to the inspection.
And the Iranian official said, I'm sorry, Obama administration officials, this is Jerusalem Post, this is the money quote of the piece.
Obama administration official, quote, we don't think that any time, anywhere inspections are feasible.
It's just not something that happens anywhere in the world.
Well, certainly not now.
Not when there is no American exceptionalism and when there is no superpower, when we are not represented as a superpower, but rather just one of an endless chain of average, ordinary, everyday nations in the world, then yeah, I guess it isn't something that happens anywhere in the world.
So you're seeing here this regime presiding over the decline of the United States, both domestically and internationally.
Back to the phones.
This is Donna in Millville, Pennsylvania.
It's great to have you.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Well, thank you, Rush.
I appreciate everything you do every day.
I don't know how you don't get burnt out.
Love it too much.
I see.
You know, I love it too much.
Well, my comment is that this president is the personification of an oxymoron.
He wants to disarm this country while he's willing to arm the rest of the world.
Yeah, it's an interesting point.
Now, Iran is already armed.
I mean, they have plenty of weapons.
They just don't have nuclear now.
They do now, though.
That's the ultimate weapon.
It is.
It is.
And I took notice, too, as I was listening while I was on hold, I realized that this compromise that they have done is exactly what the Democrats expect from the Republicans every time we talk about anything.
Now, that is a clever observation.
And what you mean is our compromise with the Iranians is essentially what the Democrats demand of the Republicans.
Yes, you give up everything.
Give up everything.
Yes.
Here's an interesting question.
As Tom Brokaw would say, talking to Charlie Rose.
It's an interesting question.
I don't know what Obama does.
Thanks, Reeds, or whatever.
Why does Obama appear so concerned with what the Iranians think of him and think of us?
Why does Obama consider himself subordinate to the Iranians instead of more powerful than, larger than, bigger than?
Why does Obama bow to the king of Saudi Arabia?
Why does Obama what is it about Middle Eastern leaders, and it's not just them.
I mean, he bows to a lot of people.
But contrast the way Obama deals with Republicans domestically and Fox News.
Contrast that to the way he behaves with the Iranians.
It's like I've always said, we are a much bigger threat to him than the Ayatollah Khamenei and President Rouani because he never looks at them as people who could take his power away.
He does look at us as people who want to take his power away by beating him in elections and beating him politically.
So we are a much bigger threat.
But when it comes to the Iranians, it's, hey, let's be bugs.
Hey, let's end every day with a smile, as John Kerry told Christiana Monpoor about his negotiating sessions with the Iranian counterpart.
Jeff, Springfield, Illinois, you're next.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How you doing?
Good.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I just wanted to let you know I listen to you every day.
Even though I'm a pretty liberal guy, I just like to get both sides of the story.
And, you know, so I listen to you every day.
So I appreciate what you guys have to say there.
Listen, the reason I'm calling is because I don't really know how big a deal any of this is.
We didn't lose our power to go to war if we don't like what they're doing.
The sanctions aren't working.
I mean, I know you said they're working, but from what Beth guessed, everyone says they're less than a year away from being able to get a nuke.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
I need to go back.
I'm not sure I heard you correctly.
Did you say we did or did not lose our ability to go to war?
Yeah, if we don't like what they're doing, I mean, it's not like we can't invade or go to war or do what we need to do.
So we didn't lose that ability.
So if the sanctions really aren't working, and they're not because they might slow them down, but it's not stopping them.
So if they're really only a year away or even less than two years away from getting a nuke, isn't this still better than going to war now?
I mean, we can always go to war, but isn't it at least better now?
And then about those four people who are being held there that weren't released, this is something I really didn't like about the Democrats.
I believe they will be released over a period of time over the next six months to show some kind of good faith by the Iranians because of this.
Now I know how this is done.
I know how this is done.
I know how you guys pull this off.
You live on Fantasy Island.
You really, really do.
You live in the fantasy world.
I know.
I hear you.
Some of you are saying, we're tired of this Iranian deal.
Rush, move on.
We're moving on, folks.
▲
Export Selection