All Episodes
Previous Next
July 20, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:56
July 20, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
No, no, no.
Trump can survive this.
Trump is surviving this.
You know, this is a great, great teachable moment here.
This whole thing with Trump and McCain.
But it's not the most important thing happening out there today.
Now, you wouldn't know it by looking at the drive-by-me.
If you look at the drive-by-media, you think the only thing happening is Trump McCain.
I just got my audio soundbite rust.
You know how many audio soundbites I have today?
I've got 18.
16 of them are about Trump.
I have 18 audio soundbites.
16 are about Trump.
One is about the biggest story of the day, and the other is about me and whether or not the term feminazi is still being used by me and the culture.
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The biggest story of the day to me is the official loss of United States sovereignty.
And by that, I mean United Nations Security Council has endorsed the United States and the other five nations involved in this, the Iran nuclear deal, before the United States Congress has weighed in on it.
The Obama administration purposely fast-tracked this deal up to the UN Security Council and our ambassadorette up there, what's her name?
Samantha Power.
Samantha Powers, yeah.
UN Security Council unanimously endorses the landmark nuclear deal established between Iran and six world powers in a first step toward ending UN sanctions on the country's economy.
You don't even, that's a Fox News story.
You don't even see the words United States or America in this opening paragraph.
The UN Security Council unanimously endorses the landmark nuclear deal established between Iran and six world powers.
Six world powers.
We happen to be, I guess, fortunately, still one of them.
Now, listen, here's Ben Cardin.
Ben Cardin is a Democrat senator from Maryland.
He's in Fox News Sunday yesterday.
Chris Wallace says the United Nations is going to consider a resolution this week on whether or not to approve the Iran deal.
You've sent a letter to the president saying that Congress should go first before the UN.
Given the fact that even if the UN approves the deal, there's a 60 to 90 day delay.
You're going to have to decide yes or no.
What difference does it make who goes first?
It is the fact that the White House is insisting on taking it to the UN before Congress votes.
Will that alienate Democrats who might vote against the president?
I don't know why they're going to the United Nations.
I think they should have gone to the United Nations after the 60-day review.
They don't gain anything by doing it earlier.
I think it is not consistent with the Iranian Review Act.
So that's why I joined Senator Corker and urged the president to reconsider and wait till we have to the 60-day period.
It doesn't take effect until 90 days after the UN acts.
This is a member of Obama's own party questioning why he went to the UN first.
Isn't it obvious why he went to the UN first?
Why did he go to the UN first, Snerdley?
Right?
This, well, not just to build unbeatable support, but this is to obviate and render needless and irrelevant the United States Congress.
Is what do you think those mealy mouths are going to do once the U.N.'s passed it?
I can't see a bunch of Democrat senators standing up.
The Corker bill is an absolute disaster anyway.
The Corker Bill turns the treaty ratification process upside down and inside out.
The Corker Bill is an absolute joke.
The way that if this isn't a treaty, I don't know what's a treaty.
This is a treaty, although it's not a treaty, it's some sort of executive, whatever the hell.
But it's a treaty, standard operating procedure.
In the old days, up to Obama, this is a treaty.
And the U.S. Senate ratifies treaties by two-thirds vote.
Well, what the Corker bill does is basically just the opposite.
The Corker Bill requires two-thirds of the Congress to vote against it.
It's convoluted.
It's an absolute and all the signatories of the Corker Bill, or many of them, are now feigning ignorance.
Oh, well, we didn't know.
You didn't know.
This is a huge deal.
The regime takes their agreement with Iran to the United Nations specifically to do an end run around the U.S. Congress, to make the U.S. Congress irrelevant, not only irrelevant, but appear irrelevant to this whole thing.
So now the U.N. endorses it happily and with great fanfare.
So what's the U.S. Congress supposed to do?
Here's CBS News: the way they treat it.
UN Security Council scheduled a vote first thing Monday morning on a resolution endorsing the UN's or the Iran nuclear deal.
Monday's vote will come despite calls for many U.S. lawmakers to delay Security Council approval until Congress reviews the deal.
The resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, you see, not a United States agreement or treaty with Iran, which is a big deal if the next president wants to unwind this.
Since it has become international law, it's a much more complicated process to rip this thing apart and withdraw it than if it were just a U.S. treaty.
The resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its official implementation for 90 days to allow for the Congress consideration.
Just an empty, empty gesture, if there ever was one.
While Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from Obama, it's not clear what would happen next thanks to the Corker bill.
The Corker Bill sets this thing up so that they need a veto-proof vote in order to deny this thing happening.
And it sets it up so that they can't get there.
I'm telling you, it's convoluted.
This UN vote is just more pressure to make sure this thing happens, to make sure the U.S. Congress doesn't have a role in it.
And I think it's designed to put pressure on many.
In fact, I'll tell you what, I think the UN, going to the UN first, is a way to take, or it's a way to give U.S. congressmen and senators a way to get off the hook.
You know, the way I would compare this to, or what I would compare this to, it's not the best analogy, but off the top of my head, it's what I can come up with right on the fly here.
Remember all those base closings that started back in the 1980s?
If you don't, what basically happened was that we had some surplus money and we didn't have enough money, depending on the time of year, the time of the decade.
It was determined that we had a lot of waste and military bases that were no longer needed.
So it was time to close some of them.
Well, members of Congress did not want their fingerprints on it.
They didn't want their names associated with the closures because that would not be cool with the voters in the district where the base happens to be closed.
So they went out and they formed a bunch of blue ribbon panels.
And they found ex-members of Congress and other so-called distinguished figures to come in and do blue ribbon panel hearings, conduct hearings on which bases to close.
And then the blue ribbon panel, and there were a number of them over the years, voted on which basis to close, allowing members of Congress in districts where bases were closed to put their hands.
I don't know a thing about this.
I had nothing to do with it.
That was a base closure committee that shut down our beloved military.
But I want to assure you, I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure this doesn't happen.
And that was the end of it.
Well, this UN deal is kind of like that.
Since the UN's voted on it, it gives members of Congress chance.
Well, nothing we can do now.
We're off the hook.
We don't have to stand up and vote against it because the world has already approved it.
And that's what it was designed for.
And there's no other way to look at this other than as a direct assault on U.S. sovereignty.
I don't know.
I don't know how else to describe this.
But it's not here.
This is where it gets tough for me, folks, because to me, this is, I'm not surprised.
And I still don't think you've seen half of what's coming between now and the end of this administration.
Have you heard about this massive database?
You remember Maxine Waters talking about this?
Do you remember that, Mr. Snow?
Maxine Water, we wondered what in the world she was talking about.
Some years ago, Maxine Waters, when she let the yeah, she let the cat out of the bag on a couple of things she was talking about.
One of the things she said was that Obama's got this massive database.
Nobody's ever had anything like it.
It's going to be the greatest thing.
No man, no party, has ever had anything as massive and as thorough as the database.
Well, what the hell is she talking about?
What it is, ladies and gentlemen, the Obama administration essentially has put together this massive database of the American people, personal data.
It's a race database.
It was in the New York Post yesterday.
Actually, Paul Sperry, who is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute.
Key part of Obama's legacy will be the federal government's unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race.
The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of racial and economic justice, unbeknownst.
To most Americans, Obama's racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, their home loans, their credit cards, where they work, their neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school, all to document inequalities between minorities and whites.
That's what Maxine Waters was talking about when she was bragging about this.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make disparate impact cases against banks that don't make enough prime loans to minorities.
Think subprime, it's back.
Screws that suspend too many blacks.
All of this stuff is being collected, cataloged.
Punishments are to follow.
Databases on cities that don't offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities.
That's what we described last week in this, the fair housing and whatever it is, where they're going to integrate neighborhoods by race and class rather than economics.
Use a little economics, too.
You know what this is being described as?
Here's how Mr. Sperry ends his piece in the New York Post on this yesterday.
The first black president, quite brilliantly, has built a quasi-reparations infrastructure perpetually fed by racial data that will outlast his administration.
Quasi-reparations.
They're chronicling every instance of what they claim is racial discrimination or inequality they can for the express purposes of using the federal government to punish the guilty, to equalize whatever they want to equalize, neighborhoods, school districts, you name it.
And of course, there'll be money required to equalize the inequalities.
There will be money required to integrate certain neighborhoods.
And that's why it's described as quasi-reparations.
And the key here that will outlast his administration, that's something I don't think enough people are focused on, is how none of this is going to end when Obama leaves office.
I don't care who the next president is, Republican or Democrat, whoever the next president is that makes any move toward changing anything Obama's done.
The infrastructure is already in place to launch salvo after salvo at this new president and his party, even after Obama's gone.
It's going to be unprecedented because most, well, all presidents, when they leave, that's it.
Good manners, propriety, tradition, class all dictate that ex-presidents are immediately ex.
And they go away and they don't comment, especially for the first year.
There have been two notable modern-day violators of this, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Even today, you can't find George W. Bush saying a word about what Obama's.
I mean, not a substantive word.
George H.W. Bush did a Reagan didn't comment a thing about Clinton when he was able.
But that's not going to be the case with Obama or his buddies or the Democrat Party or what have you, particularly if they lose the presidency in 2016.
Snurdy, this stuff has to be rolled back.
This stuff can't be allowed to stand.
Okay, this stuff can't be allowed.
I agree with you.
I agree.
It has to be rolled back.
This stuff can't be allowed to stand.
That's what common sense says should happen, needs to happen, and will happen.
There isn't any evidence of it happening.
I know it's the exact opposite of a colorblind society.
Remember when I first categorized the left as get-even with themism?
Anyway, we're up in here on time again, up against the time.
I've got a quick time out here, and we'll do that and be back with all the rest.
As usual, folks, we're overflowing.
Our boundaries are bursting here, trying to contain all the news fit to analyze.
Coming up right after this.
From the Grooveyard of Forgotten Favorites Soundbites, February 3rd, 2013, on TV1, that's a network, Washington Watch with Roland Martin.
That's a show on the network.
Roland Martin interviewing Maxine Waters.
And he says, you know, the reality is, Maxine, like anything else, you better get what you can while the president's in office, because look, come 2017, that's it.
We're going to have a new president.
Obama's out of office, so you better get what you can now.
And here's what she said.
I don't know, and I think some people are missing something here.
The president has put in place an organization that contains the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life.
That's going to be very, very powerful.
That database will have information about everything on every individual in ways that it's never been done before.
We were told about it, but she's such a kook, nobody thought she knew what she was talking about.
And even if she did know what she was talking about, she didn't specify.
She just said, well, no, some people are missing something here.
President's put in place an organization.
It contains the kind of database no one's ever seen before in life.
Very, very powerful.
She was saying, hey, it doesn't matter.
Obama's still going to be impacting events even after he leaves office because this database.
Now, Maxine knew about it.
A lot of people have known about it.
She's the one that let the cat out of the bag.
But it just means that a lot of people have known about it.
Listen to John Kerry, Face the Nation yesterday.
Senator, if you don't get a majority in Congress to support this deal, does that undermine the deal with Iran?
No, not in the least.
I mean, they don't care over there whether it's a majority or a minority or whatever it is, as long as the deal is implemented.
And that's what we care about, that this deal be implemented.
We'd love to see the Congress listen carefully, and we're going to go up there and we're going to meet with the utmost to persuade people.
But no way.
Stop the tape.
What about the corker deal?
What about the corker deal?
The corker deal doesn't matter.
You just heard John Kerry say the Iranians don't care whether Congress approves it or not.
They just want it implemented.
And it's the same with us.
We'd like the Congress to like it, but if they don't, big deal.
Say, I'm sure many of you remember the Kyoto protocols.
It's a global warming thing.
The Kyoto Protocol.
Bill Clinton wanted the United States to be part of the United Nations Kyoto Protocol.
Kyoto Japan.
It was a severe restriction in carbon dioxide emissions.
It was all designed to save the world from the ravages of climate change.
Well, back then it was called global warming.
And what happened?
You remember what happened?
Clinton signed the treaty.
He signed the Kyoto Protocol and sent it to the United Nations after the Senate had already rejected it, and the Senate rejected it 95 to nothing.
But the Senate went first.
United States Senate voted 95 to zero because it was an economic growth killer.
It was a bad deal.
The Senate rejected it.
And only because of the Senate rejection, the U.S. has never had to abide by the Kyoto protocols.
Didn't matter what the U.N. did.
The U.N. authorized it and a bunch of signatories signed it.
But the United States Senate rejected it, which meant we were not required to abide by it.
That's what Obama has just circumvented here.
This is probably why Obama went to the United Nations first and doing things differently, not calling it a treaty so it doesn't have to be ratified, sending it to the United Nations first.
All of this is to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.
All of this is to circumvent the will of the American people as expressed by their elected officials.
Obama's not totally to blame here because he knows over on this hand, he's got the Corker Bill.
And the Corker Bill is designed to give Obama what he wants.
It's the most amazing sellout that you could ever imagine.
It makes opposing this thing practically impossible.
It turns the Senate treaty ratification process upside down.
Senator Bob Corker, Tennessee.
Now, he's one of these many people running around saying, hey, he didn't tell us that it was going to be no inspections, and they didn't tell us it was going to be.
Sorry.
You know, ignorance is no excuse not for a member of the U.S. Congress's access to this stuff.
I mean, this is just, to me, this is the story of the day because it's symbolic, emblematic of what has been happening with this administration from the get-go and what's ahead of us.
You call it globalization or whatever.
This country is being cut down to size to the point that it is no different than any other nation on the face of the earth.
And in fact, given the current leadership, this country may be in lower standing than many nations because this is an administration which thinks that this is a country ladled with guilt over transgressions that have occurred since our founding.
I want you to listen to Senator Kerry again.
This from Face the Nation yesterday.
John Dickerson replaced Bob Schieffer.
He said, Secretary Kerry, if you don't get a majority in Congress to support the Iranian nuclear deal, doesn't that undermine it?
Now, listen, see, if this were a treaty, if this were being done constitutionally, this would be a treaty.
The Senate would have full ratification authority.
There's no veto of a treaty that fails to ratify.
No overriding it.
That's the point of it.
But all of that has been obviated.
So now we've got the Corker deal over here, and Obama knows he's got that.
And so now this question, this question's even unbelievable.
Secretary Kerry, if you don't get the majority in Congress to support the deal, doesn't that undermine it?
Which damn well should.
Right there in Constitution, United States.
I want you to listen again to Lurch's answer to this.
Senator Kerry, if you don't get a majority in Congress to support the deal, doesn't that undermine the deal?
No, not in the least.
I mean, they don't care over there whether it's a majority or a minority or whatever it is as long as the deal is implemented.
And that's what we care about, that this deal be implemented.
We'd love to see the Congress listen carefully, and we're going to go up there and we're going to meet with them.
We're going to do our utmost to persuade people.
But no, I don't think that undermines this deal.
They don't care over there what the U.S. Congress thinks of it.
He's talking about Iran.
They don't care over.
They're in bed with Iran.
They partnered up with Iran.
The United States Congress is the either non-existent or enemy.
No, not in the least at Congress.
They don't care over there whether it's majority or minority, whatever it is.
The Mullahs don't care as long as it's implemented.
It should not be able to be implemented if the Congress doesn't approve it or ratify it.
But rest, the United Nations already have.
That's exactly right.
So as long as a deal is implemented, they don't care over there about the Congress.
And Kerry's essentially saying he and Obama don't either.
Because he said, they don't care over there whether it's majority or minority.
They just care whether it's implemented.
And that's what we care about, that the deal be implemented.
We'd love to see Congress listen carefully and support it.
But if they don't, so freaking what?
And that's where we are.
And to me, this is the story of the day.
And it's just being treated as a whole hummer in the New York Times.
In fact, it's worse than a whole hummer.
The New York Times is gloating about how skillfully and sneaky Obama has been able to get this done.
New York Times website this morning, a dig down under stories about everything else going on.
You'll find one link, a one-line link.
UN vote on nuclear deal irks Congress.
And then you read down to a passing reference in paragraph four to find the real story, which is the Obama administration has already raced to the UN Security Council to spearhead action today that would adopt Obama's Iran deal and a resolution that'll begin the deal's implementation.
And the Times sort of celebrates that this has left Congress kind of irked, that lawmakers of both parties are complaining the Security Council action preempts them.
And the Times is kind of, you know, chuckling about it.
Oh, poor little Congress got its viewings here because Obama didn't go talk to them first.
But that's not the point.
I could care less about Congress's Constitution and the Andy McCarthy writes here.
The capacity of the American people to determine their own national interests are being torn apart.
And then over the weekend, the Ayatollah Hominy led more chance of death to America.
He went all over the country, well, all over the country, but he led chance of death to America.
You know what else the Ayatollah Hominy said?
The Ayatollah Hominy said, I think he got a question or he said, this deal is not going to change Iranian policy with the United States.
We're not going to stop our relationships in the region, meaning funding terrorism, with Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestine, whoever else.
We haven't changed a whit.
We still hate the Israelis and we want to wipe them off the map.
This deal doesn't change policy with the United States at all.
This is, in fact, this deals with six different countries.
This has nothing to do about U.S.-Iranian relations.
And here we all are thinking this is a deal between us and Iran with these many superpowers thrown in.
And then we stop to realize, you know what?
The Ayatollah Hominy is right.
We didn't get diddly squat.
We didn't get a retraction from their promise to wipe us out.
Didn't get a retraction from their promise to wipe out the Israelis.
We did not get inspections.
And by the way, John Kerry is running around now saying, I want to know where this anytime anywhere verification stuff started.
It's never been the case anywhere in the world anytime.
There's never been any time anywhere verification.
Where this got started, we never promised that.
Yes, they did.
They sure as heck did.
The Ayatollah Hominy did not say that he was going to release these four American prisoners.
It has nothing to do with the Iranian nuclear deal.
Nothing whatsoever to do with our policy toward the evil Satan isn't going to change.
How many Americans do you think actually believe that part of the Iranian nuke deal was concessions from Iran limiting their behavior as bad guys?
How many Americans, even the low information crowd, I would think that even most in the low information crowd think, what do they know?
They know that Iran is a bad power, that they sponsor terrorism.
That may be the extent of it.
They know that because they pay halfway attention, they know that Iran getting a nuclear weapon would not be good.
And they also probably realize that most of the world's on record is wishing Iran didn't get one.
And then they probably remember various presidents and candidates assuring us that Iran would not get one on their watch.
And all of a sudden, Obama announces we've got a deal with Iran.
And he says they promised not to do nukes.
The low information crowd probably figures that Iran made a lot of concessions.
And I'll guarantee you they still think that.
Even though nothing of the sort has occurred.
There's a video here, the Secretary of State Kerry saying it would be presumptuous to go to Congress before the UN.
Did you hear that?
This was on ABC News.
He's talking to the ABC News info guy, John Carl.
So, but the bottom line, the UN's going to vote on this before Congress gets to vote on this?
I mean, even some of the drive-by is a little perplexed by this.
Kerry said, well, you know, they have a right to do that.
It's presumptuous of some people to say that France, Russia, China, Germany, Britain ought to do what the Congress tells them to do.
They have a right to.
So Kerry's view is it is damn presumptuous of the U.S. Congress to think they have a right to go first here.
Who are they to tell the French and the Brits and everybody else what they have to do?
John Kerry said, do you realize how presumptuous it is for us to think that we're the superpower here?
Who gives us?
What gives us the right to tell these other nations how to vote?
We don't have a duty to go to our Congress first.
We should go to the UN first.
That's the governing body here.
And it is, folks.
Got to take another timeout.
We've got more, as always.
I am not.
I have just been accused of avoiding the Trump issue.
Not avoiding the Trump issue.
I'm putting it in proper order here.
This database that Maxine Waters warned us about three years ago, two years ago, which has now been verified to exist.
And this whole Iran deal, folks, these are huge, huge things.
The Iran deal and the way it's all come together is they've all just spat on the U.S. Constitution here.
For John Kerry to say it would be presumptuous to go to the United Nations or to Congress before the U.N.
I mean, John Kerry's claiming that we have to let the UN vote on the Iranian deal before Congress does because it would offend the other five countries if we unilaterally took charge here over the ratification and approval of this.
They're using this, they're rushing this UN vote because Obama knows it's going to put more pressure on Congress.
See, once the U.N. approves it, which has happened, Obama can say rejecting it will put the U.S. in violation of international law.
This is done to pressure Congress and to try to convince members of Congress there's nothing they can do now.
It doesn't matter what they do, they're too late.
It's already been ratified as international law.
We headed you off at the pass, Obama's saying, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Now, Kerry wasn't through.
He's on Meet the Press yesterday with F. Chuck Todd.
And he said that the arms and the missiles were thrown in as an add-on to this nuclear agreement.
So this deal focused on getting rid of the principal problem in the region, which is Iran's threat to Israel, their threat to the region, have a nuclear capacity.
We believe with this for years into the future, we have this incredible capacity to have access, to have inspections, to hold them accountable.
And then in the next breath, he says that we don't.
And then he went on to say that we've ended Iran's ability to get a nuclear weapon forever, which we haven't, and that the missiles were just thrown in.
It's incredible.
It's just over the top incredible.
Let me grab a phone call here before the hour ends.
Joseph in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Great to have you, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I can't express the honor it is to speak to you after listening to you for so many years.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
I really do.
I just want to say that for me, this whole Iran deal is not just politics.
It's a life and death issue.
I have a brother.
I have other family living in Israel.
And we're devastated about this whole situation.
And, you know, we're really, really desperate.
So I just feel that to highlight the irrelevance of Congress by Obama bisecting Congress and going to the U.N. sort of creates like a self-fulfilling prophecy and makes it easier for Congress to be off the hook and to not have to vote against Obama.
So I would just like to say to all our fellow conservatives that we still should ratchet up the pressure.
And all these Chuck Schumers and Ben Cardins and Mikulskis that have been for years playing lip service to the Israel supporters, we still fully expect them to vote against this horrible quote-unquote deal.
Boy, are you right about that?
Have they gotten away with both sides of the fence on the Israel issue?
The Democrats you're talking, they get to occupy both positions.
First position is strong Israeli hawks.
They're big supporters of Israel.
But then what are they going to do here?
I mean, if they vote for this, I don't care what the UN's done.
You're right.
Congress is going to vote on this thing at some point.
And if these Democrats vote to effectively ratify this, then it just exposes them as frauds on their lifetime of claimed support for Israel.
Exactly.
If voting against this deprives Iran of one extra dollar, I still expect them to vote against it.
I don't care what the UN does.
That one extra dollar, that's not going to go to terrorists killing my family, God forbid.
Well, they want off the hook.
But it's not just them.
It's not just those Democrats, but I mean, you're right about them.
But the Corker Bill, everybody wanted off the hook on this.
The fear of this administration is palpable.
Except Donald Trump doesn't seem to be afraid.
Try this headline, Obama's Social Security Administration to Strip Millions of Americans of Their Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
This is from the National Rifle Association, and I'll have details.
▲
Export Selection