All Episodes
Previous Next
July 20, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:38
July 20, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back.
Rushlin Baugh, America's real anchorman, truth detector, and doctor of democracy.
Happy to have you.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
I had some emails during the break who want some clarification on this whole ratification process being obviated and turned over to the UN in conjunction with the Corker bill.
And I will do that.
Just hang in there and be tough.
We've got a couple hours left in the program, and I promise that I will get to that.
I'm basically just going to give you a little bit more detail about what's already gone down.
I found some quotes from the Iranian foreign minister, the counterpart with the lurch, John Kerry, who negotiated this thing.
And he's been telegraphing all along what the scheme is here.
Not long ago, his name is Mohammad Javadzarif.
And, you know, the Iranians have been so happy during this.
They're the ones that have been telling everybody the truth of what's in the deal.
The Iranians have been so happy, they've been bragging about it.
I mean, from Rouani to the Ayatollah Hamini to Mohammad Javadzarif, their negotiator, they've been so happy at every stage, they have been divulging the details of this all along.
And at one point not long ago, the Iranian foreign minister said that the deal, at the time it was under negotiation, quote, will not be a bilateral agreement between the Iran, between Iran and the United States.
Instead, it'll be a deal concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members, the UN Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.
And he said that Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement.
The Iranian foreign minister was telling everybody who would listen.
Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement according to international law.
This whole thing was done under the imprimatur of granting that the UN sets international law, and this was something that took place under already agreed to stipulations that the United States agrees and recognizes the UN's role in international law.
And this all took place underneath that umbrella.
And the Iranian foreign minister said for Congress to modify the terms of the agreement would be a material breach of U.S. obligations, rendering America a global outlaw.
That's from the Iranian foreign minister.
The U.S. would be a global outlaw if Congress attempted to change the deal in any way.
So the stunt essentially is the Obama and Iran, they don't need another treaty approved by Congress because the United States has already ratified the UN Charter.
And in ratifying the UN Charter, they have agreed to honor all the Security Council resolutions there are.
And therefore, we don't need new statutes, i.e. American law, because the Congress, In enacting Iran sanctions legislation, explicitly gave the president the power to waive those sanctions.
So, all we need is to have the Security Council issue a resolution that codifies Congress's existing sanctions laws with Obama's waiver.
And the other countries involved in negotiations, Germany, Russia, China, will then very publicly rely on the completed deal.
The whole thing has been a designed end-run around Congress from the beginning.
And it was aided and assisted with the Corker Bill.
The Corker Bill was not just the Corker Bill.
The Corker Bill was pushed through the Congress, eagerly supported, and whipped into reality, not only by Corker, but by John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
And the Corker Bill supports the Obama scheme.
And that scheme ends with international law superseding the Constitution, which is exactly what the Iranian foreign minister's reif gave voice to, and that Obama and the American left happily agrees with.
Now, a lot of people, what do you mean the Corker Bill supports Obama's Iran deal?
I thought the Corker bill was to subject the Iran deal to congressional scrutiny.
Well, that's not what the Corker Bill does.
The Corker Bill, if the Corker Bill did that, it wouldn't be needed.
The Constitution already provides for what people think the Corker Bill is.
The Constitution already provides for Senate advice, consent, ratification, what have you.
The Corker Bill would just be redundant if that's what it did.
That's not what the Corker Bill does.
The Corker Bill says it fully endorses all aspects of the Iran deal except the permanent lifting of congressional sanctions.
The Corker Bill clearly says, quote, it does not require a vote by Congress for the agreement to commence.
Well, then, why the hell have it?
Well, the Corker Bill provides for congressional review on statutory sanctions relief.
So if you are a lawmaker who voted for the Corker bill, you voted to allow Obama to go ahead with every facet of his Iran deal, not just the narrow aspect of sanctions against Iran's nuclear program enacted by Congress, meaning that the administration will plausibly contend that with the Corker Bill, you authorized Obama to go ahead and lift sanctions that were not imposed by statute.
What needs to be happening for all these clowns, Lindsey Graham and McCain and Corker, and everybody signed on to this thing?
What needs to be happening here is everyone who signed the Corker bill or trumpeted the Corker bill or hailed the Corker bill, they all need to be asked: if you didn't want Obama to go to the Security Council before Congress could review the deal, why did you vote in the Corker bill to allow the deal to commence without a vote from Congress?
Did you know the Corker Bill does that?
The Corker Bill, which most people think is the Congress asserting itself to stop the deal or giving itself the opportunity to stop the Corker Bill allows the deal to commence without a vote from Congress.
And then the voting procedure that the Corker bill contains to stop the bill turns the whole treaty voting process 180 degrees out of phase.
The president doesn't get a veto in a treaty.
The Corker Bill gets a veto of whatever they do.
It is absurd.
Now the McCain situation.
You know, the McCain situation is interesting to me for a whole lot of reasons.
There's a conventional wisdom out there.
And this is generally how it goes.
Public figure slash candidate slash political figure makes politically incorrect statement that offends somebody.
The Washington establishment and media react in outrage.
The media then replays whatever the offensive comment was over and over and over.
News stories never ending about the outrageous statement that the public figure made.
And then the establishment gets together with the media and they all demand that the public figure immediately apologize, beg forgiveness, and either withdraw from whatever the public figure is seeking to accomplish or to stay in properly chagrined and rendered irrelevant.
And that conventional wisdom plays out practically every time this circumstance happens.
And the reason it does is because people make the mistake of assuming one thing, and that is this.
They make the mistake of assuming that the collective outrage of the Washington establishment and the media is reflective of American public opinion.
That's an automatic conclusion that everybody draws.
So let's use Trump as an example.
By the way, I'm no apologist for Trump, but I've looked at this.
Cheryl Atkinson has written a great analysis of this.
And it is a fact that Trump did not say what he's being reputed to have said.
He said it one time.
He said that he was answering a question.
And he said, McCain's not a hero.
He was captured.
I don't like people who were captured and so forth.
And he changed and said four different times he is a hero.
He is a war hero.
McCain is a war hero.
He said that four times.
Washington Post, for example, reporting it, does not report that at all.
Never reports it.
Trump said it once, much less four times.
Anyway, that's see, the facts don't really matter in a circumstance like this.
That's another thing.
What actually was said by the offending party and the context in which it was said are purposely blurred, lied about, or ignored.
Much like my ill-fated attempt at commentary on the ESPN Sunday NFL pregame show.
I mean, that was a classic illustration of this.
Take something that wasn't said, pretend it was said, blow it way out of proportion, attach a meaning to it that was never intended.
Blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, so Trump says what he says about McCain.
Followed or following McCain's insult of Trump's voters or supporters, calling them crazies, people in his own state.
This ticked Trump off.
He doesn't want to think that people support him on immigration or anything else are a bunch of crazy wackos.
And McCain characterized them as that.
And nobody suggested McCain apologized to the American people.
Nobody suggested McCain apologized for that characterization of American citizens, crazies.
So the conventional wisdom erupts into full bloom.
The media, the Washington establishment, conservative and liberal both, immediately demand that Trump apologize.
And then they add that Trump can't survive this, that we were all just waiting for this to happen.
We knew it was going to happen.
We knew it was going to happen because Trump steps in it all the time.
So now all these people are saying, we knew it was going to happen.
We knew it was too good to be true.
We knew Trump didn't have what it really took to run a campaign.
We knew he was going to say that totally embarrassing.
He can embarrass himself and everybody that supports him.
He's going to have to apologize and have to withdraw.
Everybody says, except one thing hasn't happened.
Trump hadn't apologized.
Not only is Trump not apologized, he has doubled down.
And he has added to his original criticism of McCain.
He's calling McCain a bad guy.
McCain's a lousy politician.
McCain talks a lot but doesn't do anything, Trump says.
The VA is a mess.
Illegal immigration is a mess.
Everything we hear McCain say he supports or cares about, it's all going to hell.
He's a bad guy.
He's not a good politician.
I'm trying to save America.
I'm not going to apologize.
This is Trump.
Well, now the architects of conventional wisdom don't know what to do because by this time they have gotten their scalp.
By this time, the guilty party has apologized, is begging for forgiveness, and Trump is not.
Now, remember, there's a common assumption made every time one of these things happen.
You know, I myself have stepped in it a couple times, folks, and each time, oh, yes, I have.
I've stepped in it a couple times.
And each time, no, the point is that each time I did the drive-by thought, they had me, right?
I mean, I can go through Michael J. Fox, Sandra Fuck, whatever it was, they thought that they had finally gotten rid of me, but they didn't.
They didn't even come close.
They never have come close.
They're still telling lies about advertisers lost.
They're still telling lies about every aspect of these incidents where they thought they had.
Why were they wrong?
Because they made the assumption that the whole country was outraged at me as they were.
And that's the key here with this Trump thing.
This is the fascinating thing to me.
This is something we're going to learn.
When the reaction of outrage over Trump's comments came, Washington establishment, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, the media, accompanying it is the assumption that the American people, a majority of the American people, also find what Trump said unpalatable, unforgivable, unacceptable.
That's one of the things that makes these work is the assumption that the media is simply reflecting public opinion.
But we never really know.
Now, in my case, we know that the media is not reflecting public opinion.
And I've said it countless times, folks.
You know, I have survived all these controversial moments because of you, because you hang in there, because you know the drill.
You understand this technique that the left and weak-need Republicans use to destroy people that they find objectionable or too effective, their opposition.
But you hung in there.
You always have.
That's why I owe you more than I will ever be able to repay you.
You have stayed tuned in.
You have remained loud, admitted members of this audience.
and defied the conventional wisdom.
Well, we're going to find out now if Trump has made a similar connection with his voters.
The polling data on this is going to be fascinating in a week or two or less, maybe.
Because remember, the real key to this is this automatic assumption that everybody's outraged, that everybody wants Trump gone, that everybody finds this objectionable.
Everybody think it's over the top.
Everybody think Trump has gone too far.
And that assumption is always erroneous, I think.
But nobody stops to think about it.
I got to take a break here.
Don't go away.
Now, we do have some really early polling data out of Iowa of Monmouth College that shows that Trump has not been hit yet.
Scott Walker is still in first place.
22% Trump is next at 13, but it's not showing any damage to Trump on this.
But it's early.
But I just want to see what happens here because, again, the conventional wisdom is that Trump is finished with voters.
That's what the media is trying to convey when they claim they're outraged and the establishment claims they're really saying the American people are.
That's the thing.
It's always gotten me, is this presumption that the media speaks for a majority of the American people.
I know for a fact that's not true.
A majority of the American people don't trust the media.
A majority of the American people consider the media a problem.
And yet here is this automatic assumption every time something like this happens.
It's pretty much the case in every story they report.
There's this presumption.
Let's say gay marriage.
Let's take a story in Indiana, you know, where that little pizza shop got shut down.
There's a presumption reporting it that the entire population thinks that that little pizza shop ought to go away.
And it's part of the reporting.
It's just as though this is what's normal, as though this is what is.
The same token, massive nationwide support for gay marriage.
Anybody who doesn't is a koop.
Minorities so invisible you can't even see them.
That's how small they are.
So I want to see what happens here because they're doing everything they can to destroy Trump by acting like he's destroyed himself with voters.
Conventional wisdom is that Trump is finished with voters.
That is what presumes this new political reality.
And I don't think it's the case.
But it won't take long to find out.
And just think how the conventional wisdom is going to be shaken upside down if Trump is not damaged, polling data-wise, by this.
Can you imagine?
I don't know what they'll do publicly.
Maybe they'll talk about how stupid the American people are, how gullible, or maybe it's white angry men.
They'll fall back on some caricature that they've used of crazy voters in the past to explain why Trump is still doing okay.
They can't let this incident show them as being wrong about the fact Trump has to go because he's just unacceptable.
Well, this is over the top.
You just don't let people talk this way.
It's not done.
So we'll see.
Hang on.
Be right back.
Time to check our own version of public opinion.
You're on the EIB network.
We head to the phones.
It's Richard and White Plains, New York.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you.
You've got a heat wave up there today, right?
Yeah, it's pretty hot and humid up here, Rush.
Look, why is it that Joe Biden, aka Joe Bite Me, can get away with sticking his foot in his mouth and it's just Joe being Joe?
Or Harry Reid can lie about Romney's taxes and the drive-bys ignore it.
Nancy Pelosi can say, well, you've got to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
And people go, what did she say?
And Obama, you know, is called liar of the year by Politico.
And all that goes by, you know, the wayside.
But everything Trump says is kryptonite.
Well, now, I think you could answer that question.
You sound like a reasonably smart guy.
I know you're asking rhetorically, and you're making a point by asking, but why don't you give it a shot here to answer your own question?
It's, I think that we are seeing something that we have never seen before where you would normally see the liberal media and the Democrats beating up on the Republican candidates.
You're also seeing the, if you want to call them Republican media, pundits, whoever, beating up on Trump also.
Is there anybody who isn't?
And here's the other thing, Rush.
I'm going to answer the question.
There is, because it's a great question.
I mean, Joe Biden has insulted every Joe Biden looks at a guy in a wheelchair and says, stand up, Chuck.
Republican did that.
It'd be Mr. Insensitive, Mr. Unfeeling, Mr. Boer.
I mean, they would humiliate some poor Republican who told a guy in a wheelchair to stand up.
And the same thing with insulting Indians that work at 7-Eleven and how you can't get a job there unless you are one.
And he knows them all.
Whatever.
I mean, there's all kinds of, you can make an endless list of truly offensive, stupid, insulting things articulated by Democrats.
The answer to your question, why have they never called on it?
There is a presumption again.
And it boils down to some, it's very, very simple.
The Democrats are nice people and the Republicans are mean people.
Liberals are nice and compassionate and conservatives are mean-spirited extremists and they're mean.
That is the presumption that exists before Donald Trump even gets in the race.
Before any Republican gets in the race.
They're all mean.
They all care only about the rich.
They don't care about the little guy.
And if any party's become that, it's the Democrats.
So that's the opening presumption.
And so when Biden says whatever he says, that that's just Joe, he didn't mean anything by.
He's a nice guy.
But no conservative or Republican will ever get the benefit of that doubt because the Republicans are all mean people.
It's really no more complicated than that.
They're mean, mean-spirited, extremists, whatever, but they're mean people.
And so a motive is always attached to these Republican faux pas that is never attached to liberal Democrat statements.
As far as the left is concerned, there's not a mean bone in any leftist body.
There's not an ill intention in any leftist body.
But in every conservative, every Republican, they want to hurt people.
They want to be mean to people.
They don't know how to be compassionate.
Now, you mentioned the Republicans that are piling on Trump.
There are quite a few.
Wall Street Journal, not only piling on Trump, but piling on conservative media people that are defending Trump.
I mean, and there have been some.
There have been some media types on the right that have attempted to not join the bandwagon of savaging and criticizing Trump.
Now, Wall Street Journal came down on all of them today.
So on the Republican side, it's no different than when you hear a Republicans say, I'm the guy that can cross the aisle.
I'm the guy that can show the Democrats that I can compromise with them, work together with them.
The translation for that is, I'm not your average mean Republican like all my other guys are.
I'm a nice Republican.
That's what that means.
And so Republicans piling on Trump, and there are many facets here.
Some of them genuinely ticked off.
Some of them really think this is horrible that this could ever be said, even if it is about McCain.
And others are just taking this as an opportunity to tell everybody, hey, I'm a nice Republican.
Look at me.
I think Trump's a two.
That makes me a nice guy.
So leave me alone next time.
Don't attack me.
I'm see, I'm joining you.
I'm agreeing with you.
That makes me a nice guy, see?
Republicans are always on defense on things like this.
It aids this conventional wisdom I was describing in the previous half hour.
The conventional wisdom is that statement like this is made by Trump, and everybody in the country is outraged by it.
Not just the media, not just the Democrats, not just Washington politicians, but everybody.
They're outraged in Boise.
They're outraged in Tuscaloosa.
They're outraged in San Francisco.
They're outraged in Tijuana.
They're outraged in Juarez.
They're outraged in Mexico City.
They're outraged in New York City.
Everywhere.
Trump is hated universally is the presumption.
And therefore he's got to go.
And he doesn't have a prayer because as a Republican and as a confident braggadocio, he's a mean guy.
The fact that he doesn't have a lot of public humility makes him a mean guy.
These Democrats are all nice people.
Harry.
Well, look at McCain has called Tea Party people hobbits.
Crazies.
And in fact, let me find something here.
I've got a stack on all this stuff.
Maybe it's the bottom one here.
That's not the one I'm looking for.
There's a, oh, 2008, seven years ago, Politico.
Right here, my formerly nicotine steady finger.
Some on left target McCain's war record.
It's my Ben Smith.
On Sunday, McCain's campaign issued a pair of outraged statements after retired general and Barack Obama supporter Wesley Clark, also known as Ashley Wilkes, said that he didn't think McCain's service as a fighter pilot in a prisoner of war was relevant to running the country.
But farther to the left, and among some of McCain's conservative enemies as well, harsher attacks are circulating.
Critics have accused McCain of war crimes for bombing targets in Hanoi in the 60s.
A widely read liberal blog on Sunday accused McCain of disloyalty during his captivity in Vietnam for his coerced participation in propaganda films.
A lot of people don't know that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity, wrote Americablog.com's John Erevosis.
Getting shot down, tortured, and doing propaganda for the enemy?
That's not command experience.
Al Franken, back in 2002, before he was running for anything, Al Franken said almost exactly what Trump said.
There hasn't been any outrage at any of this that has been said about McCain by leftists, proving my point.
When leftists attack McCain, they're perfectly warranted because they're nice people and they are compassionate people and they're politically correct people.
Huffing and Puffington Post blog.
Again, this is 2008.
A former editor of Mother Jones magazine, Jeffrey Klein, wrote some of the unreleased pages in McCain's Navy file may not reflect well upon his qualifications for the presidency.
As to why Klein speculated that from day one in the Navy, McCain screwed up again and again, only to be forgiven because his dad and grandfather were four-star admirals.
But here comes Trump.
And you would think that nobody has ever said anything like this before about the revered and respected John McCain.
And you would think that to the end of the world, we can't tolerate this kind of brutal conversation.
We can't permit this to happen.
Trump has to apologize.
This is, I think you've had a bunch of Republican media types writing that finally we knew this was going to happen.
But now the end of the McCain campaign.
Our party is spared.
Our campaign is revived.
Trump has to go.
There's just one problem.
Trump is not following the rules that targets are supposed to follow.
Targets are supposed to immediately grovel, apologize, say something like, you know, that wasn't me.
That wasn't me.
That's not the real me.
That's not who I am.
And I forever, I apologize.
I have the utmost respect for Senator McCain.
I really regret saying it.
And I don't know that I can go on.
And then everybody cheers that the target has seen the light and is now going to shrink away from public life, never to ever be heard from or seen from again.
And it usually means another Republican has been taken out.
And again, guiding all of this is the arrogant presumption that the majority American people are as outraged as all these media types are.
So we shall see.
Not only McCain, is Trump not following the rules, he's doubling down on the criticism.
American people haven't seen something like this in a long time.
I'm serious.
They have not seen an embattled public figure stand up for himself, double down, and tell everybody to go to hell.
What they've seen as an embattled public figure apologize and slink away.
And I've got to take another break here, folks, but more always.
Straight ahead, don't go away.
Joseph in Minneapolis, you're next.
It's great to have you here.
Hello.
E-I-E-L-Rushboe.
What an honor to talk to you.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Thank you.
I'd like to use my 20-plus years here at the EIB Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies, as well as my real-life experience, to make some comments on the data mining and Julian Castros affirmatively furthering fair housing, if I may.
Sure.
He's talking about this massive racial database Obama's collecting on every American.
Exactly.
And I'll give you an example of here in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as to how that data mining is going down.
The city council here has recently looked at data and certain laws that affect or that they feel affect minorities.
And two of those laws are spitting on the sidewalk as well as loitering.
And they've looked at those laws and they found out that they inordinately affect minorities and that minorities are guilty of those laws, spitting on sidewalks and loitering.
So the presumption is that there's a lot of discrimination going on and that those laws have been deemed racist.
So those two laws have just been removed from our statutes here in the city of Minneapolis.
Well, you might be asking, how does that tie in with this data mining that the federal government is going to be doing in addition to the affirmatively furthering fair housing?
And here's kind of how this works.
They're looking at data, and we've been told that they're going to be looking zip code by zip code.
They're going to be looking at demographic trends via zip code.
And so all they need to do now is go down and look at, let's say, for example, zip code 55408 in Minneapolis.
They've looked at the demographics.
They've figured out that those demographics don't meet what they have defined as 50% diverse.
And from there, with a click of the mouse, they can just find out who's underwriting the loans in those neighborhoods.
And for us people here in Rio Linda and Rioville, they may be going further.
They may look at the loan officer who's helped facilitating those loans, the realtor broker, the property manager, or what have you.
And if that doesn't meet their definition of what is 50% diverse, everybody under that is going to get to the point of view.
All right, now.
Let me interrupt here because of time, but I just want to tell those of you listening, he is not wrong.
You are not listening to somebody who has a misunderstanding of what this is.
He is dead on right.
Authorities in Washington can go zip code by zip code and assess like you're spitting on a sidewalk rule.
The assumption is the black population of Minneapolis is only 13%, yet most of the violations are, well, it's got to be discrimination.
So you just take the laws off the books because they're being unfairly applied to minorities.
Just remove the law.
Spitting law, but next make it a housing law or some such thing.
And you see where this is headed.
I just saw some typically irresponsible reporting on television about a weather forecast wild guess.
▲
Export Selection