All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
August 11, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi.
Are you?
Welcome back, folks.
You are tuned to show prep for the rest of the media.
The award-winning multi-marconi awards and others.
Thrill packed, ever-exciting, increasingly popular, and growing by leaps and bounds, even in year 28.
This is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and Rushlin Boy, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address.com.
Here's Megan Kelly as she uh she opened her show last night, uh, portion of the opening monologue.
Mr. Trump did interviews over the weekend that attacked me personally.
I've decided not to respond.
Mr. Trump is an interesting man who has captured the attention of the electorate.
That's why he's leading in the polls.
Trump, who is the front runner, will not apologize.
And I certainly will not apologize for doing good journalism.
So I'll continue doing my job without fear or favor.
Yeah, so there you have it.
So uh I don't know, everybody's decided to move on here.
They've uh what are you what are you frowning at in there?
What in the world's wrong with this?
All right, all right, just keep a sock at it then.
To me, I knew she wasn't going to apologize, and they knew Trump wasn't going to apologize, and they're and good, by the way.
We're overwhelmed with all these apologies.
I spoke about that a little bit yesterday.
Oh, is everybody's apologist?
What does that mean?
You didn't say it?
Apology, wipe away what you said.
Well, it wasn't me, you know.
I I don't know who that was, but it's not who I am.
Yes, it is.
You said what you said.
Big deal.
I guess it's it's human nature, but the way words upset people in the midst of actual uh destruction.
Let me give you the latest here on this uh on the the Iran story because this is this is this is stunning.
American people have been lied to about another three issues regarding this deal, this so-called nuclear deal in Iran.
First, it turns out that negotiations did not start because of Iran electing a moderate, some guy we could do business with, i.e.
Rwani.
Turns out that the negotiations between the United States and Iran began when Mahmud Ahmedini Zad was still president.
But we were told by the administration that there's no way we could talk to Iran with Ahmedini Zad in there because he's a nutcase.
He's an extremist, he's a lunatic.
And that was one of the excuses the regime gave for not doing anything on Iran at that time.
And there was pressure to do because Iran, the news coming out of Iran, they were bragging how much progress they were making toward the discovery creation, development of a nuclear weapon, and the regime was saying, well, we can't talk about him.
There's no reason to get into a negotiation with this guy because he's such a man.
We have to wait for them to have their next presidential election.
Hopefully they'd elect a moderate, which they did, and there's no such thing, by the way.
This is another thing.
There's no such thing as a moderate Iranian leader.
And there's no such thing as a conservative Iranian cleric.
The guy that runs Iran is the Supreme Leader.
His name is the Ayatollah Hamini, and he is the heir to the first Ayatollah hominy.
They spell their names differently.
One is K-H-O.
That would be the original Ayatollah Rualla hominy, and this guy spells his name with an A. Other than that, they're identical.
He's a Supreme Leader, and whoever the president is a figurehead.
Whoever the president is has to clear everything with the Supreme Leader.
The Supreme Leader is the genuine radical that runs this country and is state sponsor of terrorism all over the Middle East and parts of the world.
The guy leading the chance, death to America, is the Supreme Leader.
And he's standing there with his Kalishnakov while doing it.
He's writing as written a book on uh on how to trick and how to fool the U.S. and how they're gonna wipe out Israel after the deal has been negotiated between us, the other five nations, and Iran.
So who their president is matters not in terms of what the policy of the country is going to be?
It is a genuine theological religious dictatorship.
And is run by the mullahs.
Now the Aitollahomini has his buddy Ayatollahs, and they make up the Supreme Leadership Council.
But the president is merely the presidency is merely an office for the rest of the world to observe and think that Iran's just like every other country.
It has an elected president, it has a parliament, it's a democratic process.
None of that is true.
So the idea that we had to wait for Ahmedini Zad to go.
Why do you think they got rid of Ahmedini Zad?
Why do we even get Rwani in the first place?
Isn't it amazing?
We're sitting around waiting for a moderate and they deliver one.
How's that happen?
They got rid of Mahmud Ahmedini Zad because the guy was too open and honest about what the intentions of the Supreme Leader are.
Every time he opened his mouth, it was death to America, death to Israel.
There was no Holocaust.
Whatever it was, every time he opened his mouth, he made it tough for the Supreme Leader to put forth the false image that Iran is a moderate, harmless country, simply wanting to move into the 21st century.
So Obama says, Well, we can't negotiate with some nutcase like that.
We got to wait for a moderate bamboo.
They give us Rwani as a moderate.
We start negotiating.
But the point is we were negotiating with Ahmadini Zad.
Because whenever you're negotiating, you're negotiating with Supreme Leader.
You're negotiating with the Ayatollah Homini.
There isn't a single one of these people over there that can make a deal or any agreement within a deal without the approval of the Ayatollah Hominy, a Supreme Leader.
Now, the second thing we were lied about, even before negotiations began, John Kerry, who was a senator at the time, acting on Obama's orders, had already recognized Iran's right to enrich uranium on their own soil.
This was known and reported all the way back in 2007.
I think it is huge because the United States has been trying for more than a decade to make Iran stop its uranium enrichment program.
And that involves the centrifuges and all that.
And it turns out, even before he was Secretary of State, Senator John Kerry, as uh emissary of the regime, Green lighted Iran's right to go ahead and enrich uranium on their own soil.
Now, the entire purpose to illustrate the focus or the magnitude of this lie, the entire purpose of the economic sanctions that we slapped on Iran was to get them to stop their enrichment.
Not only were the sanctions designed to get them to stop, they were designed to prevent them from being able to.
Because with the sanctions in place, they wouldn't have the money, the capital, or access to material that they needed in order to move forward.
And yet, all of it did move forward while we had sanctions placed on them.
While Ahmadini Zad was the president, which we said we couldn't negotiate with, who we said we could negotiate with.
Now we know, and this is by the way, it's it's been reported by that great Middle Eastern uh news service, memory, uh M E M RI.
But all of this was a charade, the third thing, the third lie, the third issue we lied to about.
The Iranians are already pumping and selling their oil like crazy.
Now, the Obama administration claims that sanctions have not yet been lifted on Iran as it relates to their oil.
Memory is the Middle East Media Research Institute.
The headline of the story, Iranian senior officials disclose confidential details from nuclear negotiations.
So the source for all this is a bunch of braggadocious Iranians who feel that it's apparently okay now because the deal's done and Obama's on his way to making sure the world and everybody else ratifies this thing.
Iranian officials recently began to reveal details from the nuclear negotiations with the U.S. Since the early stages.
Their statements indicate that the United States initiated secret negotiations with Iran, not after President Hassan Rouani, supposedly of the pragmatic camp.
But rather in 2011-2012, in the era of the radical president Mahmoud Ahmed Izad.
And again, folks, there's no difference in the two.
And don't doubt me on this, because whoever's president is nothing more than a placeholder.
He's a public figurehead that is designed to create or produce or present an image of Iran as your normal everyday run-of-the-middle nation.
It has a president, it has a parliament, that has elections and so forth.
The disclosures also indicate that already at that time, Iran received from America a letter.
The U.S. administration sent Iran a letter recognizing its right to enrich uranium on its own soil, while we supposedly had sanctions in place.
President Barack Obama has wanted Iran to be able to move forward on their nuclear program.
And made it possible for this to happen even while sanctions were supposedly in place.
Hussain Sheikh Al-Islam, an advisor to the speaker, specified that the letter from the U.S. had come from John Kerry, who was then a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Iranian vice president, top negotiator Ali Akbar Salayi said that Kerry, while still a senator, had been appointed by Obama to handle the nuclear contacts with Iran.
Kerry was assuring the Iranians they had the right to enrich uranium on their soil since 2007.
Now, what's happening here?
Chuck Schumer has come out in opposition to the deal, and the administration is unloading on him.
The administration and its buddies in the media are unloading on Chuck Schumer.
They accuse him, Washington Post, New York Times, they accuse him of being a Jew, who is in bed with the Jewish lobby, wealthy interest.
All of the code words that they usually use to attack conservatives.
They are using here to attack Chuck Schumer.
James Taranto, best of the web, Wall Street Journal, bigotry, pure and simple, the ugly attacks on Senator Chuck Schumer.
Now say what you want.
Senator Schumer is getting a taste of his own tactics.
I mean, he's not a stranger to these tactics.
He has used them himself.
I just find it fascinating.
He's on the receiving end of them now.
And by the way, other Jewish members of Congress are also getting to one degree or another the same kind of treatment as Chuck Yu Schumer is getting from the administration, from the regime.
And basically, the attacks are all that he's not a loyal American.
He's you first.
He's really you, and he's supporting Jewish lobby first.
It's despicable, it really is.
It's the kind of stuff that, you know, when a conservative republic comes out and supports Israel, that's the kind of stuff they say about him.
And now they're accusing Chuck, But it goes worse than that.
Now we've got McCain coming out, actively opposing this deal for his own reasons.
McCain's saying the Senate is not gonna pass this.
The Senate is not gonna make this reality.
Obama's saying, I don't need you.
Already got the UN.
It's gonna happen.
I don't care.
You guys are just a exercising your own folly here.
I don't need you guys to vote for this.
It's already a done deal.
I gotta tell you, I like I said yesterday, I was really misjudged this whole Schumer thing.
I thought that Schumer coming out for the deal meant that they had enough Democrat votes to pass this thing, and that Schumer could vote thus vote against it and and remain uh loyal to his base in uh in New York, which in majority I guess position opposes the deal.
But it turns out that's not the case.
It turns out his his opposition to it is real and substantive, and it's extensively documented and and written.
But I tell you, folks, I uh this is the kind of in the weeds stuff that I know that the low information crowd couldn't care less about, not gonna understand it when they hear it, but it's huge.
To me, the things that we've been lied to about and the objective that these lies reveal, that all along we have been facilitating Iran's quest.
All along we have been helping them make it possible.
It now puts, you know, people have analyzed the deal and said, yeah, Iran's gonna get a nuke in two years, ten years, what now makes it all makes sense now.
Anyway, brief time out.
Time to get your phone calls in on the action here, folks, and we will do that right when we get back.
Don't go away.
Donner's Grove, Illinois.
We head uh to the phones.
This is Carl, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Well, hi, Rush.
It's uh honor to be on the phone with you.
If you've been listening to you for probably over 20 years, but anyway, to my point, um, just uh an observation.
I don't see it reported um out there much.
Everybody seems to be caught up with uh um Trump and and all his popularity right now.
But uh seems we seem to be losing sight of the fact that still with his 30 percent uh polling numbers, 70 percent of the people are still looking for true, but I would say uh constructionist uh people that are uh more substantive in their um you know and in their views.
Wait, but what what what are you saying people are looking for?
Well, I I think most people are still looking for uh people that are that are strong on the Constitution um and have more substance to their um Well, are you are you seeing this in the polling data itself or are you opining?
Oh pining, absolutely opining.
Uh it just I guess I'm taking a different spin on things than that.
Uh okay, so what you're saying is that Trump's 32% should not fool us because you don't think it's it's anything but celebrity and personality, and you think most people want somebody far more substantive and knowledgeable and articulate when it comes to issues like constitution and founding and that kind of done.
But I don't mean to be words in your mouth, but is that what you're trying to say?
That's exactly my my my point is that 68%.
If you use the 32% poll, 68% of Republicans are still looking at the You can't really big on the Constitution.
No, no, you can't look at it that way.
You can't say, okay, here's a poll and 32% prefer Trump, which means 68% want whatever Trump isn't, because you have to then look, well, who else is in the poll?
And does it all add up to 100?
Or does it exceed 100?
Or does it come in under 100?
And if so, by how much?
And I and I don't know the answer.
I'm not uh to that, uh Rush.
I'm not a pollster, obviously, but um uh Well, no, it's in the data.
I just don't have it in front of me.
I don't have it on top of my head, but like like uh Cruz was in second place with 13 or 14 or 20 or 18.
If you add it all up, there's nothing in the poll that says 68 percent are dissatisfied with whatever Trump Trump is doing.
I mean, Bill Clinton won the White House twice and never got 50 percent of the electorate.
Okay.
You know, because we're not talking about the electorate here, we're talking about people that have been in the um Republican Party that have been polled and asked, who do you prefer at this point?
And I feel that as we get closer to the election, people are going to be wanting more sense to it.
Okay.
Okay, I got it now.
I find this is why I, as hosts, stick with people where other hosts unable to comprehend would have hung up politely or otherwise.
This caller from Donner's Grove, Illinois, is saying all of this right now doesn't matter.
Because it's too early.
It's too soon, too far out from the election.
This is just a name recognition, popularity contest, uh celebrity, TV personality recognition, all that.
As we get closer to the election, what uh what old Carl here is saying is that people are gonna wake up and they're gonna want somebody serious.
They're gonna want somebody who doesn't go around, whatever his view of what Trump's doing, people aren't gonna tire of that, and they're gonna want somebody really substantive and really intelligent, and all that.
And that's just his opinion.
He doesn't see the data anywhere reflected in it, just his opinion on things.
That's why it was specifically asking.
This is pretty close to the establishment view that Trump's eventually going to peter out, burn out, wear out, what have you.
That's essentially what old Carl there uh was saying.
Folks, get get a load of this.
This is Hillary Clinton.
This is today, Claremont, New Hampshire, Claremont, New Hampshire, River Valley Community College, and it's a town hall campaign event.
And Hillary decided that she would talk about something she is responsible for, and that is the lack of civility on the internet.
Yes, I knew that would get your attention.
I knew that would get your she doesn't say she's responsible for it.
I'm saying she's in part largely responsible for the incivility on the internet.
I'll explain why in a moment.
It should be obvious, but here's what she said.
The level of vitriol and insult that we see on the internet is so distressing to me.
To exercise good old-fashioned politeness.
You know, the the feelings that come out over the internet, you would never say that to somebody standing in front of you.
I just see this because uh occasionally I'm the subject of it, so uh I know no one is immune from it.
She doesn't have the slightest.
This is the woman who got together with George Soros and helped fund the creation of Media Matters for America, which is largely responsible for all of the sewers on Twitter.
And all of these campaigns designed to damage, destroy whatever they disagree with.
There isn't anything civil about it.
All of this lack of civility is a Democrat Party tactic.
It is part of the community organizers owner's manual.
It's part of the operating system of community organizers.
The lack of civility is precisely.
I mean, Mrs. Clinton, AFL CIO, the SEIU.
These are the people that show up at Tea Party groups and actually begin engaging in physical violence.
It's not a matter of people hiding on the internet saying things that they wouldn't say in public.
They show up and they say these things in public and they put their fists behind it sometimes.
I am dead serious.
The lack of civility on the internet, you can trace it back to things.
You can trace it back to people.
Now, the the the the format itself lends itself to this because of the anonymity.
And it is highlighted uh, you know, the dregs of our culture and society.
And it has let us know that they're they are there.
But you don't find my experience, you don't find conservatives behaving this way, treating people with ill manners.
We're obsessed with the exact opposite.
Many on our side believe that kill them with kindness, show them courtesy as a way to battle this kind of stuff.
But this is one of the reasons if I'm a double back.
This is one of the reasons this lack of civility on the left that they get away with it.
They're never called on the account for it.
They're never called on the carpet for it.
They're never criticized for it anywhere in the drive-by media.
And what about Harry Reid accusing Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes for 10 years?
What about the entire Democrat campaign accusing Romney of not caring that an employee's wife died with cancer because Romney didn't care enough about her health care?
Or name your allegation.
Name the accusation that is made by Democrats.
The incivility is not just on the internet.
It's on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
It's in major American media outlets.
It's all over the place.
It's a tactic utilized by the left.
Mrs. Clinton to whine and moan and complain about it, sorry, doesn't carry any weight with me.
This is the woman who buys and pays for it when it benefits her.
Stan in wind was it, windlock, Washington.
Great to have you on the program, Stan.
Hello, sir.
Hello, and thank you very much for taking my call.
I'll get right to my point.
I think Obama's brilliant.
He put Israel in a no-win situation when he got the UN to approve the Iran nuke deal.
If Israel unilaterally destroys Iran's nuke capability, it'll be condemned by the UN and they will become the outlaw nation, not Iran.
If Israel does nothing, Iran gets the bomb and Israel is toast.
And all this was done while framing himself as seeking peace.
Well, let me ask you a question.
And I'm not per se disagreeing with that, other than your claim Obama's brilliant.
He may be a brilliant, deceitful political tactician.
Do you think Israel cares if on one hand Israel destroyed and vaporized?
On the other hand, UN thinks Israel is mean.
Which do you think they would choose?
Oh, I think they have got no choice.
I think that they'll uh react militarily militarily.
Well, do you know that Obama has told them that we will stop them if they try to do that?
Do you know that in this deal, the United States and the other negotiating partners promise to protect Iran against such an Israeli attack?
Uh yeah, and and and supposedly this is uh there's no he's saying there won't be any uh Obama's saying there's there won't be any war, but Israel's always said already said that uh they they they will have no choice.
No, no.
They have to Obama said there would be a war if we don't approve the deal.
Oh, really?
Well, who's gonna start that war?
There won't be a war if there will be a war if there isn't a deal.
How does that work?
If that's the case, who starts that war?
Must be the Ayatollah hominy, ticked off he can't get his nuclear weapon.
Who would start that if there is no deal, it guarantees a war?
This is what Obama does.
It's a it's a it's a it's a classic Obama tactic.
You either take my way or it's Armageddon, on either health care or the economy, the stimulus, now the Iran deal, whatever it is, it's either my way or it's the end of the world.
It's either my way or hell.
Either my way or the worst that can possibly happen.
You always create a strawdog.
And by the way, there are always people in Obama's worldview who want the worst that can happen.
In this case, it'd be Benjamin Netanyahu.
His straw dog always, straw man always says people who represent the evil that he says would naturally occur if his way doesn't happen.
Stan, appreciate the call.
David Granger, Indiana, you're next here on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
I think that the clip you played in the beginning of the one o'clock hour with Meghan Kelly trying to explain Trump's success in the polls is extremely shallow and oversimplified.
I believe the more fundamental explanation is that the media has lost control of the narrative.
They now have become the useful idiots to their audience.
And the evidence is Trump.
And that the anger the audience has towards the media manifests itself in how well Trump is doing in the polls.
Some viewers want the media to be wrong.
And they love when the that's when they are.
Okay, let me see if I understand this.
You you don't don't be insulted here.
Part of this is due to the I didn't hear, but half of what you said, and I had to read it transcribed, which I think was perfect.
But I'm having to put things together here on the fly.
You think that a lot of Trump's support is people simply wanting to stick it to the media.
The media doesn't want Trump.
People hate the media, so people are voting for Trump in the polls.
The media is hated and despised, and since they hate and despise Trump, people are going, pfft you.
I love Trump.
I think independents, modern Democrats, people that are on the fence that are fed up with the political games, those are the people that are piling on, if nothing more, to just say I'm sick and tired of all of the nonsense going on in the world.
So you don't you don't think the support for Trump is real and deep?
No, I think I know.
I I think that it is sincere, and I think that it's a wave that everybody wants to get um to get on to just to let their voice be heard.
Okay, so Trump, Trump is a way for people to get a message to the media.
You're not fooling us anymore.
We don't respect you, we don't like you.
We have resented deeply what you've tried to do to us and our candidates, so take this.
Hey, I'm not gonna sit here and deny that as a as a factor because uh I am fully aware of the frustration, anger, rage.
Look at this the rage and anger I'm talking about is a reasoned substantive anger.
It is not an overreaction.
This is billed for seven years.
There are people in this country who feel that they have not had any representation whatsoever after having been promised, that their point of view would be represented and would triumph, and that all of this Obama stuff there would be a serious effort to stop it and beat it back, and they haven't seen much of any.
I think this anger is deep, and I know how many people have called here over the years asking, what more can they do besides vote?
There's a lot of people with a pent-up desire to do something, to get involved somehow, a Other than just make phone calls, get out the vote, plant yard signs, you know, the all-usual stuff.
These are people that want to do something real, and they want everybody to know how they feel.
They don't have a microphone, they don't have a radio or TV show, they don't have a book deal, they don't have a cable gig.
All they've got is polling data opportunity and elections and maybe calling programs like this, but it's real and it's big, and it's not irrational, is the point.
This and all of these establishment types, they think all this anger is irrational and it'll eventually blow over and fade out.
But because it isn't irrational, it has a long, long lifespan.
We will be back.
All right, folks, a little change of pace here.
How many of you?
I love stories like this.
I Just live for stories like that.
How many of you have grown up your entire life hearing from somebody, your mom, your dad, your boss, your friends on the internet, on Dr. Phil on Oprah that you have to eat breakfast.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
If you skip breakfast, you are on a path to obesity.
Your blood sugar is going to be all out of whack.
You're not going to get your metabolism going every day.
Eat breakfast.
It is mandatory.
If you don't, you are leading your way down the road to potentially serious health consequences later in life.
Have you heard that?
Yes, I've heard it too.
I used to never eat breakfast.
I'd brag about it.
And I would hear from the ninnies.
They'd wag their finger at me, and they would I remember getting knocked down drag out about this in the Kansas City Royals press box back when I worked there.
A female news reporter whose husband was an OBGYN.
I don't know why I remember that.
Started telling me why I needed to eat breakfast.
Why everybody did.
It's the you get your metabolism.
If you don't eat breakfast, your metabolism, you've got to eat, so you've got to get your metabolism going so you start burning energy during the day.
Turns out that this is not true.
It's been bogus forever.
And in fact, it may even the food industry may be responsible for this.
It is from the Washington Post, The Science of Skipping Breakfast, how government nutritionists may have gotten it wrong yet again.
Researchers at New York City hospitals several years ago conducted a test of the widely accepted notion that skipping breakfast can make you fat.
Like everything can make you fat.
For some nutritionists, this idea is an article of faith.
Indeed, it is enshrined in the U.S. dietary guidelines, the federal government's advice book, which recommends having breakfast every day because, quote, not eating breakfast has been associated with excess body weight, unquote.
Everybody I know has fallen for this.
My entire life I have been hearing this.
At 8 30 in the morning, for four weeks, one group of subjects got oatmeal, another got frosted cornflakes, a third got nothing.
The only group to lose weight was the group that did not eat breakfast.
Other trials too have similarly contradicted the federal advice, showing that skipping breakfast led to lower weight or no change at all.
In overweight people, skipping breakfast daily for four weeks leads to a reduction in body weight, said the researchers at Columbia University in a paper published late last year.
A closer look at the way that government nutritionists adopted the breakfast warning for the dietary guidelines shows how loose scientific guesses, possibly right, possibly wrong, can be elevated into hard and fast federal nutrition rules that are broadcast throughout the United States.
When in the coming months the government unveils the 2015 dietary guidelines, it's unclear the advice on breakfast and weight gain will be included.
The 2015 Advisory Committee issued a report that steered clear at a subject of skipping breakfast and wait.
It's so ingrained they may not be able to pull it out of there even now they know they have proved that it isn't true.
And note, once again, a key word in this story, scientists.
In this case, dietary guidelines shows how loose scientific guesses.
This is the second day in a row in which we have had the whole concept of science attacked in both the New York Times and the Washington Post, as it relates to climate change.
The story yesterday was Coca-Cola paid scientists to say that consuming sugary soft drinks did not lead to obesity.
New York Times, I think.
And they didn't stop to think hey, wait a minute now.
If scientists can be bought by Coca-Cola, can scientists be bought by global warming nutcases.
So all kinds of science here, folks.
All of these dietary wivetales and maxims and so forth, they're all falling apart now.
You don't know who's paying for what anymore.
So you don't know what's true and what isn't.
So you have to follow your instincts.
When you're hungry, eat.
If you're not, don't.
And forget it.
By the way, folks, no, no, no.
This new discovery that it, you know, eating breakfast makes you fatter.
The reason they're not going to include this in the next federal report is there'd be no reason to do school breakfast if they did.
And they're not going to cut the school breakfast program, you know.
▲
Export Selection