RUSH: It's like these four hostages in Iran. Let me give you a prediction on this. And if others have made it, I'm sorry. I haven't heard it, 'cause I haven't had much news on lately.
I have a feeling despite all this bluster from the Ayatollah Khamenei... Because we see the vote in Congress on the Iran deal is getting dicier. I mean, there are more and more Democrats announcing they're not gonna vote for this thing. It's getting precarious. So what do you think the next thing to happen is? I raise my hand. "I know, teacher!" "What is it?" "The Ayatollah Khamenei will release the four American hostages, and it'll be said to be following a great diplomatic series of maneuvers by Obama and Kerry."
The four American hostages will be released, and I think it's been set up from the get-go as part of the Iran deal. I can just hear Kerry and Obama talking to these guys. "You know what I want you to do? You hold those prisoners! You don't let those go. You keep them in there 'til long after this deal's done, but before the vote, and then if you need to, you release those so I get the votes." In other words, if they think a deal's been struck, the Iranians -- if necessary, to get Congress to approve this thing -- will release these four Americans.
It's kind of masterful, actually, when you stop and think of it. So I think that's gonna happen if this deal continues to bleed supporters in Congress -- which, if you believe the Drive-Bys, it's beginning to bleed supporters; it looks like it's in trouble. Now, on the other hand, Obama says, "I don't care! I don't need a congressional vote on this. I've got approval at the United Nations." It's not a treaty. Oh, by the way, did you hear what Kerry said about why it's not a treaty? Oh, this is juicy. Wait 'til you hear what Kerry said as to why this Iran deal isn't a treaty. Anyway, you just keep a sharp eye on the release of those four American hostages that Iran is holding. That will turn around a lot of "no" votes on the Iran nuke deal, particularly on the Democrat side.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay, John Kerry, explaining why the Iran deal is not legally a treaty. His explanation is very simple. Well, because you can't pass one anymore. We didn't do a treaty because you can't get one passed anymore. For 228 years, the Constitution allowed treaties to pass with the advice and consent of 67 US Senators. Senator Kerrey was asked, or Secretary Kerry was asked, "Why is this Iran deal not considered a treaty?" And Lurch replied, "Well, congressman, I spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the US Senate, and it has become physically impossible. That's why. Because you can't pass a treaty anymore. It's become impossible to schedule, to pass, and I sat there, I sat there leading the charge on the disabilities treaty. It fell to basic ideology and politics. So I think that's the reason why."
Oh, okay, I get it. So if something that is mandated by the Constitution is no longer easy to accomplish because of political opposition, then you can just redefine your terms and ignore the Constitution. I guess this is what you do when you're thinking about Obamacare, the tax and amnesty, I mean, if the Constitution gets in your way, you just ignore it?
It was supposed to be hard to do this kind of stuff. The founders of this country built gridlock into the separation of powers. They didn't arrive at 67 votes needed to override a veto, 67 votes to ratify a treaty by accident. They knew how hard it was going to be to get two-thirds of any group of people to agree with each other. The Founding Fathers of this -- I feel like an idiot having to tell people this. Well, not an idiot. It makes me feel sad to have to explain this because everybody ought to know this. This ought to be civics 101 starting at the earliest ability that kids have to understand it, which would be what? Sixth grade? Middle school, junior high school?
The Founding Fathers, because of their knowledge of history and their own experiences, knew what governments and bureaucracies were capable of: primarily unchecked, unstopped, growth. They knew that the bigger government and bureaucracies get, the greater the chance that citizens would lose liberty and freedom. And this country was founded on the basis of individual liberty, individual freedom, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights, first 10 Amendments the Constitution was written to limit the actions of government, limit the scope of government, limit the ability of government to trample on and infringe individual liberty.
And, as such, they made it difficult, they made it difficult for laws to be passed. They made it difficult for passed laws to be vetoed. They made it difficult. That's why there's separation of powers, three different branches of government. There's not supposed to be a rubber stamp anywhere, and there isn't a dictator, there isn't a monarch, there isn't one person that gets to define what's gonna happen and when. There's not a decider.
How many people today don't even have any idea of that? How many people think the president is the decider? How many people, young people, how many people do you think believe that our system of government is the president gets what he wants, and Congress is there to agree and support him, and if they don't, then it's their problem. If Congress doesn't support the president, they're being disloyal and they're being partisan, and they're just opposing for no reason.
How many people do you think believe that? I think it's a lot. I think a lot of people who have been educated in the last 30 years think the president, while not a king, more or less gets what he wants. He gets to set the agenda, gets to do what he wants, and Congress is there to rubber stamp it. And if they don't, then Congress is being disloyal. And they really think that if the president is of their party.
I know they didn't so much think that of George W. Bush, or maybe they did. Maybe they did think that's what presidents had the power to do. They were just scared to death or opposed to Bush, and so they applauded the Congress stopping him because Bush was so dangerous and stupid and cowboyish or what have you. But I would feel very comfortable wagering that most Americans particularly under the age of 40 don't understand separation of powers.
Do not understand it. They have not been taught that our system of government made it difficult for laws to be passed. That was the whole point. In fact, the Senate was set up especially to be a brake, to put the brakes on the House of Representatives. The Senate was designed to be slow moving and plodding. The Senate was designed to stop things. That's why it takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty. The president doesn't get to dictate what he gets to do, wants to do, has to do.
But here these guys are saying, "Well, you know, a treaty? Hell, you just can't get one done anymore! It's just too hard. It's just impossible. Hell, we could never get the votes for any of them." Well, there's a reason for that. They might not have been popular. The American people must not have wanted them, and they must have let somebody know. But this bunch thinks they have a license that if they don't get what they want, if it's opposed, then whoever's opposing it doesn't count, and they just get to override 'em with presidential power.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want to elaborate on this just a little bit. Earlier in the program, Washington Post story: "The Iran Deal Is Hemorrhaging Support." What this is, it's about a new poll showing even worse numbers for the Iran deal. The Quinnipiac University poll shows 57% of the American people opposed; only 28% in support. Two-to-one negative split, by far the worst poll yet for the deal. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, meanwhile, also shows support slipping, and a CNN poll finds that 52% of Americans say Congress should reject the deal.
So what the Washington Post story does, if you read it -- and you don't have to because I did. I read it for you, and what they're trying to do here is spin the bad news. And that bad, it's totally understandable the American people -- ignoramuses that they are on the deal -- would oppose it. They're not sophisticated enough aware of the nuance and therefore you gotta take into account that the people being polled -- while decent and upstanding -- may not know quite enough to really render an opinion.
The Washington Post cites earlier polls that show support for the Iran deal, but they ignore the fact that in all the earlier polls a majority said they didn't believe the deal would work. The Washington Post ignores that detail. Even in previous polls that showed a modicum of support, even those people didn't think it would work. But now -- and again, I predicted this. It might have been an hour ago. Other people may have.
Frankly, in the last three days, I haven't had any news on. So if others have made this prediction, fine, I haven't heard it, and so I'm not trying to claim any thunder, but I think those four hostages the Iranians are holding are for just this moment. See, I'm a cynic. I don't believe -- no matter what you might think of Kerry and Obama -- that in these negotiations they didn't mention these four hostages.
Now, Obama says publicly (impression), "Well, we could have gummed up the deal, you know? We could have given them other reasons to, you know, misbehave if we had started demanding concessions on something that had nothing to do with the deal." I don't believe that. I think... Let me put it this way: Don't be surprised, if you wake up one day and the lead story from the Today show to Good Morning America is the four hostages, American hostages in Iran have been released.
I think it's probably part of it. I think those four people are being held in case they're needed, case their release is needed, because I don't care what Obama says about not needing congressional approval. He cares about his legacy, and he wants his legacy to contain either the insinuation or the direct statement that everything he did had massive support. He doesn't want his legacy to be that everything he did was essentially governing against the will of the people.
So he's gonna look at this opposition to the Iran deal and see a threat to his legacy, and he'll want to save the threat. The details of the deal are irrelevant to him. As long as he'll be the one to say, "The only president to secure an agreement with Iran, period." No matter whatever else follows is irrelevant. Even if they get a nuke in ten years, it doesn't matter. "No other president got 'em to agree to anything, only Obama!"
"Who also only got us health care, and who also only got us a brand-new roaring economy and who also got us massive new immigration and great rejuvenation of our country," blah, blah, blah, whatever else is gonna be part of his legacy. So I would just... I'm not predicting it, but don't be surprised if you see that happening, those four hostages released. Now, in addition to that, this argues against it. Actually, it may not. Actually, it may not.
"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called 'Palestine,' a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as 'The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.'" The Ayatollah Khamenei has published a "book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel." So, in addition to standing up there with his Kalashnikov and leading chants of, "Death to America!" in his speeches making fun of us.
After the deal was agreed to, he was telling everybody that just because they agreed to deal doesn't mean it's gonna change the way Iran behaves policy-wise towards the United States (impression), "Death to America! Death to America!" standing there holding the gun, claiming, "Don't worry. We smoked the US. We're the ones that are happy; they're the ones arguing. We get whatever we want! We get our nuke, whatever happens," and on now he's got a 416-page book on how to out smart the US and destroy Israel.
Subtitled: "How I Hoodwinked John Kerry."
That's not the subtitle, but what does it mean? What could this title possibly mean? The Ayatollah "Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on 'well-established Islamic principles.' One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims.
"What matters in Islam is ownership of a land's government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims. Khomeinists are not alone in this belief. Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered. These include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of the Philippines and Thailand."
So these maps get the circulated to people in Iran and Muslim countries showing, "These are the countries that used to be under our control! The infidels took 'em, and we gotta get 'em back, and the book is how to do it: How to outwit the US and destroy Israel and get all of our land back." The Soviets had a similar doctrine called the Brezhnev doctrine, but they weren't able to stick with it. Putin is doing his best to revive it.
But the Brezhnev doctrine basically was, "If you've even had a communist thought, if you've ever had a communist dream, one person in your country, it's ours. Or we will nuke you." Brezhnev once promised threaten to nuke the French, for some reason, I forget which. They were laughing at his eyebrows, maybe. I don't know. So the question is... Here yet again is the Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, promising to do away with Israel after a deal with us on nukes.
It's not for the first time. I can't count how many times the Iranians have now promised to do this and take care of us at the same time. And what is our reaction? "Come on! It's just bluster, you know, Kerry, they don't really mean this stuff, it's just bluster. You gotta give 'em their due. This is who they are. This is how they keep their public. This is how they stay in power. You know, they gotta talk this way to their population. They gotta tell everybody how they outsmarted us.
"But, don't worry, I was there in the meetings and, I can tell you they didn't outsmart me." (snorts) That's comforting.
END TRANSCRIPT
No comments:
Post a Comment