RUSH: Over the weekend we heard news that Obama struck a deal with the Iranians and they were gonna shelve their nuclear pursuits in exchange for us ending the sanctions. That was supposed to, “Oh, right, oh-ho-ho, man, Obama, he’s tough. He talked down the mullahs.” Well, it obviously wasn’t true ’cause the regime then put out a story and said, “No, no, no, no, no, that hasn’t happened,” which means somebody in the regime is still leaking sensitive national security information, because the New York Times was hell-bent on maintaining they had been told that by somebody at the regime, that we had struck a deal with the Iranians.
Then the news shifted to we’re talking, that Obama and the Iranians are talking, and then that became something that’s not good for Obama. “Senior Iranian parliamentary sources revealed on Saturday that the Swiss envoy to Tehran has quoted US President Barack Obama as acknowledging IranÂ’s nuclear rights. Swiss Ambassador to Tehran Livia Leu Agosti attended a meeting with senior Iranian foreign ministry officials a few days ago to submit a letter from the US president to Tehran leaders.” And the reason for that is we don’t have diplomatic relations with Iran so we have to find a surrogate, and we found this Swiss ambassador.
“Vice Chairman of the Iranian ParliamentÂ’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Hossein Ebrahimi told FNA that during the meeting, Agosti had told the Iranian officials that President Barack Obama recognizes IranÂ’s right of access and use of the nuclear technology.” Now, that’s not something the regime wants out there. And if you’ll notice, it’s not being widely reported. But it is kind of important, isn’t it, that Obama sent a message to the mullahs saying, (paraphrasing) “Look, we recognize your right to have nukes,” all the while publicly Obama is saying, “I’m not gonna let them have a weapon.”
But I’m not surprised. During Obama’s campaign of 2008, I recall we had various interviews Obama had given in years prior, Chicago radio stations and so forth. He was asked, for example, about American exceptionalism. He would say, (imitating Obama) “Well, uh, I imagine the Swiss think they’re pretty exceptional, too.” Meaning we have no claim on it. What is this American exceptionalism business? We have no claim on that. And I happen to know, I can’t quote you the specific interview, but I know that Obama has said, “Who are we to tell people they can’t have something?” He might not have said it that exact way, but he said that we’re not the only ones in the world entitled to stuff. Well, we know that Barack Obama does not hold this nation in high esteem in traditional ways, American exceptionalism, superpower status.
Remember, Obama’s a social justice guy, and the social justice people believe this country has benefited unfairly from an exercise and projection of power that has been mean and unfair to other smaller nations in the world. So, to me, it is entirely believable that Obama would believe in his heart that, “Hey, if the Iranians want nukes, it’s none of our business to tell ’em they can’t have any.” Now, publicly Obama made it sound like he doesn’t want ’em to have nukes. He’d never say this publicly, but he has. He’s intimated it at least. That’s how I know it. I also know it ’cause he’s a liberal. I also know it ’cause he’s actually a radical. Reverend Wright, that whole crowd, I’m telling you, they all think alike, and they would all be offended at the notion that the United States somehow should have the right, authority, ability, to tell any nation they can or can’t have anything, such as nukes. That would offend them. It does offend them.
So this story on sanctions, when I first saw that, I said, “Well, it’s good to know who the Iranians are endorsing.” Then the regime denies it, but the New York Times insists that a high government official told them. So we have a leak. It may well be that this is something Obama wanted to announce in the debate tonight, and somebody leaked it. It may well be something he wanted to use later, closer to the election. It may well be that it’s something he doesn’t want to come out because he thinks it might hurt him. Who knows. But this is why he’s not telling us what a second-term agenda is gonna contain because it’s gonna have stuff like this.
A second-term agenda will have things in it such as (impression), “Well, uhhh, I don’t think it’s our purview, uhhh, to tell Iranians what they can and can’t have. Uh, it’s not right. How would we like it if the Iranians told us that we couldn’t build any more jets?” That’s how he thinks of it: How would we like it if Country A told us we can’t do stuff? Don’t doubt me on this. There’s something else about a second-term agenda.
For you people who are well-heeled in the world of finance, I saw something speculated about. Business Insider I think was the website over the weekend. Any of you remember the Matrix movies? What’s that actor’s name that played Neo? Yeah, Keanu Reeves. He took the red pill, remember? The red pill. What was the red pill? Do you remember what the red pill did? It just wiped out current reality. It just eliminated current reality.
There are some people speculating that in a second term, Obama would simply cancel all American debt. Just cancel it! And in the process, totally destroy the value of the US dollar. Just cancel it. You’re asking, “How does he do that?” Well, you work with the Federal Reserve and you just cancel the debt. You just wipe it out and say, ‘We’re canceling it and we’re starting fresh. We’re starting brand-new, starting all over.”
And then what do the ChiComs do? What happens? It’s not anything etched in stone, but this is the kind of thing people are speculating could happen. By the way, it would not be good. No, no, no. It would not be good. Don’t misunderstand. It would destroy the dollar. It would destroy the value of the dollar, plus a whole bunch of other things. But I’m telling you these are the kinds of things people are speculating would be in store for us in a second term, and that’s why Obama’s not talking about it.
He doesn’t dare.
He doesn’t dare illuminate the possibilities of a second term.
There’s no way.
This Iranian stuff is an example of what he might do with the debt, the deficit, and any number of other things. So it’s vitally important that people remain focused on the fact that Obama is not detailing a second-term agenda. There is a reason, a very solid reason — not solid good for us. It’s good for him. Not for us. He wouldn’t stand a chance of reelection if he said he’s gonna do more of what he’s done.
He’s gonna raise taxes more, redistribute more, take even more money out of the private sector, expand the welfare rolls even more? Not a prayer. Especially in light of that internal question in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll: 62% of the people in that poll say if Obama wins, they want him to make a drastic change in direction.