All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 25, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
February 25, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, another giant, I mean a huge C, I told you so.
Transforming right before our very eyes, happening right as we I mean, it's in our face.
They're not even trying to hide hide it, ladies and gentlemen.
I'll get to that.
In mere moments.
First, great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
The telephone number, if you want to be with us, 800 282-2882, the email address, lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Okay.
As often as I have said it, it's true today.
The soap opera as dictated by the drive-by media.
And the I guess the top story in the soap storyline of the hour and around the world is whether the drive-by media and the rest of the political and cultural establishment will be able to bully the Arizona governor Jan Brewer into vetoing the Arizona legislature's bill,
which would allow businesses to refuse service to homosexuals based on a business owner's religious beliefs.
Like if a gay couple walk into a bake shop and say, we want you to bake our wedding cake.
And the shop owner says, Well, I'm you're your homosexual.
I'm not going to do it.
They want to be able to force the bidness to respect the desires of the customers that walk in the front door.
Religious beliefs, as Allah knows, religious beliefs can't be used to stop anything the left wants to impose.
Unless they're Muslim religious belief, then we have to honor those.
But any other religious beliefs, um, not permitted.
The left will not allow them.
Now the current thinking is that Governor Brewer will probably veto the bill.
Which I mean, you might think on the face of it and make her a hero with the news media and the rest of the left, and maybe so, but for five minutes.
And then she'll go back to being a criminal, near criminal conservative Republican, or worse.
Um, and because their reaction will be, what took her so long?
Why did she even consider not vetoing this?
But I really we all know what's gonna happen here.
Let's say she does veto it.
What's gonna happen?
Right.
The nearest liberal judge will declare the law to be unconstitutional.
If there's one thing that we've learned by now, uh, ladies and gentlemen, the left does not accept laws it doesn't like.
They just don't.
At the national governor's conference meeting yesterday, the president showed up and he addressed the nation's governors.
And the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, reacted to it, and he wasn't happy about what happened.
Now, his his reaction was somewhat uh tempered.
One of the things he said was, I was troubled today by the tone of the president.
I would think he'd be a little bit more than troubled by the tone, according to the right scoop.com.
Rick Perry says, as a matter of fact, talking about Obama, Obama said in the meeting, if I hear any of you governors pushing back, making statements about Washington spends too much money, you will hear from me.
And Perry said, if I'm a Democrat governor, if I'm a Republican governor, I'm highly offended by that.
This is about National Guard cutbacks.
The regime has determined the states are going to reduce the size of the National Guard.
Now, naturally, that's a state concern.
And Obama has come in and told him, I don't care what you think, we're gonna downsize the National Guard.
And if I hear any of you people whining and moaning about Washington spending too much money, you're gonna hear from me.
It Sounds like an outright threat to me.
And then Perry said, if I'm a Democrat governor, if I'm a Republican governor, I'm highly offended by that.
Governor Perry, I have a little surprise for you.
Democrat governors are not going to be surprised by it.
The Democrat governors aren't going to be upset at all.
The Democrat governors are just like the Democrats in Congress.
Whatever the little dictator wants to do is fine with them.
They're all in.
We're going to cut back the National Guard so we can spend more on food stamps, we'll do it.
We're going to cut back the National Guard so we can spend more on amnesty and uh and welfare for illegals, we'll do it.
They're not going to oppose Obama on this.
They're not going to act like they're outraged or offended or any of that.
It's just incredible.
So all of this angst over what's going on in Arizona, it doesn't matter what Governor Brewer does.
If she vetoes this bill, the nearest liberal judge by five o'clock the same afternoon will declare the law to be unconstitutional.
Because we know by now the left doesn't accept any laws that they don't like.
Now, media reports as we have them right now are indicating that Governor Brewer will probably veto the bill.
And she's nevertheless still being attacked.
She's being attacked for suggesting she might veto the bill for economic reasons.
I kid you not, she's she's not saying that the veto would be for the reason they want to hear.
The economic reasons are what sense does it make for a business to turn away customers?
What sense does it make for a state to be known to have businesses that will turn away customers?
That's what she says she's concerned about, and that's why she might veto it.
The same sex uh homosexual advocates want her to veto it on the basis of human rights, civil rights, gay rights, and what have you.
So even vetoing the bill won't be good enough.
She has to veto the bill for the for the right moral reasons.
And isn't it interesting that all of a sudden now the left is interested in morality, at least as they define it.
But you notice here, folks, how bullying is a good thing.
The governor of Arizona is being bullied.
She's being bullied by the homosexual lobby in Arizona and elsewhere.
She being bullied by the nationwide drive-by media.
She being bullied by certain elements of corporate America in order to advance the gay agenda.
I guess in that circumstance, bullying is admirable.
In fact, this kind of bullying is honorable.
You notice how this bullying business, in fact, nobody's even characterizing it as that.
No, no.
We're simply doing the right thing here.
We're simply enforcing that which we demand.
And if we have to bully, then fine.
Because what we want is what counts.
What we want is what is.
Eric Holder, the attorney general's out there telling states, attorney generals that uh attorneys general, they don't have to enforce any state laws they disagree with.
He attorney general Eric Holder's not saying, no, the law is Obama.
You don't have to enforce any state law you disagree with.
So I mean, it folks, the the chronicling what's happening here, we haven't even gotten to the downsizing U.S. military.
That's coming up here in in just a moment.
But I I it was it was incumbent upon me to touch upon the storyline of the day.
The soap opera storyline of the day, and that is the bullying of the Arab sorry, they're not looking at it that way.
The bullying of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who she better veto this for the right reasons, or they're gonna bury her.
Last night on Hannity on the Fox News channel, James Carville showed up.
And he's talking about Ted Cruz, and I'm jumping to this because while all of this is going on, There is still the world of electoral politics.
And I've been talking to some people about the FCC effort to have monitors, whole monitors and so forth in the newsrooms.
And there's a growing body people who really believe that stake Kleiburn is really only interested in minority ownership.
I don't care what that it's not necessarily fairness doctrine.
What it is, folks, is the same thing they've been doing.
They are progressing along the path of eliminating all opposition.
That's Obama's modus operandi.
Take a look at his campaigns from state senator to United States Senator to President.
The objective is to eliminate the opposite, not debate them, not beat them in the arena of ideas, not have an engaging debate, see which ideas are more acceptable or triumphant.
The idea is to eliminate the opposition.
And I think, and I I I took the blame yesterday.
On this very program, I asked you a question.
When did the whole idea of hate crimes begin?
When did the whole notion of hate speech begin?
And it began in August of 1988, this program.
And the beginning of this program in 1988 really was the beginning of the end of the monopoly the left had in national media.
That monopoly has now been broken.
They want to put it back together.
They want the monopoly back, and that's why they want to eliminate the opposition.
And whether whether state Mignon Kleiburn, whether it's about minority ownership or whether it's actually about because they the the broadcast networks don't need any monitors.
They're already.
They're on board.
It not well, that the because how does putting hall monitors in a newsroom help minority ownership?
Because you document that the uh uh community uh interests, the minorities are not being met.
You document that stories are relevant, say, to the uh African American community, and that's really what Mignon Kleibert is concerned about, uh not being met.
That that community is not being served well by the news media in town after town after town.
The network's already all in on this.
And and in documenting that, then you have laid the foundation from the federal government come in and change the rules and make preferential treatment to people that want to buy broadcast who are minorities.
No, no.
No, no.
They have they well, they may have done it, but they're not satisfied with the results because there isn't enough minority ownership of individual radio and TV stand.
Now talk about networks.
Individual you can you can tell me they've been at it for a long time, but I'm telling you they have lost their monopoly and they want to put their monopoly back together.
They can't go the fairness doctrine route.
That that area, that way is blocked.
So they're trying to get it in any other number of ways, minority ownership, hall monitors in the newsrooms or whatever.
But the the bottom line is that that what they are attempting to do here is to simply reclaim their media monopoly, eliminate the opposition.
And that's that's Obama's modus, and that's why the left is all in.
I mean, who was it that lost a monopoly?
The media.
So the media is of course going to be all in with the group that wants to give them their monopoly back.
So that's that's uh pretty much that.
Now back back to Carville.
Despite all of this going on, there they still have to win elections until such time as there aren't any.
They still have to win elections.
And they're gonna take a bloodbath this November in terms of party, but like we did we talked about yesterday.
It it's it's one thing to beat Democrats, but what kind of Republicans are going to then let's say the Republicans win the Senate.
Let's say they get the six seats that they need.
Well, you're going to have senators like Ted Cruz, or you're going to have a bunch of new John McCains.
If you have a bunch of new John McCain's majority Republican, you're not going to have that much of a difference of what you have now.
And the same thing in the House of Representatives.
That's why they are scared to death of Cruz, Ted Chris, why they were scared to death of Sarah Palin.
Both parties.
So last night, I know you thought I'd lost my place, but I never do that.
Last night on Hannity, James Carvel shows up to talk about this.
And they're, and this bite will give you an indication they're worried about Ted Cruz.
They will always tell us who they're who they fear.
They always will.
And so Hannity said, look, you know, I think Rush hit it about Cruz.
Cruz is fighting for the soul of the Republican Party.
You have to be James as a Democrat pretty happy when Republicans are afraid of their own shadow, unwilling to fight, and afraid people like you are going to go out there and blame him for kicking Granny over the cliff.
That fear seems to have overtaken them.
Russia write about this, and here comes Cruz, and he doesn't seem to be afraid.
Here's Carville.
A lot of people say, look, we went along with people.
We went with Bob Doe.
We went with John McCain.
We went with Mitt Romney.
We went down this road.
Some people on Bank Street love him, and you think he's inspirational.
Some people think that he scares some people.
And that's a choice.
Some people think I'm very good to make.
I just think this guy is skilled enough that he's going to do very well.
I think he's going to cause a lot of angst, and I think he's very good on his feet.
If I were a conservative, if I was Rush Lembaugh, I would like him because he makes the case that I want somebody to make to the American people.
Oh, ladies and gentlemen, Jewish here.
So Carville is saying that Ted Cruz makes the case that I would like made to the American people.
And they're worried about that.
That bite tells you they are and and Carville here is cautioning the Washington establishment that Ted Cruz is going to cause them a lot of angst in 2014 and maybe 2016.
And again, this also happens to throw me in the mix.
If Cruz is going to make the case that I would like made to the American people, if I'm the guy they hold responsible for busting up their media monopoly.
And now we're going to have hall monitors in the FCC.
Even though they've said they're going to pull back, they're not going to pull back on the.
They just maybe set it back at, you know, period of time, but they're not going to stop this.
Because they want their monopoly back.
And they've been trying for 25 years.
You know it as well as I do.
They've got they they've thrown everything at this program at others that they can't for 25 years, and they haven't been able to do it because they can't break the bond that I have with you.
So they've got to go a different route.
They got to make what happens here illegal.
They got to make what happens here out of proportion.
They have to make what happens here so out of balance that we got to rebalance it by maybe getting rid of the people that own the stations that carry this show, replacing with minorities who will then get rid of this show.
That's the way that's the thinking.
Since they haven't been able to break the bond that exists between you and me, well then go after the delivery system.
And that's what the minority ownership angle is all about.
Now does it make sense?
You throw Ted Cruz in there, and the fact that Ted Cruz is making the case I would make.
And folks, it's bunker time.
It is big bunker time.
We have all kinds of stuff coming up on the program today, ladies and gentlemen.
We have there's there are further developments on the National Football League and their efforts to legislate the N-word out of the spoken vocabulary on the field.
Yes, there's much more that's come down the pike on that.
The uh the guy that runs the Fritz Pollard Association wants to take the game back to when it was pure and good in the 1950s.
But we can't go back to the 50s anywhere else in our culture, but we want to take the NFL back there.
Wait till you hear it.
Maybe you've hit it.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, about the well, I don't have enough time to get into it because of the break coming up, but we've also have a detailed, this is the huge C I told you so, the downsizing of the U.S. military purposefully, proudly.
Chuck Hagel was proud when he announced that the days of American dominance militarily are now over.
And uh how about how about three people to make one kid?
The DNA of three people to make one kid so the kid is disease free.
Hi.
How are you?
Great to have you back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network and a Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Something else I'm gonna uh spend some time on today a little bit is expanding on my revised forecast.
A revised prediction.
I no longer believe the left wants to eliminate the NFL.
I think the left wants to conquer it.
Take it over, turn it into a giant propaganda promotional vehicle for liberalism, which is exactly what they're doing.
I'll expand.
I mentioned that yesterday.
I'll expand on it as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
A lot of people's.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm gonna give you the short version of it right now because my email is overflowing.
You said you were going to explain this Apple security thing.
Here it is in a nutshell, folks.
It it's dude, it's not time to panic.
There's so much media on this, and Apple, you have to in in the tech media and in the standard news media, think of Apple as the Republicans.
They're despised and they're hated.
The only difference is Apple is number one and very successful and knows exactly what they're doing.
The Republicans don't.
There's no comparison between Apple and Republicans in terms of uh achievement, accomplishment, but in terms of being hated and despised, they're very close.
The the what this security flaw is, and it primarily would affect you if you're on a public Wi-Fi network, like at an airport or Starbucks or any other kind of internet cafe.
If you are on your home network, uh make sure it's password protected, but even your your home network, nobody's gonna target it.
It can't get to it.
It's too small to be worrying about with hackers.
Same thing, maybe your corporate network, same thing.
Really vulnerable.
Uh well, I don't want to put it, even put it that way.
Your your biggest vulnerability is on a private network, and what's happened, there is a line of code that doesn't exist that enables, it's called a man in the middle attack.
And the way to visualize this is you're in Starbucks and you're on your Mac and you're using the web browser Safari, and there's a hacker in there, and he's able to follow everything you do.
That's the security flaw.
And therefore, if you go online to pay a bill, the hacker sees your data and everything you need to get online and connect to your bank.
Now there are no reports of this exploit having been used yet.
It's not easy to do.
The hacker would have to be extremely proficient, but the vulnerability is there.
That is the simplest way to explain it.
It enables hackers to eavesdrop on online interactions.
When you log on to another website, that website has a certificate of authenticity that is signed that talks to your browser, and it that's all encrypted.
And every website you log on to sends an encrypted confirmation back to your browser that it is the website your browser thinks you're talking to.
You're online to say Bank of America.
Bank of America, they have a certificate on their website, sign, sends back a confirmation to your browser that, yep, you indeed are.
talking to the Bank of America website.
The hacker is able to get in and emulate the website and tell your computer that he's Bank of America, or whatever other website that you're talking to.
But he has you have to be on a public network for this to even be applicable.
And even then, there are ways around it.
You can use the Chrome or Firefox browsers.
They are not vulnerable.
So this vulnerability existed on iPhones and iPads, and that was patched on Friday afternoon.
They are now secure.
The media is scratching its head over why Apple has not patched the Mac.
OS 10.
Now the side line interesting thing about this is, is this an actual bug?
Because it's just one line of code, or is this something done on purpose to allow the NSA in?
Because the NSA, if this it is, it is said that this bug existed with the introduction of, I think, OS 10.
The PRISM system, the NSA's Prism system that was revealed by Edward Snowden, they put out PowerPoint chart, Snowden's uh leaks, and indicated that the NSA claimed that they were able to tap into Apple in October of 2012.
This bug occurred September 2012.
And so some people are asking if this was actually a bug or actually a door left open for the NSA.
Apple isn't saying anything.
And Apple hasn't patched the Mac.
And people are wondering why, because it's just one line of code.
Now here's one of the reasons why they may not have patched it.
The delivery system for software updates comes from the Mac App Store.
That's where the software update is.
It is also vulnerable, in addition to the browser.
So they might have the fix, but they might not have a secure way of getting the fix to you.
There is also a new software upgrade coming for Mavericks, 10.9.2.
It's imminent.
Apple could be waiting to roll the patch into that update, and they might not want to do two updates separately.
All of this is speculation because Apple isn't talking.
But the bottom line is if you're on a Wi-Fi network at home and it's password protected, the odds of this man in the middle being able to get into your system is practically nil.
If your Wi-Fi system at home cannot be accessed outside your home or outside your property, you're really not that that's such a small network, and especially if it's password protected, a hacker's not even going to waste his time.
They're going to go after where as many users as they can get at one time, and that's why public networks.
Now, this is really folks, the bare essence of this.
You can find, if you want to go on to various blogs, all kinds of detailed technical explanations for what SSL means and TLS means.
Those are the two areas where the uh the bug is.
But it it all has to do with uh encrypted links between your browser and the websites you're visiting and the signed certificates of authenticity that those websites send back to tell your browser that, yep, It is indeed Bank America you're talking to.
A hacker can get in there and pretend, well, make your browser think, make you think that you're talking to Bank of America when you're not.
A fix is is gonna, I mean, it has to be imminent.
They've it's just one line of code.
The curiosity about whether this was done to enable the NSA, or there's a body of thought out that thinks the NSA is responsible for this.
And the NSA has let me try to explain one more element of this.
There are hackers are everywhere, and they're constantly testing operating systems for vulnerabilities and way in ways in.
The Mac traditionally has been the safest and most secure operating system going for viruses and bugs like this.
The NSA has automated attack programs.
They're constantly attacking any computer network they can find to find out if there is a bug.
This bug would show up in an automated attack.
The NSA tries to find a vulnerability in OS 10.9, they would find it right away.
They would see it.
They say, aha!
If they didn't see it, they might see the vulnerability, be able to write the hack themselves.
The NSA has some of the sharpest software engineer codebreakers the world has produced.
And so this is uh it's multi-layered in terms of unanswered questions.
It's really pretty simple to explain what's what's happened.
What's not known is just one line of code.
It's called go to fail.
Go to fail.
One word is in the line of code twice, and the second appearance indebted on its own line is the bug.
And it'd be easy to take it out.
Says no, it's not just that simple.
An iOS, the iPhone iPad was easy, but the Mac OS, much more complicated.
It may be more than just one line of code.
Nobody knows because Apple isn't isn't talking.
So does that help explain it?
Uh let me ask Dawn, because Dawn doesn't care anything, but just does it come on when you turn it on.
Did I explain it?
Do you now know what the most okay?
No, no, I don't mean to be insulting, but most people don't care about this stuff.
As long as it works, that's cool.
And if there's a potential for harassment, they want to know what it is.
As long as you know, I'm not not trying to be critical of any of these public networks, but I'm just telling you, if you're using Mac and Safari, you're gonna be using 10.9 for this, by the way.
Uh well.
Yes, go with that.
Maybe maybe parts of 10.8.
But the point is just stay away from public networks for a while.
Stay away from untrusted networks.
Well, what's untrusted?
If you don't know what it stay away from it.
Means if you can't in your own mind trust the network that you're on to be secure, don't use it.
If you have to, use use cellular data.
Get a hot spot and use ATT or Verizon cellular data on your on your Mac for a while, or use Ethernet.
It's connected by wire, if you have a chance to do that.
There are any number of ways around this.
Anyway, I gotta take a break here, folks.
Uh lots.
Oh, before I do Do you remember, speaking of what's going on in Arizona, and a couple of other states too, uh, where businesses have refused to serve uh admittedly homosexual customers.
Do you remember right here?
AP.
April 16, 2007, some Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing service to passengers with alcohol and dogs.
Do you remember?
Yeah, and did anybody make the cab drivers change?
No, they didn't.
No, they didn't.
So this is my point.
A Muslim cab driver is totally within his rights if you didn't want to, if you don't want to drive somebody who smells of adult beverage.
Or has a dog.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Don't go.
Now, let me let me add one thing to this Apple security bug.
Any time technical matters are discussed, the people hearing it routinely don't understand what they're hearing and get it wrong and start spreading rumors based on what they are sure they heard.
In this case, me.
Now I just want to be very clear about something.
In order for the hacker, the attacker, the man in the middle, to fool you into thinking that you are talking to Bank of America and you're not, you're talking to him, the hacker, he has to be on the same Wi-Fi network you're on.
So if you are on your home Wi-Fi network, the Wi-Fi network that your router uses in your house or in your apartment, the hacker has to be on that network.
Which means the hacker would practically have to be within your eyesight.
But a public network like Starbucks, when anybody can get into it, uh and it it knows no limits or or size.
That's a whole different matter.
That is a ripe target for a hacker.
Your home network or anything else similarly small is not going to be worth the effort.
But if if you're on a secure network, a hacker cannot pull any of this off.
Has to be on the same network you are on.
So I don't want anybody misunderstanding, thinking you go online and you talk to your bank and that any hacker anywhere in the world can get in and hack you.
That's not this this security flaw does not permit that.
It must be, if all of this must happen on the same network that you are on.
If you have a password protected network, and most people do, uh that's generally going to be enough to send some hacker somewhere else easier.
So it's and again, there are no reported hacks.
Now that doesn't mean there haven't been.
The hacker might not brag about it.
But there hasn't been any reports of identity theft or anything of the sort since this all was first learned on Friday.
And this hack, this this bug has been in existence for over a year.
Don't know who all's known about it.
Don't know if anybody has successfully exploited it.
It was just discussed and another question.
How was it discovered?
Was it discovered with a routine quality control check by Apple Software Engineers?
Was it discovered by somebody attempting to exploit it that was discovered?
No, there's a lot of unanswered questions here about it.
But yeah, for example, if if if uh it's it's not just your browser, it's uh uh mail program, Facebook.
A hacker could exploit this bug and get in the middle of any of those website links if, again, the hacker is on the same network you're on.
If you've got a little router at home or in your listen, home office or whatever, hacker has to be within range of your network, your Wi-Fi network, and the odds of that are very small.
So it's not, you're not wide open, and there are things you can do to button up your security until this is patched, which it will be, and it will be imminent.
I know some people thought that would happen over the weekend.
Some thought certainly yesterday.
That's why people are wondering, what's Apple waiting for?
Well, there is this new software upgrade, 10.9.2 is coming.
They may roll it into that.
Who knows?
But we'll all find out soon enough.
Now, just one more thing on this, and then we'll be done with it.
Uh Apple's getting a lot of grief for not making a big deal out of this.
They sent the the software patch for the iPhones and the iPads out on Friday, four o'clock in the afternoon, when nobody notices anything.
I actually think that it was wise for Apple not to make a big to-do about this, because all that would have done would have been waving a big white flag or red flag to the bull, to the hackers.
They've been trumpeting some vulnerability.
I think they played it just right.
Besides, the media's gonna do that anyway, which they are in the process of doing.
Which is why I wanted to bring a little bit of proportion and reason to it.
▲
Export Selection