All Episodes
Previous Next
March 20, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:42
March 20, 2015, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You are part of and captivated by the fastest three hours in media, the Rush Limbaugh program.
Happy to have you with us, my friends, moving on on Friday.
Let's keep it going.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny, South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And the telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Open Line Friday, where I take one of the greatest career risks in all of major big time media.
By allowing rank amateurs, so much control over the content of the program.
The rank amateurs would be you, the uh callers.
As opposed to me, a highly trained and instinctively excellent broadcast specialist.
But you are deeply appreciated and greatly loved, rank amateurs nevertheless, and I look forward to open line Friday to find out what else is on people's minds besides the stuff we talk about Monday through Thursday.
So again, 800-282-2882 and the email address Lrushbo at EIB net.com.
Now I know a number of you people think that I am in the tank for Apple.
And I'm not, but you think I am.
And uh it's the stick to the issues crowd routinely erupts in anger when I either talk about Apple or golf or what have you.
I'm not in a tank for Apple.
That people think that I think Apple can't do a thing wrong.
Which is not the case at all.
I just happen to love certain things they make.
I mean I literally actively love certain things they make.
They have enhanced my enjoyment of life incredibly.
But I'm not in a tank for them.
I don't think they're above criticism, and they do a lot of things that that outs outside of their area of expertise that makes absolutely no sense to me.
Some things they stand for and all that.
But that's what I was getting.
If you wouldn't, you know, I happen to know where my syllables are going.
If you would just be patient in there and let me get how about the new watch, how about the new watch?
See, I'm not an attack.
I couldn't care less about this watch right now.
Maybe in two years I will.
I couldn't care less about it.
Look, I don't understand the marketing on this watch.
What I think doesn't matter, I'm just sharing with you my thoughts on this.
They just came out with the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, both featuring larger screens than Apple has ever made.
And those phones are selling like never before.
They are experiencing, they're even going to have a record second.
They still cannot make enough of those phones to meet the demand.
That's never happened with any iPhone release prior.
They have, by by the second quarter, they've always caught up to demand.
They haven't caught, they can't make in this second, there this is their second fiscal quarter.
It's the calendar first quarter.
They can't make as many phones as they could sell.
They could probably sell 5860 million phones this quarter.
Last quarter, last or last year, the same quarter of the iPhone 5S.
They sold like 38 or 40 million, and they're on part of Cell 60, 5860 million.
Except they're only going to be able to make 52 million.
So my point is, they have these more popular than ever iPhones, the iPhone 6 and the 6 Plus, because the screens are bigger.
The display size is bigger, 4.7 inches versus 4 inches, and then the five and a half iPhone Big Boy.
Okay, so in the face of all that, one of the ways, it's not the only way, one of the ways Apple's marketing the watch is to acknowledge that it can sometimes be a hassle to pull that big iPhone out of your pocket or your purse.
And I don't think it's ever a hassle.
I love my I would take it everywhere.
There's certain places you're not allowed to take a phone.
I sneak it in anyway.
But the phone is not an annoyance to me, but one of the ways they're selling the watch is, yeah, you put our watch on your wrist, and you'll have to use your phone a lot less.
What the the iPhone is an annoyance now?
The iPhone is a problem of I just don't understand this marketing.
Other people fall for it and they think it's great.
Yeah, you know, I really don't like having to pull my phone out of the pocket every time I get a notification.
Screw that.
If I can see it on the watch, all the better.
Okay, fine.
If it floats your boat, mine and dandy.
When I'm driving, the phone is never in my bag, is the point.
Now, look, I can see they're gonna be use cases for the watch.
I already told you on the golf course where they're not permitted to have smok phones.
I can see the but the course is gonna do they're gonna ban the Apple Watch if they find out people are walking around looking at the watch the whole time.
I have not ordered a watch.
I'm not gonna order a you're gonna be able to make a phone call on the watch.
Well, you're gonna have to have your phone nearby, so it may obviate golf course usage anyway, because you're not allowed to have on certain courses the phone.
And if you can't have the phone with you at first, you're not gonna be able to use a lot of things the watch anyway.
That's none of this is the point.
I'm just sharing with you, I don't understand the marketing.
Point is the New York Times ran a story.
I'm not say I'm not sacrificing my role as a leader of what's good tech.
Just be I believe you're not gonna need me with a watch to tell you whether it works or not.
People are gonna figure that out on their own.
I've I am gonna be interested to see what kind of demand there is for it.
That's the one thing I'm not sure of.
Now, Apple products have a sort of built-in, they have so much loyalty in their fan base that people are gonna buy it just because it's made by Apple.
But beyond that, I I'm I am interested to see how popular it becomes.
But the but here, you talk about absurdity.
Earlier today, we had a story that the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in the world declared that the most discriminatory nation on earth against women is Israel.
Because of the way they treat Palestinian women.
I mean, it's just it's the same newspaper earlier this week had a serious story claiming that the new Apple Watch will give you cancer.
It is me it's journalistic malpractice.
The New York Times cancer article is what everybody's referring to it as.
An article in the New York Times by their tech writer, Nick Bolton.
It was originally titled, Could Wearable Computers Be As Harmful As Cigarettes?
The headline was changed to the health concerns in wearable tech.
Really, the first headline for the story was, Could Wearable Computers, i.e.
a watch, And by the way, Apple's not the first with a watch.
Samsung came out with one.
Pebble has one.
A whole bunch of Android people tried their hands at one.
Apple's not the first.
There was never a story about any Android watch giving you cancer.
Now all of a sudden, Apple's on the verge of releasing theirs.
Could wearable computers be as harmful as cigarettes?
You people that read the New York Times, do you realize how uninformed and ill-informed and misinformed you have become?
There are people in New York Times, it's the Bible to them.
It is unchallengeable.
And this is the this is the height of irresponsibility.
Could smart watches be raising your risk of cancer?
Decades of research that could speak to the question.
But this guy at the New York Times ignored all of it.
How many stories have there been about your cell phone causing cancer and then ah, sorry, never mind.
No evidence.
Forget all of that.
And now we've got a story that the Apple Watch is going To cause cancer is as harmful as cigarettes.
The strongest evidence that's cited in the New York Times story comes from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which announced in 2011 that it considered cell phones as possibly carcinogenic to humans, possibly.
And that's the research used to form the basis of this story.
The New York Times writer Nick Bilton mentions the International Agency for Research on Cancer announcement as the most definitive and arguably unbiased result in this area.
It's not even a scientific result.
It's just, you try to understand, okay, what's the motivation here?
What in the world does the New York Times want to destroy Apple for?
What did Apple do or not do to the New York Times to cause this?
See, this is not a news story.
It's not an article.
This is a flat-out hatchet job.
Now, as I'm saying, I got I I'm I'm not doing this because I'm all in for Apple.
As I've just told you, I right now I couldn't care less about the watch.
I am not, you know, what when a new iPhone's coming out, I'm obsessed.
I want to know everything.
I can't wait to get it, play with it, all that.
The watch, it hasn't hit me that way yet.
It may, by the time they get to the second or third rev of the thing.
Uh but I don't know, a one and a half or 1.6 inch screen after I've just been told I need to go out and buy this five and a half inch screen.
I don't know.
I just said the marketing is puzzling to me.
But there's no way that the thing can cause cancer.
And I just I had to I had to mention this.
Because so many people take what the New York Times, if the Times is willing to write drivel and bilge like this, I think everything they write has to be considered suspect.
And these are the people that biggest proponents of climate change and global warming and the dangers of the Tea Party and all of this other.
It's rot gut.
I don't know how a story like this passes the editors.
Where is the common sense?
Now, where were the stories before the Apple Watch was released?
It's not by any stretch of the imagination the first.
I mentioned earlier in the program we had sound bites of Benjamin Netanyahu and Megan Kelly last night, and I want to get to those now.
This was Netanyahu's first appearance on American media after his election victory and after the regime went after him as a racist for daring to turn out his base after the regime had made a big pitch to Arab Israelis to show up in droves to try to knock bin Laden Netanyahu off.
So Megan Kelly, first question in 2009, you said that you supported a peace deal that would recognize the Palestinian state, but the day before Tuesday's election, you completely reversed and said you didn't.
Why?
I didn't retract any of uh the things that I said.
The conditions for that today are not achievable for a simple reason.
Abu Mazan, the leader of the Palestinians, rejects consistently the acceptance of a Jewish state.
He's made a pact with the Palestinian terrorist organization, Hamas, and the conditions in the Middle East have changed to the point where any territory you withdraw from is immediately taken up by Iranian backed terrorists or by ISIS.
It's only a dozen miles away from us.
We would have vacated territory instead of getting a two-state solution, we could end up with a no-state solution.
That is a solution that would threaten the very survival of the state of Israel.
I said we have to change the terms.
So he's he's basically saying he didn't change anything.
He hadn't he didn't change his opinion.
He when he was he had never been in favor of a two-state solution as it has been discussed.
He was always talking about in the context of today, meaning the present.
And he's is he's right here in pointing out there is no desire for a two state solution by the Palestinians.
Abu Mason, Hamas, you name it, and everybody knows it.
Nobody on that side wants Israel to exist side by side with a Palestinian state.
When they talk two state solution, they're talking one state, and that's Palestine, and Israel is erased from the map.
That's what they want.
Well, who's ever going to negotiate that?
That is something the Palestinians are going to have to win militarily.
If they want that, if they want the map to no longer say Israel, if they want the borders of Israel to now say Palestine, they're going to have to mount a military campaign, they're going to have to defeat Israel, and as the terms of surrender, they're going to have to get the Jews that live in Israel to somehow move out and go somewhere else.
That is never going to happen in talks.
That is never going to happen diplomatically.
That is never going to happen via UN resolution.
It's never going to happen because Barack Hussein Obama wants it to happen.
The only way that can happen is if the Palestinians and their allies, hello, Iranians with the nuclear bomb, can figure out a way to militarily defeat Israel.
Now the thing is, nobody in that region has ever been able to do it yet.
Everybody that's attacked Israel has paid the price.
They have lost.
And Israel has claimed territory from the attackers.
And then after a while, it's always been determined it was unfair for Israel to take that land.
They said, well, wait a minute now, we were minding our own business and they attacked us.
And we took that land to make sure they couldn't use it to mount further attacks.
Who are you going to give it back?
Israel was told.
You've got to give it back, you got to be fair.
And so they've given back much of the land they conquered after having been attacked.
Nobody's beaten them.
And that's what's going to have to happen.
And this Netanyahu, who knows this?
There's no way anybody's going to come along in the negotiated settlement and convince anybody who's leading Israel to agree to erase the word from the map, get rid of the boundary lines, and have the population move somewhere else.
It's not going to happen.
It's in people's dreams if it is.
And that's all he's pointing out.
So Meghan Kelly then said, well, look, in running for re-election, you urged your supporters to get out and vote, warning that you were in danger, your party was in danger because, quote, the Arabs are voting in droves.
Some call that racist, Prime Minister.
The White House came out and said that you were divisive.
You tried to marginalize Arab Israelis.
Do you regret those comments?
That's just not true because the tape.
I just saw the clock.
We'll come back with the answer after our obscene prophet.
Okay, here's Netanyahu's answer.
Megan Kelly's question.
Okay, look, some people said it was racist when you urged your base to come out and vote because the Arab Israeli turnout was so high.
White House came out and said that you were divisive, and you tried to marginalize Arab Israelis.
Do you regret those comments, Prime Minister Netanyahu?
That's just not true because what I've said was should be taken in the larger context.
I wasn't trying to suppress a vote.
I was trying to get out my vote against those who were targeting foreign money that was coming in to target a specific group to bring down Biden money?
The answer is yes.
I wasn't talking about that.
I called on Arab supporters of Likud.
I said, look, there's going to be this effort, foreign-funded effort, to get the votes for that party, and I want you to be ready for that and get out the vote when that happens.
That's what I was referring to.
And you'd be surprised.
We got a lot of Arab votes.
Not I'd like to have more.
But I consider myself as the prime minister of all Israelis, those who voted for me and those who didn't vote for me.
Arabs, Jews.
Let me let me tell you what he's talking about here.
He's talking about Obama.
He's talking about former American money and an Obama campaign team was in there to gin up turnout against Netanyahu.
All he did was respond to it by trying to gin up his own turnout, his own base, which includes some Arab votes.
And for this he was called racist.
And for this he was accused of marginalizing the Israeli Arab vote.
When in fact, if anybody was trying to marginalize anybody, it's Barack Obama trying to marginalize Bibi.
The American president was trying to secure the defeat of the Israeli Prime Minister.
And he failed.
He failed to do it because finally somebody stood up to Obama and his tactics, something we're not used to in this country, but Netanyahu does it repeatedly.
Whenever he's invited to speech to Congress, he does it and he hammers Obama and takes it to him.
When Obama's in a campaign team and American money to defeat him, Netanyahu stood up and said, Here's a dose of your own medicine.
He beats Obama every time he takes him on.
So of course they're going to call him a racist.
Obama's just not used to people actually standing up to him.
That's all that happened here.
Welcome back, Rush Limboss, serving humanity.
Open line Friday.
Great to have you here.
Uh okay, Timber, I'm gonna take this call, and then we're gonna go to Soundbites 18, 19, and 20.
Stand by.
Here is Steve in Westchester in New York.
Great to have you, sir.
How are you?
I'm doing good, Maharashi.
Thank you for taking this call from this rank amateur.
Um lovable, lovable rank amateur, yes.
Um my comment is with this uh intro that we found out with uh Hillary a couple days ago about her emails maybe uh uh her server being hacked by other nations.
And uh I was wondering if they if uh along the course when they did that, they also got some of her private emails that she may be uh denying from us.
So I'm wondering if someone should offer a reward for getting some of those emails back.
You really want to see them, don't you?
You would love to see Hillary's emails, and somebody, not you, of course, but somebody should offer a reward for them.
Yes.
Um, you know, eat five or ten of them.
Don't have to get all of them.
Gist of what's going on from a few of them.
Well, I tell you, it is it is an interesting subject, and the area of interest I've been able to ascertain for most people is all of these solicitations for donations to the foundation, the Clinton Hillary, the Bill Hillary Chelsea Foundation, while she's Secretary of State, and who gave money and what they expect for it.
Um that's gonna be the focus of a lot of attention.
I'm I'm beginning to sense that this is all starting to take its toll on Mrs. Clinton and her prospects within the Democrat Party.
I don't think she's ever been the unanimous choice of all the Democrats.
Now we know that she wasn't in 2008, even though that's what they tried to make us think that she uh that she was.
But I mean, if you if what'll happen is if if if you succeed in getting somebody to offer a reward to anybody that's hacked Hillary's emails so that you can see what's in them, Hillary will just counter that by promising somebody something if they'll don't even donate even more money to keep them private and hidden.
It'll start a bidding war with the Clintons on the receiving end of it.
But since you brought up the subject of Mrs. Clinton, yesterday in Atlantic City, New Jersey, at the Tri-State Camp Conference.
This was Mrs. Clinton's last paid speech before theoretically, before she announces her candidacy.
And one of the reasons she put off her announcement until now is because her schedule was filled with these paid speeches.
And yesterday was her, or maybe it was uh yeah, yesterday, last paid speech was at the tri-state camp conference.
What what what what is the tri-state camp conference?
Does anybody know what that is?
Well, it's a special interest group that does camps for kids and and others, summer camps, recreation camps, you name it.
She went as the featured speaker, and here are a couple of excerpts from her remarkable speech to the 2015 Tri-State Camp Conference.
As I have gotten older, I have decided we really need camps for adults.
And we need the kind of camps that you all run.
We have a huge fun deficit in America.
And we need to figure out how to fill that fund deficit, certainly for our kids, but also for the rest of us.
Seriously?
How many times have I asked that today?
Are you kidding me?
So she's speaking to some camp conference and decides to pander to them by tell them what we need is a camp for adults, that we've got a fun deficit in America.
How can that be?
Well, I thought Obama made everybody feeling so good.
The economy is roaring back.
Everybody's got newfound confidence and vim and vigor out there.
What do you mean there's a fun deficit?
You got to be very careful when the Clintons start talking about camps for adults.
You need to be thinking re-education camps.
You need to be thinking of the kind of things that Chicoms do to dissidents.
Adult camps.
No doubt pandering to this bunch at the tri-state camp conference.
Then she described how her camp would bring people of different political views together.
Which obviously would really ramp up the fun deficit?
I mean, does she bring Republicans and Democrats into an adult camp for the purposes of filling the fun vacuum?
Well uh what could we learn from a Bill Clinton camp?
The Bill Clinton camp just opened the library and massage parlor in Arkansas, and you've got the Clinton camp.
Bill Clinton camp.
We're much less racist, sexist, homophobic, all of those things.
But we sure don't want to spend time with anybody who we disagree with politically.
I mean, that is just too stressful.
So, you know, maybe mix it up a little bit.
You know, you can have the red cabin, the blue cabin, have to come together and actually listen to each other.
Wouldn't that be a novel idea?
This is the presumptive Democrat nominee.
This we can have the blue camp and we have the red camp cabin, cabin.
You know, and the uh there these camps already exist.
And they're very elitist, like the Bohemians have one.
The Bohemian Grove, they've got their various camps, and I guarantee them to you, none of those people are going to go to a Clinton camp unless they're dragged there in chains.
But this is your presumptive Democrat nominee pandering to some group that does camps as their business.
Camille Palli, noted art critic, academic, uh well-known commentator on the human condition, was interviewed on Reason TV, a video blog, the editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie asking the questions.
And he asked her point blank, what is it about Hillary Clinton that bothers you, Miss Poglia?
She's a fraud.
Hillary is a mess, okay?
And we're going to reward with the presidency a woman who has enabled the depredations and the exploitation of women, okay, by that corn pone husband first.
The way feminists have made this blind, okay, to Hillary's record of trashing that we're going to try to destroy Monica Lewinsky.
I mean, it's a scandal.
Anyone who believes in sexual harassment guidelines, okay, should have seen that the disparity of power between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was one of the most grotesque ever in the history of sex crime.
He's a sex criminal.
We're going to put that guy back in the White House.
Hillary has written on his coattails.
This is not a woman who has her own career, made her own career.
The woman who failed the bar exam in Washington.
And there you have one of the many reasons why we so admire Camille Pogier.
She's a liberal.
She's uh she's a classic, classicist liberal in the classic liberal sense of the of the word, but she's right on the money.
This isn't a woman who has her own career, made her own career.
It's exactly what I've always said.
She decided to hitch her wagon to this guy when they were both at Yale and follow him everywhere and wherever he ended up take over.
Be it in Arkansas, be it at the White House, be it wherever.
And the reason that Mrs. Clinton has this sense of um entitlement, if you will, for the Democrat Party is that she knowingly sacrificed her own life in order for Bill Clinton to have his career.
And all of this talk of Hillary for president is literally and really nothing more than payback for that.
Because if she had not stood by him during all of his scandals, he wouldn't have remained in the White House.
He wouldn't now be the biggest star in the Democrat Party, and they wouldn't have had all those victories over conservatives and Republicans in the 90s.
But she hung in there, she gave up everything, and she moved to Arkansas.
I still maintain that when you're talking about liberal elites in the New York, Washington, Boston corridor.
The fact that Hillary Clinton, who could have been she's the smartest woman in the world even back then, and she could have named her price at any law firm and she could have done anything, and instead she moved to Arkansas.
Folks, you don't know what the people in the New York, Washington, Boston corridor think of Arkansas.
That's one of the biggest human sacrifices they can imagine any woman ever to have made to actually go to Arkansas.
She's do whatever she can get for that alone.
She went there and then she did everything she could in the face of public disrespect with all of her husband's finagling and shenanigans and so forth.
But Camille Paglia's right.
She uh she has no career of her own.
And you just don't find too many people in academia, which is where Camille Paglia is, speaking of the Clintons in that way, anyway, shape, manner, form, anywhere.
Now, in all candor, and I wasn't wrong about why Mrs. Clinton went to Arkansas, but there's another reason in Camille Paglia pointed out, do you hear her say that Hillary couldn't even pass the bar exam in Washington.
And it was after that that she that's the main reason she married Clinton and moved to Arkansas.
Because the world was her oyster.
You don't know this.
But back back in those days, Mrs. Clinton had her own reputations at Wellesley.
She'd been in a Watergate committee before they threw her off because she wanted to deny Nixon a lawyer.
Uh radical back then.
Uh she'd written her her doctoral thesis or some thesis, term paper, whatever it was, on Saul Olinski.
So she was well known, and she couldn't pass the D.C. Bar exam.
And that was, oh, that shocked everybody.
Smartest woman in the world, even back then.
So plan B, Mary the Hayseed, marry the cornpone, as Camille Paglia said, and swallow the bitter pill of moving to where they shot some of deliverance.
And that was the price.
And so she did that.
She stayed loyal in the presidency and giving being given Obamacare, Hillary care during Clinton's term.
That was all payback for that kind of loyalty.
Here's Bill in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
Great to have you with us, the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello, Ricense.
Thanks for being at that great EIB microphone and providing the clarity and uh expertise that you give us in these matters that are so important.
Thank you, sir.
Really appreciate that.
Uh I do not believe for one minute that the events during the last two months surrounding the Prime Minister of Israel has had anything to do with The administration resetting their policy in the Middle East.
I believe that he has constantly been arranging these things, and that uh clearly that this is uh done in the face of the Israeli government, and they're the duly elected prime minister.
Now, the the uh Sur Line, the main Sewer Line news media has come together with one voice with the administration in trying to say that now it's BB's fault for this uh reset of uh of this uh policy.
And I don't believe it for a minute.
What what reset of what policy are you?
Well, he's saying that now they have to reset re think the Middle East policy because of what Benjamin Netanyahu has.
Okay, you're saying that that it's a that it's a myth that they have to change their attitude toward the Palestinian states to state because of Netanyahu's victory.
Absolutely.
You're saying that they've had designs on on implementing their Middle East policy anti-Israel for much longer than Netanyahu's recent campaign.
Yeah, and and the news media has chronicled every time that that Obama has come uh uh flew in the face of the Israelis and their duly elected prime minister.
They they he's mocked them, he's snubbed them, and he's provoked them.
And there's no way that this thing is up, oh, just because of the last couple of months.
Well, I think that's true.
You're basically saying that Obama's headed in for Israel from the get-go, essentially just uses this most recent election as an excuse to double down on it or some such thing.
Yeah.
I don't think there's any doubt about that.
I now a lot of people don't want to believe that.
There's a lot of what Obama's doing that people don't want to believe.
They don't want to believe that they've elected somebody like this.
Obama's getting away with a lot because people don't want to consider what could actually be truthful explanations for all of this that he's doing.
They can't really comprehend that nah that's not the guy voted.
No, no, no, no.
That's that's that's that's not what's happening here.
So now then they're left in in sort of limbo trying to come up with an explanation for whatever Obama's doing, given his speech to the Iranian people or vetoing the Keystone Pipeline, or what everything he's doing that is proving harmful to this country and its interests.
Even the people who voted for him, a lot of it.
It can't be that he's doing this on purpose.
They because they just can't.
They hold the presidency in such reverence that they can't believe the whole country was so fooled by this.
So there's got to be some other explanation that we just don't yet understand.
And yet, like you say, it's right out in front of our face.
The reality is right there.
All it takes is the courage to believe it, which a lot of people do not seem to want to muster.
Anyway, uh Bill, I appreciate the call.
Thank you very much, and for your kind words.
Uh big uh it's not enough time for another call.
Take a break, folks, but we'll be back and wrap it up after this.
Hey, we have time squeeze this in.
Marco Rubio, here's his reaction to Obama's speech to the people and mothers of Iran.
This is a historic and tragic mistake.
Israel is not a Republican or Democratic issue.
If this was a Republican president doing these things, I would give the exact same speech.
In fact, I would be even angrier.
This is outrageous, it is irresponsible, it is dangerous, and it betrays the commitment this nation has made to the right of a Jewish state to exist in peace.
Yesterday afternoon on the Florida Senate, Marco Rubio, Republican Senator from Florida.
▲
Export Selection