All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:25
December 7, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
You try it.
Rushlin Barhera, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, a network named after the performance capabilities of a host, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have every day.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
And if you want to send an email, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Have you seen, by the way, oh, oh, oh, oh.
I want to expand on this last caller.
I was, it was just the way we do things here.
Can you people watching on the Ditto Cam see this?
Can you see the boom here?
See this cute, lovely Christmas decoration?
It totally obscures the monitor where the transcription of callers is.
So when I want to read what a caller is saying, if I can't hear them, I have to do this.
And when I do that, it means I can't talk on the microphone.
Or I have to lean over like this to see it.
So I was trying to follow the last caller.
We only had one minute, and I neglected to tell him that, but he was doing okay on that front.
He got in there, he got it, and got out.
But he said something at the beginning that rendered everything else confusing to me.
He said, you missed the point on something.
So I kept waiting for him to say what I got wrong, and he never did.
So I said, I got to read what you said when you finished because I haven't had a chance to read it.
And his point was actually somewhat good.
He says that the reason Obama won't call it Islamic extremism is because of the way this guy, Said Farouk Climate Change, was portrayed.
And it's true.
How was this guy portrayed?
He was as red-blooded American as you or me.
Why, he came here and he got a job and he was working at a job that he loved and he just bought his first house and he just got married and he just had a baby and he was living the American dream.
And look what happened.
He shot up the place he worked.
He went jihad on everybody.
And the caller's point was, Obama doesn't want anybody thinking this can happen because if any normal red-blooded American Muslim can be so easily converted to jihad, we've got big problems.
And by itself, it's a great point.
And it's a great illustration, by the way, of the fact that the guy never was living the American dream.
That's what was wrong about this.
That was just PR.
That was just buzz in the aftermath of the event.
It didn't take long before this guy's dad stupidly spoke up and started telling us the truth.
Oh, yeah, he hated Jews.
He didn't like Israel.
He was religious.
Did you hear what the dad told him?
The dad said, get this.
Saeed Farouk Climate Change Sr. said to his son, be patient.
In two years, there will not be an Israel.
Nobody's talking about that.
But Saeed Farooq Climate Change Sr., these are his words.
This is not thirdhand what somebody said he said.
He's talking to the media.
And he told his son, you're getting too radicalized here.
You need to just dial this back because there isn't going to be an Israel in two years.
He spoke, his son spoke often of his hatred for Jews and his hatred for Israel and all this.
The point was, I don't think the guy ever was living the American dream.
And if he was, then the stories about how his wife radicalized him have to be somewhat true.
I think he arrived radicalizing.
They both did, but doesn't matter.
It doesn't change what they did.
It's just that in the immediate aftermath, look at the lengths to which the media and everybody went to try to portray these as just two normal American dream pursuers who just happened to just take a step or two in the wrong direction.
It's such a sad thing.
And it was meant to downplay who they really are, which is starting to say, I'm convinced that the reason care went out there before a reason had even been given was because they knew they were in damage control before the FBI even gave them a reason to be in damage control.
So I don't think there's any mistake.
I don't think there's any doubt that this pair arrived here radicalized.
And it wasn't that the American dream wasn't enough for them.
It was just that's a convenient story.
However, the observation that if you're going to build a story like this, i.e.
Husband and wife moving here from a war-torn region of the Middle East or Pakistan or wherever coming here and getting a job and making a lot of money and having a nice house, who cares to get pipe bombs in it.
We'll deal with that later.
And having a baby and all this other wonderful American dream stuff and then they snap could convey that it could happen to any of them.
And it would be something that Obama would not want thought of, mentioned, considered.
But I don't think that's why Obama doesn't want to call it radical Islam.
I've already been through that.
They just don't believe Islam is radical, or there's no part of it that is.
It's absurd.
Now, have you heard what Mrs. Clinton has said?
Hillary Clinton has begged, stop and think of this now.
Here is the presumed Democrat frontrunner.
She called on Silicon Valley, high-tech companies in Silicon Valley, to work at disrupting ISIS.
She said this in a speech yesterday.
Oh, and by the way, just to reiterate something: ISIS versus ISIL, ISIL, the Levant, includes Israel, includes much of the Eastern Mediterranean shoreline.
It is meant, by using the term ISIL, it is meant to delegitimize Israel.
It is meant to include Israel in the Levant, which would make it Palestine.
I'm telling you, there's a reason Obama does this, and his audience is not us.
He's calling it ISIL for a foreign audience, not us.
And he's the only one doing it.
Everybody calls it ISIS.
He calls it ISIL.
The media tries to tell you there's really no difference.
It's the same, but there's a huge difference.
ISIS, Islamic State, Iraq, and Syria, that's two countries: ISIL, Islamic State, and Iraq and the Levant, which is the whole region.
But more importantly, it includes Israel in the Levant, and Israel ought not be there.
They don't have a right to be there.
Levant is us.
It's not them.
That's Palestine, is what Levant means.
Don't doubt me.
Anyway, so here is Mrs. Clinton hoping to achieve the job of most powerful leader in the world, asking Silicon Valley high-tech companies to disrupt ISIS.
Does anybody know what she really means?
Do you know what she's actually advocating here?
Well, ever since Edward Snowden, pressure has been brought to bear on the NSA to eliminate the scooping up of all this telephone metadata.
And there have been law enforcement is leaning on the government to lean on Apple to relax all of their encryption.
Apple will not.
Apple has been for a number of years now and is only increasing this, by the way, as a sales weapon, as ammo in their sales.
They are touting the degree of user privacy they build into their devices.
And they routinely explain it in support documents on their website if you care to find out.
For example, the Apple messaging system called iMessage, it's the blue bubbles on your iPhone.
Those are encrypted, user and sender.
The only people who can read those messages are you and the person you send them to.
You don't see all the encryption taking place, but it's deep.
And if you happen to be a criminal and law enforcement gets hold of your phone, they can't decrypt your iMessages.
They have asked Apple to create a back door that would allow law enforcement and to decrypt those things so that they could find out if criminal activity has been discussed, has been conducted or whatever.
And it's not just the messaging app.
The entire Apple iOS system is highly secure.
And Apple is refusing to participate because they have been so public in sales literature and sales promotion in the security of their devices and their operating system.
And I don't think I've told you this, but way back in the 90s, when Jim Calstrom was running a New York office, the FBI, he called and asked for my support in the premise that law enforcement needs to be able to read emails.
Back then, that's all it was.
There was no instant messaging.
There wasn't, you know, AOM hadn't come along in a while.
AIMAM, instant messaging was still a ways off.
Email was all there was.
And it was new, and it was frightening the FBI.
There was no way to tap it, like they could tap phone calls.
And the FBI was even back in the 90s, was making an effort for legislation to be able to tap email traffic and so forth.
And he called me and asked me if I could get his support on the air for something like that.
And nothing ever really came of it, as far as I know.
But the point is, it's only gotten more intense now.
There's an actual story, an actual event of a crime taking place, and the PERP has an iPhone, and nobody will decrypt it for law enforcement.
Apple won't, and the government won't force them to, and law enforcement's at their wit's end over it.
So this is Hillary is actually putting, trying to put pressure on Silicon Valley companies here to do less encryption to enable the government to more easily spy on you, is what she's advocating.
That's what Hillary Clinton's plea for Silicon Valley to disrupt ISIS basically means, would you free up the encryption or at least give us the keys so that we can spy and read the messages of people we think are engaging in criminal activity.
And whoever else, yes, whoever else we want to.
And this is not a commercial for Apple.
Don't misunderstand.
This is the law enforcement, NSA.
Do you know NSA as of four days ago is no longer able to collect metadata?
In fact, here's the, you know what metadata is?
Metadata is everything but the content of the call.
The metadata is your number, the number that you called or the number that called you, and in some cases, the geographical location and the length of the call.
That's it.
That's what the NSA was swooping up left and right.
By itself, it's worthless.
And it's not usable in a predictive way.
The value of metadata was to be able to put together the chain of events after an event had happened.
But since Snowden came along, all the pressure has been brought to bear, and the NSA, supposedly, as of four days ago, is no longer collecting metadata because they can't.
It's actually longer than four days ago.
The crux of the story is that the NSA is not permitted now to go get the metadata of the phone activity of the San Bernardino II.
They're not legally empowered to get it from whoever their cell carriers were.
Pfizer, oh, the Pfizer court, the Pfizer.
No, apparently not.
Such is the story.
Apparently, they're frozen.
They can't go get this data because it's now illegal to have it since it wasn't renewed by Congress.
Now, a lot of people don't believe it was just the metadata.
I have friends who think, you're just crazy rush.
They're listening in.
They're listening on and everybody.
I got friends who turn location services off on their phones thinking, I tell all my friends, do you realize the government doesn't even know you exist?
They couldn't care less what you're doing.
Turn on your location.
Don't you care in the past where your pictures were taken?
I know where they were taken.
I don't need my phone to tell me.
You know, I try to sell them on the virtues of location services, of what all the phone can do for you.
I don't care.
I don't care.
I don't want to know where I'm doing.
I don't know where I am, where I'm going, or where I've been.
Do you really think they care?
Well, yeah, why?
Because I'm important.
I'm an American citizen.
It's spying on everybody.
I don't care.
And I said, besides, they know anyway.
You don't.
Your phone's got a GPS chip in it.
They know where you are, whether you've got your location service turned on or not.
So you may as well enjoy it.
No, I do not want them.
So everybody thinks they're being spied on.
Everybody thinks the government cares deeply about who they're having sex with, what they're eating, how many people they're having sex with, where they're having sex with, how many.
They're just obsessed with it, and they don't want anybody to know what's going on.
So Snowden came along and basically confirmed that in people's minds.
So Apple is capitalizing on this.
We will protect your data.
Nobody is going to be allowed in.
Apple is saying we don't even have the ability to decrypt iMessage traffic between our users.
We do not.
We did not build in the ability for us to follow it.
That's what they maintain.
There is no way to decrypt that traffic.
So Hillary is imploring them to do it.
Hillary is imploring them to change.
And Obama and any of the others in government asking for Silicon Valley to help.
I mentioned MSNBC earlier.
One other thing, I'm going to get back to that.
The next half hour is going to be the Republican presidential campaigns and stuff happening.
Ted Cruz is surging in Iowa, and the Republicans and the media are getting even crazier about Trump.
All that coming up.
MSNBC, you know, you wonder when you listen to your average liberal, how in the world can they believe the literally insane things they believe?
I give you Melissa Harris Perry, who on MSNBC over the weekend said the San Bernardino terrorists are nowhere near as bad as the cops in this country.
Islamic terrorists can't hold a candle to the police in the United States.
She did say it, but worse, she believes it.
And everybody watching that, half the New York Times readership believes it.
Do not doubt me on this.
Right-wing terrorists.
She said Islamic terrorists are nowhere near as bad as the police or right-wing terrorists.
I got to take a break.
We're way long.
Be back after.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Here's John in Dresden, Tennessee.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Send my automatic tittle dress.
Oh, thank you, sir.
I appreciate that.
I, Army veteran, I just wanted to mention Pearl Harbor Day today.
Okay, give me mentioning all the men and women that served.
My question was: I heard the moment poll came out this morning having cruise up over Trump by about four or five points.
I was wondering if you thought all the talking down of Trump done by the establishment and the media had finally taken hold.
Well, it's hard to say because Trump hasn't been leading in Iowa for a while.
You know, Carson vaulted ahead of him in Iowa.
And it's so, therefore, it may not be correct, and a lot of people hope that that's the case.
Here is the data on that, by the way.
The headline from Bloomberg is: Cruz surges to lead in Iowa over Trump and Rubio.
This is a Monmouth University poll.
Cruz takes a top spot in the Monmouth University poll of likely Iowa Republican cauckey goers released today.
It's his first lead in the early state poll of this cycle.
Cruz is at 24% among likely caucus goers.
Trump is at 19%.
Rubio 17%.
Ben Carson is at 13%.
Ben Carson used to lead this poll at 24%.
Cruz has jumped up 14 points since October.
Rubio is up seven.
Ben Carson down 19.
And Trump is flat.
So if there's been any slipping here, it is Carson, 19 points, and whatever you would want to chalk that up to.
Evangelical voters, who make up about half of the Hawkeye cauckey electorate, back Ted Cruz over Trump.
In October, Carson held that advantage.
Men prefer Cruz and Trump over Rubio and Carson, according to the poll.
Women support Rubio and Cruz over Carson and Trump.
Others receiving support, Jeb Bush at 6%.
Rand Paul, 4%.
Carly Fiorina and John Kasich, whose father's a mailman, at 3%.
The poll was conducted by telephone December 3rd through the 6th, which was yesterday.
425 Iowa voters likely to attend Hawkeye cauckey.
Now this is really interesting.
This Ted Cruz surge is really interesting because you would have to say now that Ted Cruz is the favorite in Iowa.
And I just want, let's go forward here to February 1st.
Let's pretend that this is January 31st and the Hawkeye Caucasia tomorrow.
And then let's pretend that Cruz wins the Hawkeye Caucase.
Can you imagine, I mean, that's going to be real votes.
It's not going to be a poll.
Now, we're hypothesizing here, yes.
Can you imagine the way that is going to totally change the media narrative?
Ted Cruz, of all these Republicans winning Iowa, I'm telling you there are going to be heart attacks and slit wrists in the Republican establishment and in the media.
It would be bad enough if Trump wins, but Cruz, in their minds, is just as bad, if not worse, because Cruz is a conservative.
Trump, in their minds, is just a pretender fraud maniac.
They can deal with that, but Cruz is a conservative, and that they literally fear like Dracula fears the cross.
If he comes, if Cruz wins Iowa, the momentum that he's going to come out of there with is going to be overwhelming, and he's going to be piling up delegates.
And, you know, Iowa is an interesting thing.
It can kill you or make you.
It killed Howard Dean.
It destroyed his camp.
He was presumed to win the thing and didn't.
And that was the end of Howard Dean, whenever that was.
But by the same token, if you're unexpected to win and you do win in Iowa, it can totally change the way things go after that.
It's kind of fascinating to imagine that and then look at all of the ramifications and things that could happen.
Now, by the same talk, if you lose Iowa, it doesn't mean you're finished.
If you lose Iowa and New Hampshire, it doesn't mean you're finished.
But if you win one of the two, you are presumed to be sitting in a catbird seat.
I think the real key, it's hard to say the real key, one of the fascinating indicators is going to be South Carolina before the SEC primary.
Make no mistake about South Carolina.
Then the SEC primary hits after that.
And depending on where you read, I mean, you can, I've read analyses here of Cruz winning Iowa and then going on to win New Hampshire and just totally upsetting every apple cart that the establishment has planned here.
And of course, Trump winning both or one would also, here's the thing about Trump.
This Iowa poll, the thing you have to understand about Trump is he is not fading.
This poll launches Cruz in Iowa, but Trump hasn't led in Iowa for a while.
Nationwide, nationwide polls, whatever their value, Trump is not fading.
The establishment is convinced that there's nothing they can do to stop him.
But here's their problem now.
This is the establishment's biggest fear has come to pass.
If they take out Trump, who are they left with?
Cruz, no, no, no.
Rubio's their hope.
They're left with Cruz.
Cruz is positioned to profit if something happens to Trump.
And I'm telling you, they hate Cruz as much, if not more, because he's conservative.
So now the establishment, they're really wringing their hands.
Oh, my, do we really want to get rid of Trump?
Because if we pull that off, that means we've got to deal with Cruz.
Oh, no.
If they somehow, if the establishment was able, don't think they'll be able to, if they were able to do something to really damage Trump, it's only going to redound positively to Cruz.
In their minds, they are screwed no matter what.
So this takes me to the vaunted Mike Murphy.
Mike Murphy is running the Jeb Bush super PAC, which is called Right to Rise.
And Mike Murphy announced a strategy the other day that has people quaking in their boots.
The Jeb Bush Super PAC, which he legally can have nothing to do with, has $75 million in the bank.
And Mike Murphy alluded to a possible strategy, and that is carpet bomb everybody but Trump.
Take out everybody but Trump, leaving it a Trump-Jeb race.
Mike Murphy is floating the rumor that he will spend the bulk of that $75 million to take out Rubio, Cruz, Carson, and Christie, but not touch Trump.
Not a dime will be spent on an anti-Trump ad.
It'll all be spent taking out Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Crispy Fiorina, whoever.
And the theory is to destroy everybody but Trump and make it a two-person race of Trump and Bush because they think that's the only way primary voters will ultimately choose Bush is if there's nobody left.
Now, Mr. Snerdley, you're a student of politics.
Do you find anything wrong with that strategy?
Okay, it would, well, it would be, Snerdley says, yeah, it would backfire and redound even more harshly on it.
How would it backfire?
What do you mean it would backfire?
Okay.
All right.
Well, this is just, I have to say, you're pretty up to snuff here.
I have to give you a gold star on this.
If this were to actually happen, I mean, the Republicans look at Cruz and Christie and Carson and some of these, they're good people.
Why destroy them?
If Bush or his super PAC is the agent of destroy with negative ads, when I talk about carpet bombing, I'm talking about Oppo research negative ads, filthy, dirty stuff about the, it would destroy them.
It would destroy them forever.
I mean, why do that?
What is the point in that?
Well, the point in doing that is to clear the decks so that you've got to get two people left, Trump and Bush.
And the theory then is that Republican primary voters, no way, are going to choose Trump.
But after something like this, because whether Bush can have any personal contact with his PAC or not doesn't matter.
The people, voters, would know that it's the Bush super PAC doing this.
But what is it that tells Murphy that Trump could beat Bush, that Bush could beat Trump right now?
That's wishful thinking.
I think most of the base looks at this race now as Trump versus the establishment anyway.
So this would be the establishment taking itself out with the exception of one guy, Jeb.
Anyway, so that's being rumored.
And Murphy has not totally disavowed it.
Most of the smart money says it never happened, but he's just floating it as a conversation starter.
Anyway, up against it on time again, have to take a brief time out.
We'll be right back after this.
Howard in Mobile, Alabama.
It's great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hello.
Rush, I feel like we are facing the most crucial election of our times.
And if a Republican is not elected, we may never recover.
And my concern is that Donald Trump is not electable in a general election.
And I'm afraid you are giving him some legitimacy.
And the reason I say he can't be elected is because he espouses strong, harsh comments and solutions, which I generally agree with.
But those precious independents are not going to vote for somebody who expresses himself the way he does and has the opinions he has.
You may have a point, but I've looked at the cross-section of Trump supporters right now, and there are a lot of independents who support him.
But I have, and by the way, I'm not supporting Trump or trying to kill Trump.
I'm not, I haven't endorsed anybody.
I haven't issued a preference.
I have just, I have, there's a name I mention more than any others when talking about that.
It happens to be Ted Cruz, but I'll tell you, I love Rubio too, but I'll tell you something else.
Just a wild guess out here, Howard.
I'm already seeing Trump moderate his tone a little bit.
He's already starting to assume what he's even calling a general election posture.
And I wouldn't be surprised if he does end up winning a nomination that you see his rhetoric change somewhat, which might disappoint some of those who supported him early.
And they will then be left to trust that he's still the kick-ass guy that he's always been.
I don't have any insight, don't know.
I'm just guessing.
At the same time, I'm out of time, and I really want to address this business that Trump doesn't have a chance in the general, but I've got to go.
Howard, thanks for calling and being the starting point on this.
Remind me of this tomorrow.
Well, we're off to a rousing start for the busy broadcast week.
Remind me about this Trump and the general.
There's an assumption being that Trump will get killed by any Democrat out there.
And I want to know why people think that.
▲
Export Selection