So you guys, none of you saw the undercard debate, the pre-gay meal.
Jim Gilmore.
But that's not, there was something really strange that happened in that one.
I'm still not quite understanding it, but live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
If none of you saw it, never mind.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush.
Carly Fiorina just launched into Martha McCallum, and I didn't see it.
I got an email.
Whoa, Carly Fiorina just jumped all over Martha McCallum.
Okay, so I grabbed my remote and I zapped back.
I said, rewind two minutes.
And that wasn't quite enough.
So I said, rewind.
I finally saw it.
And it.
Well, what happened was she was asking Senator Rubio about why he hadn't attended the most recent pro-life family march, whatever big deal they do on their anniversary.
Santorum, what did I say?
She asked Santorum why, sorry, why he hadn't attended it.
And he said, well, I've been campaigning here and there's some other things going on with family, whatever it was he said.
And then it went on and got to Fiorina.
And she said, I just think, I have to say something.
I cannot believe what just happened.
You know, the media, the game is rigged.
The game is rigged.
We just saw evidence of it.
And she looked at Nartha McCallum.
I cannot believe that you would ask the question daring, daring to challenge the pro-life credentials of Rick Santorum.
And I thought, well, what's it that just asked?
And he didn't even appear flustered.
He just, she said, why weren't you there?
But anyway, Fiorina interpreted it as a question challenging the fact that Santorum may not really be the big pro-lifer that he's made himself out to be.
And Fiorina said, how dare you insinuate that?
There's probably, she didn't say this, but there's probably none of us more pro-life, obviously so than Santorum.
Why would you even go there?
But it's one of those things where when some, well, wow, you should have seen what you just missed.
I said, okay, what is it?
So your expectations are really hyped up.
You turn back, you rewind to watch it.
Well, Santorum didn't act flustered or offended, not that I could tell.
Anyway, welcome back, folks.
It's great to have you here on the EIB network.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be with us, the email address, Lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
I'm going to start with debate soundbites here pretty soon and then get to your phone calls.
If you're on hold, hang in there.
Be patient.
There's just, there's something here I have to mention because I don't want to put this off to the side.
It has nothing to do with the debate.
It has everything to do with current events in America, but it's about something that happened in Germany.
And it's about the immigrants and the refugees and so forth.
And I don't want to put this aside and not get to it, as I've been doing with things all week.
The story is from New Delhi television.
40% of Germans say that Chancellor Angela Merkel should resign over her refugee policy.
It's polling data.
40% of Germans want Angela Merkel to quit.
They want her to resign.
They want her to wave goodbye and leave over her refugee policy.
A poll showed today, a sign of rising dissatisfaction with her welcoming stance towards people fleeing conflict in the Middle East and Africa.
Angela Merkel, who enjoyed record high popularity ratings early last year, has grown increasingly isolated in recent months as members of her conservative bloc, conservative bloc, right, have pressed her to take a tougher line on asylum seekers and European allies have dragged their feet on the issue.
Responding to popular pressure, Merkel's conservatives and their left-leaning Social Democrat coalition partners agreed yesterday to tighten asylum rule.
Here's my question.
Let's review what happened.
When the latest wave of refugees from war-torn Syria began, and they were going through Greece and other European Union nations, and they were mostly male, military-aged men, as they were being described, very few women, very few crumb crunchers.
And so there was suspicion.
Why are these able-bodied military-aged men fleeing their own countries rather than staying there and fighting for their own countries?
Why are they leaving in droves?
I mean, to the tune of tens of thousands, if not more.
And then the next question, why in the world is Angela Merkel welcoming them?
It was so bad.
She was bragging about the openness of Germany, and she was bragging about the fact that they were going to have 800,000 of them a year that would be allowed to emigrate to Germany and eventually become citizens.
And I don't know if it was stated, but the widely believed reason was that Germany's birth rate is below replacement levels for whatever reason.
People are having kids, fewer to fewer kids, not at all, or more abortions are on the rise or whatever.
But the birth rate is not high enough to maintain Germany's population as it is at present.
And one of the dangers of that is that there aren't enough Germans being born who will grow up to do the work in the German economy necessary to keep it humming.
And so the theory was that Angela Merkel is excited and she's welcoming because this is the immediate solution to the labor force problem.
And when all this was going down, everybody was, she lost her mind?
What the hell is she thinking?
800,000 and bragging about it.
And then we started hearing what was happening in Cologne and other parts of Germany where these very refugees were engaging in massive amounts of abuse of women, even rape in some cases, so bad that they had to have seminars with them to find out why they thought these men, why they thought that they had open season on German women.
I'm not making this up.
Typical of liberals.
Here comes a bunch of foreign refugees.
They immediately start mistreating the women in the country.
And the powers that be in Germany say, gosh, what did we do to cause this?
Just like after 9-11, so many of our elites, gee, what did we do to make them so mad?
They wanted to blow up the World Trade Center.
In other words, why did they hate us?
What did we do?
Is it our fault?
So they were having seminars with these men.
And these men were saying, well, hey, when we go someplace and we see these women with bare shoulders in our country, if that's ever permitted, it's a signal.
Or when a woman smiles at you, that's a come on.
These guys were telling the German officials this.
So they were sitting down and having seminars with these immigrants saying, no, no, no, no.
You must understand that when Germans dance, it doesn't mean that they want to have sex in minutes.
And when a woman smiles at you, it's just nothing more than, hi, how are you?
But the question, why did she, in the first place, why did she act like she did at the very beginning?
When the whole process started, here she, she was practically alone in being excited about it, bragging about it, talking about 800,000.
And everybody could see this is going to be the ruination of Germany.
Everybody could see this is the absolute wrong thing.
Why did she do it?
And the answer to that question, I think, is the same answer that we would get when asking, we asked the same question here.
What in the world is our establishment doing?
What does the Chamber of Commerce not get?
What do all of these comprehensive immigration reform people not get?
Why don't they understand that millions of illegals who can't speak English, who have no education and no job skills, how in the world does that help this country?
What in the world are they thinking?
We're asking the same question.
So in Angela Merkel's case, why do it?
I have no doubt.
I think the answer is multi-pronged.
I think she did it in large part because she wanted to show the world that she was not racist or bigoted and that she wanted to show compassion.
It echoes the same sentiments that we get here from leftists in this country.
Well, if somebody is war-torn and beat up and poor and they want to come to my country to improve their lives, I am not going to be the one they say they can't come.
Something like that.
Or maybe something even more hideous.
Now, we know what it is in this country.
We know the Chamber of Commerce looks cheap labor, and we know the Democrats are looking at it as a voter registration drive.
And everything else they say is a lie.
It isn't about improving the U.S. economy.
It's not about jobs Americans won't do.
It isn't about compassion, which is what they really rely on.
I mean, that's what the Democrats always rely on to gain a moral superiority for every one of their policies.
This claim it's all rooted in compassion, understanding, and fairness.
You leave this country and the Constitution in their hands, and it becomes a suicide pact.
That's what the American people know, and that's why amnesty illegal immigration is and is going to remain the primary seminal issue throughout this presidential campaign.
Anyway, in Germany, they're now saying, wait a minute, they want her to quit.
They want this stopped.
There was nothing good that was ever going to happen.
Everybody knew it at the beginning, but she did it anyway.
Merkel did it anyway.
I don't doubt she did it to curry favor with international partners like Obama, the United Nations.
You know, Germany in Europe is the equivalent of the U.S. in the sense that whenever anybody's out of money, that's where they go to get it.
And I think she has a little guilt complex about being one of the few countries in the European Union that's not in as dire straits as everybody else is.
But it's census.
And these are the supposed smartest, the best and brightest among us.
And we heard yesterday what's happening in Sweden and what's going on in Denmark.
In Denmark, they're seizing the property of these refugees and immigrants.
Denmark, I mean, that's crazy Bernie's ideal country.
And they are seizing possessions and property because they can't afford to provide everything for these people.
They can't afford to feed everybody.
They can't afford to house everybody.
They can't afford everybody's medical care.
And yet the assumption is that it will be provided.
Every one of these people arriving is assuming they're going to get someplace to live paid for.
They're going to have clothes paid for.
They're going to have school for their kids paid for if their kids come with them.
They're going to have whatever they need medical care.
It's going to be provided.
That's the assumption they all arrive with.
And I find it fascinating.
All of these leftists in all of these European countries, these democratic socialist countries, are finally starting to realize they don't have the money for this.
It's one thing when they do all this for their own citizens, I guess, who can vote.
My point is, there's some common sense surfacing now in Europe over all this.
And yet in this country, we keep hearing from people like Obama and others that we can't turn them away.
We must allow them in.
That's who we are.
We cannot allow our values to be compromised.
Blah, blah, blah.
Our values are not a suicide pact.
All right, time out.
Back after this break with your phone calls and debate soundbites and whatever else happens.
Sit tight.
This is Greg in Oakhurst, California.
It's great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello, you're up first tonight.
Hi, Rush, longtime listener, 24-7 member.
Been listening for 25 years, and I appreciate what you do.
And thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
Listen, I was just so upset with Megan Kelly last night.
I watch Fox News a lot.
And, you know, it's the first time that I can remember any network ever showing videotape of the candidates and then asking them to respond to themselves.
And she did that to both Rubio and Cruz.
And I guess you could say she did it because they were the leading two candidates at this point without Trump there.
But the thing was that I was so upset about was when she asked Cruz to respond to what his video showed, she, you know, she said, were you, what'd she say, were you acting then or was that just an act?
And then when he responded, she tried to act like, oh, no, I've got you here.
And then immediately afterwards, on her show, if you were watching Fox and stayed with him, on her show, more than once, she said, when he responded and gave the same answer, she said, you're right, you're right.
I did some heavy research.
I think it's what she said.
I did some heavy research into that, and you're absolutely right.
And she conceded the point that he made during the debate.
Now, during the debate, there was a much larger audience, of course, than for her show.
So she tried to show that she could stick him.
She could really get him.
But then during her show, she conceded that he was correct.
Yes.
Yes, I'm quite aware of this fact that this happened.
Not surprised you're upset about it.
Not surprised it's the first call we're getting today about this.
Because I've had any number of people reacting the way you have, and even making the point, okay, fine.
So she finally figured it out and announced that he was right, but long after 90% of the audience was gone.
Right, exactly.
And listen, Rush, I'm a Rubio supporter because I feel that he's got the best chance of beating Hillary, unless she's indicted, of course, which I hope.
But I like Cruz more.
I like his positions more, but I believe that Rubio is the person who can beat Hillary.
And she went after both of them.
But it really, even though I'm supporting Rubio, I wouldn't be disappointed, as I said, if Cruz got the nomination.
But even though she went after both of them, she really tried to nail Cruz and then admitted that he was right later.
It's so hypocritical.
You know, it's very upsetting.
Well, that's the larger point here: is that I've had it said to me, if once it's been ten times, that people are a little worn out with these debates ending up being debates between the moderators and the candidates, not the debates between the candidates and the candidates themselves.
And it comes across as gotcha.
And of course, the moderators say, no, our job is to vet these people for you.
Our job is to expose them.
Let me tell you something.
Greg, for whatever, better or worse, what you saw last night is what journalism is taught to do and be.
That's journalism.
That's how it's taught.
That's how it's practiced.
And that's how people in it judge whether or not somebody's good at it.
Can you expose a hypocrite?
Can you speak truth to power?
Can you destroy a powerful person who wants to have all kinds of power over the American people?
Can you expose them as frauds or whatever else?
That becomes, and it's in many ways always has been, what journalism really is.
That's why I make jokes over the years about if you want to climb the ladder in journalism, go destroy some local guy in your town, and the Washington Post might hear about it and hire you.
Yes.
Am I still on?
Yeah, you're still on.
Hey, Rush, I want to tell you real quick.
I used to work for NBC News in Burbank, California for over 20 years.
And this goes back to Herbert Walker Bush.
He said something about Dukakis during their campaign.
And it was something about the military.
And Dukakis demanded an apology.
He was so upset about it.
He wanted to get Herbert Walker Bush to apologize to the troops.
And Bush had a press conference or a press availability the next day and was speaking to people at a rally.
And I was in the NBC take-in room where all the feeds come in, okay, from the satellites.
And I watched the whole thing.
It went on for about a half an hour.
And Herbert Walker Bush held up a dictionary, and then he quoted what he had said and gave an eloquent defense of what he said and said why he was not going to apologize to Dukakis.
So after it was all cut and they sent the feed to New York, the videotape went to New York.
The reporter didn't allow Bush's words to be spoken at all.
Instead, it was a voiceover, and the reporter said, even with the help of a dictionary, and of course they showed pictures of Bush holding up the dictionary, even with the help of a dictionary, Bush could not explain why he wouldn't apologize.
It's the same network that doctored the 911 calls in the George Zimmerman case.
We know.
Saga continues.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Our last caller mentioned he is for Rubio because he thinks Rubio is the best chance the Republicans have defeating Hillary if she's not indicted.
People keep bringing this up.
Tom DeLay, earlier this week, former member of the House from Sugarland, Texas, nickname was the Hammer.
And all he does, all he did is what the Democrats do.
He was the whip.
He whipped people into action.
He got votes.
He got people to vote the way the leadership wanted.
His nickname was the hammer.
The left had their own hammer.
Hell, everybody in the left is a hammer, but they use that as a derogatory term on delay.
Anyway, he's out there saying he's got good friends in the FBI, and his friends are telling him that she's going to be indicted.
It's the evidence is mounting.
It's worse than anybody even knows, and it's a slam duck.
And I'm saying, please don't say it.
It's kind of like the Jinx asked.
Please don't say it.
Don't say it.
Don't get people so Daryl Issa is out now, who is chairman of the House Oversight Committee.
Darrell Issa said today the FBI would like to indict both Huma Weiner and Hillary Clinton for conducting classified government business on a private email server.
The guy, Tom Fritton at Judicial Watch, produced even more information.
I mean, people that this goes with Joe DeGenovis is, my gosh, people in the FBI telling me it's voluminous what they've got.
It's so bad that if there's not an indictment, that there's going to be a revolt in the FBI.
And now people continue to come out and say this in their own words.
And people are providing details about what has gone on.
One of the stories I read today, and I think it was the Judicial Watch story, or it may be something else.
I'm not sure.
It doesn't matter.
The fact is that Hillary knew she was trafficking in classified data and didn't want to be bothered going the secure route.
She was having people cut and paste classified data from classified documents and sending that to her in an email so she could traffic in it and send it around.
And the analysis that I read today, this stuff is so bad that there are intelligence experts of both parties, by the way, who now have concluded that it is almost impossible that the Chinese were not monitoring her, that the Russians were not monitoring her, that the Iranians were not monitoring her.
In other words, people are saying it's almost guaranteed that she was hacked.
It's guaranteed that all of these people who should not know American diplomatic secrets were able to follow them in real time.
The stuff that's trickling out here, and this last part was in a story.
Now, it is so bad, this story said, that it may not be possible for Obama to hide this.
It may not be possible for Obama to let this slide.
It's so deep and it's so bad.
And from what's reported, it looks like it really is.
Some of this stuff is no question it's criminal.
No question it violates every kind of U.S. statute that governs this.
And no question that it was brazen and arrogant.
To hell with the law, I'm bigger than the law.
I'm going to do it my way and to hell with it.
It's almost like they're going to know our secrets anyway.
So what the hell?
Why go through the pretense?
But of course, there was more to it than that.
The Clintons are seeking donations from these very outfits, countries, people that lead these countries for one or another of their foundations.
And what they're doing is seeking, and in many cases, getting prepayment for Mrs. Clinton's eventual presidency, in which she can reciprocate with policy preferences in their favor.
It's insidious.
Now, here's Darrell Issa.
And there's another story.
A Navy admiral.
The stuff that Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in is so top secret, so secure, that a Navy admiral in the intelligence community was not even allowed to see it.
It was way beyond his clearance level.
That's how bad this all is.
And now you've got all of these people either leaking.
Well, they're not leaking.
Now they're putting their names to it.
Delay.
Yeah, my friends in the FBI.
Another story said that Jim Comey may have to walk.
If they don't act on this, Comey's got to resign.
I mean, it's all over the place, folks.
This is more than a trickle.
It's become more than drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, it is an avalanche now or a flood of this stuff.
And you couple it with the stories that Bill Clinton Bloom is off the road, that he's not drawing crowds, that his favorable number is at 39%.
He's never been at 39% other than for a couple of hours during the Lewinsky scandal.
What is the reason for the drop?
I think the reason for the drop of approval in Clinton, part of it's generational.
I think there's enough people that have become adults that were not adults when all that was going on and therefore have not been captivated like the baby boomers, particularly Democrats were during that era where people marveled at Clinton's ability to get away with it and how well he lied and he a charisma such that if you found yourself in a room with him, he had this ability to make you feel like you were the only one in the room that mattered.
And you add to it the news that's out there now about Hillary and the bimbos and how she led the charge to punish them, to stigmatize them.
I think it's a cumulative effect.
I think it's an accumulation of revelations that are finally sticking.
The Teflon has peeled away.
Coupled the fact that I think that we've been sold a bill of goods since 2008, maybe even before, about how universally loved and popular Hillary was.
I mean, it's all coming to a head now.
But this FBI stuff, the fact that more and more people are putting their name, Robert Gates, the former, it might have been him that I was reading, talking about all of our quote-unquote enemies who no doubt had access to the data Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in.
You've got ISA now, you've got Delay, you have DeGenova.
I mean, there are a lot of people out there who are saying there is so much here that it is almost impossible not to indict her.
If something now doesn't happen, these people are going to have all kinds of things to explain to people.
What do you mean?
You said this was a slam dunk.
You said there's so much.
There was, there was.
I don't understand it.
Of course, everybody will understand it.
Obama just decides to tell What's her face over there not to pull a trigger?
Loretta Lynch.
And then you've got Biden.
Biden's out there lurking.
He's assuring people, don't sweat it.
We got this covered.
What he means is, I'm ready to step in should something happen.
And then we haven't even talked about crazy Bernie.
Crazy Bernie is stirring things up.
Crazy Bernie is rocketing now.
He's raising money.
He's drawing huge crowds way beyond anything Hillary can dream of.
And the Democrat Party establishment is starting to go after Bernie.
Headline, Bernie Sanders meets the Clinton smear machine and he's furious.
This is my old buddy Bill Jacobson at legal insurrection.
Clinton advocate David Brock is the prime suspect.
Media Matters founders found they're out there smearing Bernie Sanders.
And of course, as a Democrat socialist, Bernie's not used to being smeared.
He's part of the bunch that smear everybody else.
And now the smear machine's been turned on him.
He doesn't like it, and he's out there talking about it.
He's furious at Brock and at Hillary.
And he has a lot of sympathy.
This is not the 90s where the Clintons were applauded for smearing their opponents.
They were applauded for the bimbo eruptions.
They were hailed as great politicians, smarter than the rest of the world in how to deal with adversity.
Today, there's a bunch of people that think they're just a bunch of slime balls.
They have no appreciation for it, no admiration for it.
And many of them are the same outsiders upset with the establishment supporting Bernie as outsiders on the Republican side supporting Trump.
It seems to be a universal anger at inside the Beltway establishment elites of both parties.
But my only point is, every time we talk about like, I make Rubio be the best one to beat Hillary, or I make Cruz, hands down, be the best one to beat Hillary, or Trump, Trump could just wipe the floor with Hillary.
Depending on the attitude people have, they always now add the caveat, if she's not indicted.
It's becoming apparently a much more real possibility in a lot of people's minds.
And if half of this is true about who has had access to the documents and data she's been trafficking in, meaning of our enemies, if just half of that's true, The things that the Chikoms know about us and the arraignment, not have to guess, not have to assume, not have to use spies to find out.
They know it because they have had access to whatever Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in.
And now ISA says, yeah, I'd like to see Huma thrown in this scrap.
Oh, the story yesterday was, and this one I believe, the story yesterday was, don't expect Hillary to be indicted, but Huma and Cheryl Mills and some of her support staff, if I were them, I'd be feeling very nervous about now.
So that story yesterday was, nah, they'll never go after the big fish.
But they got to go get somebody because this is so bad.
So they'll go get Hillary's support staff and claim that they had given her plausible deniability that she didn't know any of this was going on until all of this news started leaking.
So that probably, that story, probably a good indication of the efforts to save her and where they are right now.
Back to the phones and Open Line Friday, Jake in Highland, Michigan.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to our program here.
Hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thanks for taking my call.
It's been honor to talk to you.
I try and listen to you every day.
My question is about Donald Trump.
I received an article from Catholic Vote, and it's basically talking about why we can't vote for Donald Trump.
I'm not old enough to vote yet, but I just like to act like I'm going to vote in the primaries.
How old are you?
I'm 17.
17.
17.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
But this article was talking about basically all these things wrong with Trump, basically.
And one of them was like how he cheated on his wife, or two of his wives, actually, and how he had like, he was with different women every night.
He talked about that in his book and basically how he's like bragging about it.
And obviously that's a huge character flaw.
So I haven't really heard you talk about that much.
And I was just wondering what you thought about that.
Well, if you talk about that with one, it doesn't apply to just one.
Not everybody has those kinds of behaviors in their past.
But I would remind you, Jake, in the right place, stuff like that's a resume enhancement.
And I'm not trying to be snarky.
The Democrat Party, things like that, it's a resume enhancement.
I don't care what Trump's done.
He's a piker to Bill Clinton.
Now, I don't say that to justify Trump.
Don't misunderstand.
There's a double standard here.
People that tried to say things about it with Bill Clinton, but his supporters came up.
No, no, no, this proves the guy.
It's just sex.
It didn't stand in the way of doing his job.
His wife didn't care by evidence she didn't care.
She had to know about it.
So everything's fine.
Leave him alone.
You just, you bunch of Republicans, just a bunch of prudes.
You're a bunch of dryballs.
You just don't want anybody having any fun.
Well, keep going because it ain't going to matter because the American people wish they were like Bill Clinton.
And there may have been, depending on the kind of people you're talking about, some truth to that.
But there will be some people.
The point is, Jake, there probably are already some people who have doubts about Donald Trump for that reason, those reasons, as they relate to character, as well as his ragged docile behavior and so forth.
He doesn't have universal support out there by any stretch.
Okay.
Yeah, I definitely understand what you're saying there.
You're wondering why it's not a disqualifier.
How can somebody like that have as much support as he does?
What is your question about it?
Well, I basically just wanted to know what you had to say about it.
And at first I was kind of surprised that I'd never heard the liberal media bring it up at all.
But then I was kind of thinking about it and I realized then they'd kind of be like downsizing Clinton too if they criticized Trump for doing what he did back then.
And so, yeah, I just wasn't really like I've never been a Trump supporter, but like I've never hated him either.
I was kind of like in between.
So I just don't know if that's the type of person who I'd want in office, I guess.
Well, there are a lot of people happy to hear you say it.
Because one of the things that has been happening in our country even before you were born, you're 17, Is what a lot of people refer to as the decay or the rot in the culture,
and how what used to be taboo in terms of words you can say on TV, for example, or behaviors on TV that you can televise, now are standard, no big deal, and worse.
So that there are people look that there is a slow erosion of the kinds of morality and cultural standards that there used to be in the country.
And a lot of people think that the erosion and the rot and the decay has bled over and explains a lot of what's wrong in politics.
So you're not alone in your point of view.
It's just people of voting age today.
It's in many people's minds, it's something that's been determined here to not be a disqualifier.
Not long ago, it would have been.
Not long ago, something like this would have been a disqualifier.
Negative ads run about it would have finished somebody off and it would have been rendered a campaign dead unarrial.
Now, it's not so much.
So, and if this interests you, the name, the Federalist Papers, I wait, the number escapes me, but the character of the executive, meaning the president, was written about extensively by James Madison in the Federalist Papers.
And he wrote extensively why it's the number one or should be and was back then the number one factor.
And you might, as you grow older, try to find it.
And I'll dig the number up and I'll put it up at rushlimbaugh.com.
Just a matter of reaching a deep, dark depths of my memory.
But I appreciate the call, Jake.
Thanks very much.
We'll be back here in just a second.
Do not go away.
Open Line Friday, one big, exciting and busy broadcast hour.
Remains, I think, a brief little time out here at the top.
We'll come back and head straight into it, full speed.