All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:19
February 17, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We're back.
Here we are behind the Golden EIB microphone, Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
Now, one thing, I am going to link to this paragraph from this guy named Harry Jaff.
I do not know who that is.
I didn't bother looking him up.
I just trust that Stephen Hayward at Powerline knows enough about the guy to quote him.
We'll put the link to this up at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's an attempt to explain how there's no difference between a radical and a liberal anymore, that they've sort of melded or dissolved into the same.
Now, it is a little contradictory because this describes not liberal leaders.
This does not describe radical leaders.
See, that's the real shtick here is that liberal leaders preach one thing for the rank and file, but they exempt themselves from it like they exempt themselves from every law passed in this country.
They find ways to exempt themselves from the way they want us to live.
So, for example, this passage.
The new liberalism denies natural, no less than conventional inequalities.
In the heaven of the new liberalism, as in that of the old theology, everybody will be rewarded equally.
The achievement of the good society is itself the only victory.
But this victory is not to be one of man over man.
No, no, because there's no competition permitted.
Competition is the root of all evil.
Competition results in one winner and a lot of other losers.
That's how they see it.
They don't see equality of opportunity.
It's meaningless to them because equality of opportunity doesn't mean equality of winning.
And what they want is equality of winning.
And since nobody can win, not everybody can win, there has to be something common where everybody is less than a winner.
And only then can there be fairness.
Only then can there be plenty for everybody.
No one in the ideal society will taste the bitterness of defeat.
No one will need ever say, I'm a loser, but that's okay.
I can't complain.
I had a fair chance.
Screw that.
Screw the fair chance.
The joys of victory will belong to everybody, hence performance trophies.
Trophies for everybody, not just for winners.
But here's the difference.
Liberalism and radicalism look forward to a state of things in which the means of life and of the good life are available to all.
Now, that describes Bernie, but it doesn't describe Hillary.
Hillary's brand of socialism, Obama's brand of socialism, Chuck Schumer's brand, take your pick, Bill Clinton's brand of socialism, is not where everybody is equal.
In Hillary's socialism, in Obama's socialism, there are still elites.
And the elites are the real winners.
And the reason they're the winners is because they're special and unique and better than everybody else, including their other fellow liberals.
So the socialist leaders, the elites, are enriched in power and possessions and wealth, and everybody else gets shafted, but they fall for the game because they think they're never going to lose.
It's an impossible, it's another way of defining utopia.
But if you take a look at how the Democrat Party has become this amalgamation of radicals that is categorized these days by saying the Democrat Party, your grandfather is gone.
There aren't no reasonable Democrats anymore.
They're all left-wing radicals.
This is basically how this melding has happened.
And at the root of it is eliminating competition and eliminating the whole notion of everybody having a fair chance or an equal opportunity at success or at the pie.
No, because that's not fair.
You can't have a thing where there's a big winner or two or three winners, but everybody else loses.
Because to them, it's final.
Once you've lost, you're forever a loser.
You don't get back in the game and keep trying to win.
You don't try something new.
You've already been branded a loser, and that's a stigma they can't abide.
They don't want.
So competition has to go.
There can be no competition.
That's why they're starting to raise their kids with no scores in baseball, softball, football games.
That's why everybody gets trophies.
And of course, Hillary and other types like Obama, they're eager to push that.
They don't want competition either for themselves.
But they're not joining the masses in their misery and poverty.
What they do is spend the rest of their days making those stupid idiot masses think that they are looking out for them and fighting for them against these evil Republicans and conservatives who are the ones denying them their fair lot in life.
And all of that is emotion, by the way, or the lion's share of it is emotion.
All of that is where you find the hatred and the contempt, the self-loathing.
And it's tough to talk people out of that.
And I'll tell you how deeply ingrained it is.
And here's the difference.
When I was growing up, I didn't have nobody instructed me in anything to do with liberalism.
I had to learn all this on my own as I was growing up and was exposed to it as I grew older.
But what I mean by that, nobody in my house preached it.
It was always condemned.
So when I'm growing up, when I'm at the Kansas City Royals and making $12,000 a year at age 27, I'm driving around town looking at the nice neighborhoods, asking them, what do you have to do to get here?
That today is condemned as selfish and well, there's nothing good about that because the people in those neighborhoods, those neighborhoods ought not exist as far as today's left is concerned.
There ought not be neighborhoods where that big a difference in the way people live.
But I wanted to be in that neighborhood.
So how do I do it?
It became a lifelong study.
What have people done to get there?
And then you learn the whole ball of wax about hard work, perseverance, ambition.
They don't want any of this, folks.
They don't want to have ambition be a part of anything.
Desire, maybe the most important thing, but beyond that, hard work, stick-to-witiveness, none of that.
That's too hard.
And it's not, you can't, everybody can't work as hard as anybody else.
There's no equality in that scenario, and therefore it's disqualified.
But I, and most people my age, and most everybody I know, and most parents who want that for their kids, that's how they've raised them.
You do what's necessary to acquire and achieve what you want.
However, you define success, this country has always been there for you.
However you define it, you've had ways of achieving it.
Some people have had it easier than others, but it's just, that's the way it is.
But not to them.
That makes it unjust.
If anybody has any kind of an advantage, even a higher IQ, it's unjust and unfair and must be wiped out.
And to them, the root of all evil is competition.
If you take competition out of everything, then there can be no winners and losers because there hasn't been a competition in the first place.
And all of this, in my mind, is rooted in these people wallowing in their own recognition of how insignificant and incompetent they are.
They're all victims of somebody else.
Somebody else is responsible for their misery and their unhappiness.
And this is why they are susceptible to these claims made by people like Obama or Bernie Sanders or what have you, where everything is going to be free.
And the successful people are going to get punished by being made to pay for everything that they've stolen from everybody for all these years.
And that's how the miserable are going to get what they were entitled to back.
Because people like Hillary and Bernie and Obama, whoever, John Kerry, they're going to go get it.
They're going to go punish.
But it never works in all of the years of humanity where there has been socialism and communism.
It has never happened that the middle class and the poor have become enriched by virtue of wealth transfer.
The redistribution of wealth has never made an average ordinary citizen wealthy.
Now, you could make the case that the transfer of wealth in the area of corporate cronyism, corporate socialism, whatever you want to call it, where the government picks winners and losers at the corporate level.
Well, yeah, then you might be able to make a claim that the redistribution of wealth and people really resent that.
But just the promise made to average ordinary people, particularly liberal people on the left, that going after the Koch brothers or whoever the hated rich people of the day are, going after them, raising their taxes, punishing them, whatever.
It never ever has resulted in people in the middle class or people in poverty all of a sudden becoming wealthy.
Isn't it amazing that the promise never, it has never worked.
Never a single time in all of you.
If it did, if it worked, then everything in the world would be socialism and capital, or socialism and communism, and people would be gloriously happy.
If punishing the achievers, if going and taking what they have and giving it to everybody else is how everybody had a great life, then that's what everybody would be doing.
It's never ever worked.
And yet it continues to seduce people.
It continues.
Even though it is a demonstrable fraud, people, every generation, continue to fall for it on the promise alone, with no evidence it ever worked.
In fact, the evidence is that it doesn't work.
And yet the evidence is ignored.
The evidence is denied.
Somebody like Obama comes along.
We are the ones we've been waiting for.
We're going to make you whole again.
And while we're doing that, we're going to lower the sea levels and we're going to get rid of all the damages to the climate and the planet.
And we're going to make this place heaven on earth.
And you're going to get rich at the same time.
I mean, you're never going to have a financial concern.
You're never going to have a health care problem.
But it never ends, does it?
The people seven years ago complaining about whatever are still complaining about it.
In fact, even more so.
The people unhappy and angry seven years ago are now angrier and more unhappy.
And that was the only thing possible because Obama's way and Hillary's way doesn't work.
And it really, remember those town halls that Obama did shortly after the election?
He'd go down to Tampa.
He'd have a town hall and a woman said, I want a new kitchen and I need a new car.
That's what they thought the Obama presidency meant for them.
Think they're happy today?
Think they got their new kitchen?
They probably lost their job.
They probably don't have affordable health care.
They don't have anything that was promised.
But it still remains the Republicans are the problem.
The Koch brothers and the Republicans are the problem.
See, you sit here, you try to intellectually figure this out, and you can't because it doesn't make any intellectual sense.
So the person who can figure out how to cut through this artificial, fraudulent, emotional connection between liberal elites and the great unwashed that they are lying to and using day in and day out, whoever can come along and bust that connection is going to rule a country.
Nobody has yet been able to figure out how to do it.
So what instead is happening is a competition for the emotions of those people is now taking place.
Who makes you feel better about yourself and your future?
And not by virtue of what they're saying, but how they make you feel.
Let me grab a quick call.
Here is Scott, Wisconsin Rapids.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Scott, are you there?
Testing.
He hunted.
Okay.
All right.
Well, look, let me take the occasion of this.
Actually, it worked out well because he wants to talk about this security snafu, the San Bernardino 2 and the iPhone 5C, and Apple refusing to help the FBI.
So we'll take a break and we'll get into that when we get back.
Don't go away.
Okay, folks, here is another way of putting it.
As we have observed on the program before, under capitalism, the rich become powerful, while under socialism, the powerful become rich.
And that's pretty inclusive.
I mean, it pretty much says it all.
How do you have somebody show up making a government salary like a Congress and say $150,000 to speak a number?
And after a number of years, they're multi-millionaires.
How does that happen when all they've done is earn their $150,000 a year?
And you know they're living on every penny of it.
They're not saving anything.
Under capitalism, the rich become powerful.
Under socialism, the powerful become rich.
Why is that?
Okay, here's the deal with Apple and this phone.
It's an iPhone 5C, which is important because that means it does not have fingerprint ID.
The only way into the phone is through the pin number that Saeed Rizwan Farouk Skyhook set up when the phone was originally set up.
Now, you may not know it.
If you have recently purchased iPhone, you might think you have to have a six-digit pin.
But if you've always had a four, and it changed to six, I think in iOS 9, you could have kept it at 4 if you would have read the small print and kept scrolling.
I kept mine at 4, but I have other procedures.
But anyway, the phone's locked with that pin, and nobody knows what the pin is, the four-digit code that the terrorist used to lock his phone.
Every person sets their own pin.
Apple doesn't know what it is.
There's no way that PIN is backed up.
It's part of any of the data on the phone.
There's no way anybody can get it other than to run a password program, a crash program that's called brute force.
Just attack with every possible combination until the right one works and unlocks the phone.
So how does Apple beat that?
Apple has built in security features to make sure because customer privacy is one of their primary marketing points, one of their primary sales points.
So in the case of either a four-digit pin or a six, let's deal with four because that's what this, well, they don't know.
They don't know.
If it is a six-digit pin, it's going to be a long time getting into this phone for anybody.
If it's four digits, they have a chance.
But here's the way it works.
If you forget your pin, if you have a brain freeze, the first four attempts, there is no problem.
You try to end your pin, it's wrong.
Do it again, wrong, do it again, wrong, do it again, wrong.
But the fifth time you try it, if you're wrong, you have to wait one minute.
If the fifth attempt is wrong, you make the sixth attempt, and if that's wrong, you have to wait another five minutes before trying again.
If the sixth attempt is wrong, attempts seven and eight, you have to wait 15 minutes for each.
And if you don't get it right on either seven or eight, the ninth attempt cannot be attempted unless one hour has passed from the first attempt.
Now, this is done to defeat programs that constantly, with brute force, enter every possible four-digit code.
If any four-digit code is entered after the fifth time, any machine program doing this is going to stop and break down because the phone enforces a delay.
That's the only way in.
And the judge has told Apple that they have to go get this phone and they have to themselves write a new piece of firmware eliminating these delays.
The only way the FBI can get into this phone is if Apple creates a brand new operating system for that phone alone, which eliminates all of those delays, which would permit the automated brute force attack to finally hit the correct four-digit pin and unlock the phone.
And Apple is refusing.
Tim Cook sent a big long letter out to the Apple customer base today.
And his point is: if they make us do it once, then it's over.
If they make us do this once, if we write this special, one-time-only operating system, it's there.
We don't want to run the risk.
Our customer privacy and satisfaction is paramount to us.
And if we do this one violation, that's the end of our security program.
We cannot be made to violate our own promises.
So I don't know where this is going to end up.
Cook is digging in his heels for Apple, and of course, the legal system is the legal system.
And the way it could end up is if the legal system attempts to punish Tim Cook personally as well as corporately for this inability or finds a way to blame the Apple customer base for making it be this way.
There's any number of ways a legal system could exert pressure, financial pressure on Apple to relent here.
Now, hang on, back into a second.
So I got a couple of interesting questions in the email.
First question, Rush, why doesn't the FBI just, they've got their IT specialists.
Why didn't some of the FBI just write their own one-time patch to the Apple system software, eliminating all those delays entering the PIN code?
Good question.
The reason they can't is because in any official workable software, system, software, otherwise, Apple has to sign it.
And that just means authorize it.
For example, right now, the current release version of iOS is 9.2.1.
If you, for one reason, wanted to go back and put 9.1 on your phone, you couldn't.
Apple no longer signs it.
They don't want people using old software.
They want everybody using the latest and greatest, for obvious reasons, marketing, but security as well.
And so some of the great operating systems of the past are not.
You can't use them.
The FBI does not have the authority, the ability to sign as Apple on a patch.
The second question is a little bit more provocative.
Hey, Rush, do you think Tim Cook could be a little bit more cooperative if the FBI were trying to capture a serial killer of gays rather than terrorists?
You know, the way some people think.
I marvel at it.
This is a terrorist phone, San Bernardino 2.
And Tim Cook, who's come out, is gay, has said we're not violating the security of our products.
I think everybody ought to realize, do you realize what you're learning here?
The FBI cannot get into your phone.
The FBI cannot crack your iPhone.
They cannot get in there.
And even if they do get in there, the communications and the messaging program, iMessages, those are all encrypted front to back.
From sender to recipient, those are encrypted.
They need a decryption key to understand those two.
I mean, this is not a challenge for the FBI just getting into the phone.
Then you'd have to decrypt a whole bunch of the content.
They have busted their rear ends on security on these things.
And I have people run, yeah, Rush, you know, the FBI and the NSA.
They're following me around.
GPS locate me.
They know where I am every day.
They can probably activate the microphone in my phone.
They can listen to what I'm saying to anybody when the phone's off.
You wouldn't believe the paranoia that's out there because of Snowden.
And now we're learning the FBI cannot crack a little iPhone 5C unless Apple helps them.
But this question, if FBI were trying to capture a serial killer of gays, would Tim Cook help.
Now, that's just cappy.
Anyway, now Trump on this Apple and iPhone does, he is slamming Apple for refusing to unlock the terrorist's phone, asking, who does Apple think they are?
They have to open it up.
He said, I agree 100% with the courts.
In that case, we should open the phone up.
I think we have to open it up.
We have to use our heads.
We have to use common sense.
Somebody the other day called me a common sense conservative.
Well, we have to use common sense.
They've got to find out what this terrorist was doing.
There's too much on that phone.
We can learn who he was working with, who else may be involved, what future plans there might have been.
It's all on that phone.
If it's there, we got to go get it.
And I find, you know, most people have always traditionally been sympathetic and supportive of law enforcement.
But this, with Snowden's revelations in the NSA, there is outright suspicion and paranoia of the government.
I mean, really, some of the most boring people in the world think that there are government employees following every moment of their lives.
They'd be shattered and crushed to learn that it's not happening.
But I don't know how you come down on this.
Because Apple says if they make us, by the way, this is not a back door.
The back door is something that will be permanently built in to everybody's phone, everybody's operating system, that the FBI could use any time they wanted.
And theoretically, only law enforcement would have the keys to get into the back door.
And Apple is refusing to even talk about a back door.
And they're saying that this, if they are forced to allow brute force attacks to detect the four-digit pin on this phone, that that's the first step in being forced to create a back door in the operating system, and they don't want to do it.
And here's the thing.
If this is a six-digit pin, if Saeed Farouk used a six-digit pin, then all bets are off in cracking it.
You know, the two extra digits expand the geometric possibilities of combinations by a factor of from here to the moon.
It's incredible.
It could take years, even with a brute force attack, to crack a six-digit code.
Four digits you can do, I forget, what did I see, three weeks max it would take, depending how far you have to go.
Now, they would try, you know, most people do it, you know, the four corners or 00001111.
You know what the most common password, this has been researched and found out, not numeric, not digital, the most common password involving letters on a website, not a phone pin code, but a password for a credit card or what you want.
What do you think the most common password is?
You're right, password.
The actual word password is the most common.
After that, it's somebody's birthday.
And then admin, short for administrator, because people feel inconvenienced by it.
So they don't want to ever run the risk of forgetting it.
So they come up with something that so those are the first things that the brute force attacks go for.
And then after all the obvious things are utilized, then they start just every possible combination that you could.
Well, you know, law enforcement could include the IRS.
There's agency that called it the Federal Reserve.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, the Federal Reserve has agents that got huge badges that weigh a lot.
Oh, yeah.
The U.S. Treasury has agents.
damn right.
Revenuers, FBI, they're all yes they do.
Well, if they are made to build a back door into the software, into the operating system, then any law enforcement, as they say in New York, law enforcement could get in there.
Well, Lois Lerner would not have, unless she knows somebody in law enforcement who would give it to her in violation of privacy laws, which, of course, with this regime we know don't count a hill of beans to them anyway.
So yeah, Lois Lerner probably could.
Okay, the nitpickers out there think they got me.
Remember when I just said the current operating system for Apple is 9.2.1, and if you wanted to go back to 9.1, you couldn't do it.
I have some, hey, I'm still running system 8.4 and my phone's.
Yeah, you're fine.
If you're still running an old program, an old operating system, fine.
But if you upgrade, let's say you're running 8.4 right now from last summer.
If you're running 8.4 and you upgrade to 9.X and don't like it, you're stuck.
You can't go back to 8.4 because it will not install.
Well, jailbreaking it, that's a whole different thing.
I don't know anything about jailbreaking.
I only know what I read about jailbreaking.
So I'd need to get a jailbreaking expert to tell me if you can go back to unsigned, unauthorized operating systems while jailbroken.
That I don't know.
I hate admitting that, too, but it's true.
When I don't know something, I will say it.
It is historical.
Well, you don't need to now, but they still have people that do it just for the heck of it.
It's because they want apps and they want to rearrange the operating system that Apple won't permit.
Anyway, George and Raleigh, North Carolina, really glad you waved your next sir on the EIB network.
Hi.
Good afternoon, Brooks.
How are you?
I'm fine and really able to talk to you again.
Great to have you here again.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
The conversation over the past couple of days is regarding the anger in the American electorate.
And I reflect back on my life and think about decisions I've made in anger, and they've always ended poorly for me.
And as a student of history, I think back of nations that also had an angry populace.
It hasn't ended well for them either.
Is it safe to say that in your life that you regret every decision you have made when it was made in anger or knee-jerk, immediate reaction, something that ticked you off?
Do you regret every one of those decisions?
All the ones that I can recall, all the ones that were meaningful.
I definitely do.
And I think that sometimes decisions sparked an anger.
If you let yourself reflect and cool down, I think that maybe anger may have sparked the idea.
But the solution, once you've calmed down, could be totally different.
Okay, so how does that manifest itself in this campaign?
You think too many angry people supporting Trump, and you think they ought to back off?
Well, yeah, I mean, I think so.
I mean, again, as a student of history, it's an angry populace that gave Castro to Cuba.
It was an angry populace that gave Marxism to the Russians.
It was an angry populace that gave Napoleon to Europe.
We're getting ready to hand the greatest military that man has ever known over to a man that on his best day seems a little bit unhinged.
You're talking about Obama.
Well, that's another good example.
I had somebody else in mind, actually.
Well, okay.
Well, look, I'm mad.
I've been mad for seven freaking years.
Legitimately so.
I'm mad, and I can't tell you what kind of thing's going on out there.
Am I irrationally mad about it?
I don't think so, but I'm mad.
I mean, I'm not spending my day in rage.
That's not my point.
But, I mean, I am not docile about stuff going on out there.
I think I've been pretty patient.
I think a lot of other people have been pretty damn patient.
They've been promised and promised and promised, and it's never happened.
And so some of the rage is understandable.
I understand what you're saying, that in the fit of emotion, at the peak, when you are livid, that's when they say sleep on it.
And that's good advice.
When you wake up, you always have a much less intense feeling than you did before you went to bed when you're angry about anything.
But anyway, George, I appreciate it.
It's an interesting topic, and we will have more of it, I'm sure, as the program unfolds.
But we'll be back after this.
Somebody says that Nikki Haley is on the verge of endorsing Rubio.
Well, you know, they were both tea party darlings back in the day.
So she said anybody but Trump.
Makes sense.
▲
Export Selection