All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 18, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:15
February 18, 2016, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You think the Pope is mad that Trump said two Corinthians instead of second?
Get this.
Pope Francis just said that contraception can be justified now.
Now wait.
Don't jump down, folks.
Contraception in the Catholic Church is a thing.
I'm not getting into the Pope to Cape, what's next?
Will he say that abortion can be justified in certain circumstances?
I mean, where does this stuff end?
Readings and welcome back.
It's great to have you.
El Rushball.
Great to have you here at 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
Pope Francis said the use of contraception could be justified in regions hit by the Zika virus, which the Wall Street Journal says is a stance that could reignite a debate over the church's prohibition of the use of condoms to stop the spread of the AIDS virus.
The Pope also criticized Donald Trump as not Christian for his stance on immigration.
And broke with his predecessors, previous popes, by suggesting that Catholic lawmakers are free to vote for same-sex marriage and civil unions if they want to.
Well, you know, you can I've got to be really, really.
If I were a Catholic, I'd be asking what's going on here.
I really would.
The Pope also broke with his predecessors by suggesting that Catholic lawmakers are free to vote for same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Folks, do you I'm sure you in this audience understand.
This is this is why I have been trying to make the case or state my belief that the fundamental matter of importance is defeating the Democrat Party.
And by that I mean liberalism wherever it's found.
Liberalism, socialism, whatever, it is such a corrupting destructive thing.
It is I believe it's the most destructive force in the world outside of militarized weaponry and that kind of thing.
But I'm talking about just as an ongoing everyday matter of daily life, one of the most destructive things, if not the most, is radical.
Liberalism and leftism, and it is clear that they are making great strides in corrupting once great institutions and once great traditions.
And when I say corrupting, I mean taking over and politicizing them for the express purpose of advancing the leftist agenda.
And the advancement of the leftist agenda in large part consists of destroying institutions, traditions, people, policies, what have you, that the left considers to be obstacles to their efforts to blow everything up.
And the really damaging thing is that the objectives, the goals of the people on the left are not possible.
There is no utopia.
They want to wipe out competition.
They want to eliminate the concept of winners and losers.
They want to wipe out the fact that there are any differences, particularly outcome differences, from one person to another.
The things that they seek are not possible.
The things that they seek are rooted in self-loathing, misery, unhappiness, crankiness, whatever.
They're outraged when people are not cranky and not miserable.
They want everybody to be if they are.
It isn't fair that some people should be enjoying life when other people don't.
And rather, this is a hallmark trade of the left.
There is never any effort to elevate anybody.
Liberalism is all about tearing down.
Liberalism is all about lowering.
It is all about destroying.
And this is why.
my desire would be to see the Democrat Party get shellacked in every election to never see the Democrats ever win one again, as currently constituted.
That may sound unrealistic, maybe unrealistic, but it's not extreme.
In my mind, it's what has to happen.
You find them everywhere now.
They have moved in and corrupted everything, and they've done it by intimidating anybody who might oppose them.
They succeed in getting away with calling people uh racists.
Uh they they benefit from all these people.
I just don't like the fighting.
Can you just start the shiping?
All I want to do is just get along.
They're easily able to bulldoze large groups of people into laying down the letting it happen in the hope that there will be peace and the hope that there will be no confrontations in the hope that the shouting will stop.
And they are relentless, and they do not know any time limits.
They do not operate in four-year, two-year, one-year cycles.
It's whatever it takes and however long it takes, because the actual battle itself is as invigorating as victory because they'll never have victory.
Even if they were to get control of every institution they want to destroy.
What they want is not possible.
The circumstances for life on this planet that they want are not possible to achieve.
The closest they can get to it is communism and tyranny, where they have to force everybody to live the way they want.
And that means they have to build walls to keep people in because after a while people want to get the heck out.
And that's the thing.
What they want can never work.
Their dreams can never even get close to reality.
Their hopes can never ever be realized.
It isn't humanly possible for liberalism to succeed.
It isn't humanly possible for the things radical leftists want to bring about the desired results that they choose.
They claim they want a utopian happiness and they are further and further away from it.
the more successful they are.
You can use the Obama administration as a recent example.
For seven years, they've been unopposed.
The Republican Party's not trying to stop them on a single thing.
and Much of Obama's agenda has been a success.
He has been able to attack various traditions, institutions, have taken over the health care system of this country.
They've taken over the student alone, they've taken over the education system, and everybody in it is miserable and unhappy.
I'm watching this thing on CNBC left.
No, I guess it was MSNBC.
The Trump counter town hall.
It was going on on CNM with Republicans.
And they had a bunch of students in the audience standing up and asking questions.
In both, both on the Republican side on CNN and in Trump's side over at MSNBC.
I think it was without fail.
Every time a student stood up to ask a question, it was about student alone debt.
One woman was a dental student.
It was going to cost her something like $500,000, she said.
She wanted to know if there's another way.
She wanted to know how in the world is ever going to get paid back.
Was all that's on her mind.
Government's running a student alone program, what in the world could be wrong with it?
If the government's running it, if Obama's taking it over and he's got a lot of compassion, a big heart, loves people, what could possibly be wrong with it?
And then the subject of tuition came up.
And how come tuition never gets cut?
Why did tuition always go up?
What guarantee, folks, when you subsidize something?
If you run a university and the government's going to subsidize parts of your operation, why in the world should you cut anything?
If you don't have to pay for everything you're providing, why in the world should you cut the cost of it?
When it's going to be covered.
That's what's happened to the health care system.
Why cut costs when somebody's going to subsidize whatever you charge?
But there's another reason why tuitions are never going to come down on major American universities, and that's because they are the training ground of American liberalism and radicalism.
And they have to make jobs there attractive to the professors and the teachers who are going to indoctrinate these young skulls full of mush.
There's not going to be any tuition cuts.
There aren't going to be any drastic reductions in salaries.
And in fact, when the subject of cuts comes up, the first thing that the opponents of cuts will say, you can't cut the faculty, you can't cut the salary.
That's not gonna, you wouldn't save enough money.
You can't go there.
It's exactly right, because the professors and the graduate assistance and a teacher's assistance or whatever else they are, whatever they're paid, isn't going to do nothing but go up.
I mean, the education system is where young skulls full of mush are programmed and propagandized into the system.
They are highly valuable.
That's why they're subsidized.
That's why there is no, you know, universities are approaching the same circumstance we have in health care.
What it costs is not related at all to market forces, meaning what it costs is not related to what people can afford.
When you get right down to it, who can afford how many Americans, how many families can afford 20,000, 30,000, 50,000 a year or semester, a semester to send their kids off to college.
It has to be subsidized, so okay, so you go get a scholarship.
Well, who's paying for that?
Somebody is, well, the boosters rush the boost.
Well, they're being subsidized is the point.
There's no relationship to what people can afford.
It makes no sense.
It's the same thing that's happened in health care.
It's not priced according to market circumstances or market forces, and therefore it's artificial.
So we need insurance.
Yes.
We need insurance because we can't hope to pay for it.
And rather than genuinely reform it in ways that will over time move it closer to market-based.
We go just the opposite way.
We continue to subsidize it, we continue to insurance, and we make it even more unaffordable.
And there's the benefit to that, the more unaffordable it is, the more somebody needs government, the more somebody needs some kind of assistance.
And that gets translated as the more the people need the Democrat Party.
Vicious cycle vicious circle.
But the destruction goes on and on and on.
So today, right before the program starts, we find out that Pope Francis attacks a private citizen of the United States, Donald Trump, as not being a Christian.
How many migrants, how many immigrants, how many migrants, refugees fleeing war-torn areas of the Middle East are permitted into the Vatican?
I'm not kidding.
I think I saw a story where they're going to take two.
It's obviously symbolic.
They will take two at the Vatican, thereby setting an example and showing how it's done.
So they take two, and then they demand everybody else basically erase their borders and the laws related to their borders.
And now the Pope, on his overnight flight back to Italy, explains how contraception can be justified.
This is the Pope, the vicar of Christ, the Catholic Church explaining how contraception can be justified.
And then he rips into capitalism and the American immigration policies.
while at the Mexican border before getting on his plane to go back to Italy.
And then he says that American lawmakers are now free, devout Catholics are free to vote for same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Well, is it logical to ask, how far away are we from from the Pope explaining that abortion can be justified in certain circumstances in certain regions?
And if it might be related to the evils of American capitalism and our immigration policy, we're probably not that far away.
What, drive by pope?
You want to call him a drive-by pope.
I'll I'll leave that to you.
I'll I'll stick with the way I've described it so far.
You know, folks, I've been around so long, I can remember when it was a rhetorical question to ask, is the Pope Catholic?
Now it's a legit question.
Here is the Pope.
This was on the Papal Plane, which I think is an Alitalia Airlines jet on the way back to the walled Vatican City from his trip to Mexico.
By the way, if socialism is so damn hot, why doesn't the Pope ask all Mexicans to return home?
If capitalism is such a bad thing, why doesn't the Pope say to every Cuban living in America, get the hell back to Cuba?
Why doesn't he say to every Mexican living in America, go back to Mexico?
That's your home.
Why does he want them to stay?
Because they are going to convert this place, folks.
That's what this is all about.
If we take the Pope at his word, and socialism is highly preferable to capitalism, and he was really concerned about these people, he would demand they go home.
He would demand they return to their homelands wherever they are if they were socialist.
He would suggest they abandon America, because capitalism holds nothing for them.
In fact, he would ask them, what were you thinking going there in the first place?
It's such a hellhole, after all.
It's capitalist, they've got rotten immigration laws, and of course, their health care stinks.
Why in the world would you go to America when you could live in Cuba?
Why would you go to America when you would get to live in Ecuador or San Salvador or everywhere else?
The Pope didn't do that.
Pope is encouraging them to come here.
He's encouraging us to let them come here.
He's encouraging us to stop any efforts whatsoever to prevent them from coming here.
Why?
If capitalism is so bad.
Because if he gets what he wants and everybody else along with him, we're not going to be capitalists very much longer.
Here's what the Pope said about Trump.
But if a person who thinks only about building walls wherever they may be, and not building bridges is not Christian.
Again, Google it.
Vatican walls.
Just Google picture, Vatican.
Take a look at the walls.
Fifty feet high.
Here's Trump in uh Kiawa Island, South Carolina during campaign event.
Two more sound bites.
He actually said that maybe I'm not a good Christian or something.
It's unbelievable, which is really not a nice thing to say.
If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which is everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy.
I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president.
He kept going.
He's questioning my faith.
I was very surprised to see it, but I am a Christian.
Okay.
For a religious leader, to question a person's faith is disgraceful.
I'm proud to be a Christian, and as president, I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now.
Donald Trump today, Kiawa Island and responding to the Pope claiming he's not a Christian.
What a gift basket has been given to Donald Pope.
Uh Donald Pope.
Donald Trump faux pas there, folks, a Freudian slip.
Here's Brian in Las Vegas.
It's great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Byzantine Catholic dittoes to you, Rush.
Thank you so much for having me on.
Yeah, you bet.
I I I just had to call.
I I'm I'm a Byzantine Catholic.
I I I do love the Pope and his predecessors before him.
I see it and and and the way he's been that infamous uh trip back from Argentina where he said, Who am I to judge?
It just seems the drive by media tries to mold our thoughts about the Pope in a way that it just isn't true.
If you look at Catholic media, it gives a much better, a consistent view of this Pope, and he teaches Catholicism.
He cares about the dignity of everyone.
And I don't see his comment uh towards or the his answer to the question about Donald Trump as an attack on Trump per se, but a way of saying, listen, everyone has equal dignity.
And if you're just going to put up a wall or uh or some kind of barrier and not address the problems that people have and how to take care of uh people, the poor, the hungry, then there's a problem.
Now you know what?
I I must I uh there is no country on earth that has done more for our own poor and for the poor around the world.
We are not the ones that need to be targeted, and we are.
There is no country on earth that can touch us in charitable efforts, in disaster relief efforts, in doing ever we do not live under a suicide pact in the name of compassion.
Because you see, what's incorporated in all this is that we're guilty of something, and we're not.
We lead the world in goodness.
Ladies and gentlemen, that the the last caller was was classic.
See, the United States is guilty.
We're not treating people fairly.
We're not treating people with dignity.
And building a wall is an affront and an insult, and we have no right.
I believe the number is 70%.
70% of the world's refugees since World War II have been taken in by the United States.
Every year, year in, year out, the United States admits more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined.
The United States has granted amnesty before to three million illegals and appears prepared to do it again.
Mexico by comparison has accepted 1500 immigrants over the last ten years.
We took in one point six million legal immigrants just last year.
But for these people to advance the things they claim they believe, we, the United States, has to be guilty.
We have to be guilty, we have to be underperforming.
We have to be not showing compassion or dignity or whatever code word is used to transmit the notion that we are mean-spirited, that we are selfish, and that we're probably bigoted and racist and don't want people here like that.
None of what we have done is credited, none of the good works, our foreign affairs budget, foreign aid budget, none of it is ever thanked.
We never get any gratitude for what we do.
We just are constantly ripped, we are constantly complained about.
We are constantly attacked, and people are fed up with it.
People are fed up being told they haven't done enough, that they don't do enough, that they don't care enough, that they're mean spirited, that they're extremists, when this is the most loving and charitable, the most giving country the world has ever seen.
You know the next line, right?
The next line is it any wonder somebody like Donald Trump is racing through the presidential primary process.
Here's Eric in Los Angeles back to the phones we go.
Eric, Great to have you.
Hello, sir.
Thank you.
Hi.
I'm looking at this iPhone issue with the government trying to force Apple to de-encrypt it so they can get the information about the terrorists.
And I've been listening and listening, and everybody's got this wrong.
There's a larger issue at stake here.
The we have a process of letting anyone and everyone come into this country unvetted.
The wife of that San Bernardino terrorist.
Excuse me.
No, she walked right in saying she wanted to get married.
And the larger issue is Obama and his policies are letting these terrorists come into this country, and yet we're after the fact a symptom of this is trying to de-encrypt a phone.
Now that's my problem.
No one's looking at the big picture.
You are, but who else is even talking about this?
Well, actually, I get your point.
Your point's really valid.
Let me restate for for people that might I just want to make it clear.
He's saying the phone and the encryption and trying to get data from it is a symptom of a much larger problem.
And that problem is we're letting the criminals of the world into this country, and we're not stopping them.
We're not vetting them.
We're not doing anything about it.
And then when they engage in criminal acts, then we act, oh my God, oh my God, we got to find out what they're doing and what and the time to find that out is before they get in the country, right?
That's your point.
Exactly.
Think about this.
We're worried about uh a dead terrorist phone.
How many people right now, how many terrorists or would be terrorists are in this country with a phone, uh an encrypted phone, plotting to do something to somebody somewhere or groups of people of nice citizens.
Wait, wait, wait, see, you just have swerved into what this really is about.
In my estimation, in my humble opinion, this is the FBI here.
This is not just, and it's not very much about what's on this phone.
It's exactly what you said.
They are frozen out of any phone.
They can't crack any iPhone.
They're ticked off.
They've been publicly complaining about it.
And on the other hand, we got all these people worried about the government spying on them.
How do they feel now?
They realize in an iPhone, that iPhone you're holding your the government can't crack your phone.
What are you being paranoid for?
So the government wants in, and they're using the case of this terrorist phone and the incendiary personal nature this case creates in order to create a circumstance where they can crack any phone they want to crack.
Eric, that's what this is about.
This is malfeasance and ineptitude at the highest level.
This is Obama, and i he he's what?
He's about to live.
How many Syrian refugees in?
How many of these people are terrorists?
How many people will be in here with an iPhone 5S uh plotting to do something to some group or some state or some city somewhere?
Well, uh speaking of that, let me just say that's thank th this was an iPhone 5 C. The iPhone 5C is the least secure phone Apple makes.
Starting with the iPhone 5 S and on up into the iPhone 6 and 6S series, it's not just the four-digit or six-digit pin.
You need fingerprints to get in if you use it.
And there's no way to crack that because you see, let me tell you how this fingerprint thing works.
People don't even understand this.
Your fingerprint is not actually stored on the phone.
Just like your credit card number is not stored on the phone on Apple Pay.
You're you you you sample your fingerprints, your thumbs, whatever uh fingers you want, and a digital token is attached to each one.
A digital token is what's saved in a portion of the processor called the secure enclave.
It is for visualization purposes, it's a tiny little section of the processor where nobody can go.
Not even Apple.
And it's encrypted itself, but your fingerprint is not really there.
It's it you digitizes the fingerprint and assigns a token to it.
And it recognizes your fingerprint that way, not by version virtue of an actual picture of your fingerprint stored in the phone.
Apple Pay by the same token.
Your credit card number never gets transferred in a transaction on Apple Pay.
Your credit card number and all the data that identify you as the credit card holder is represented by a token and that a number, a convoluted crazy number.
And that number is what gets transferred to the merchant's card reader or device reader when you make a purchase with Apple Pay.
It's more secure than a credit card.
It's more secure than a credit card that you hand off to somebody at a store or a restaurant.
And by the same token, if if this were an iPhone 5S, we wouldn't even be here because or a six because the enclave and the fingerprint uh adds an entirely new dimension to it.
But this is not.
This is an iPhone 5S or 5C.
No fingerprint.
All there is is that Pin.
And nobody knows yet whether it's four-digit pin code or six-digit.
Because nobody knows what operating system was on this phone.
It could be IOS 8, in which case there's only a four-digit code.
It was iOS 9 that introduced the option to use a six-digit code.
But here is what the FBI, this is what the government is asking, in three separate items easily understood.
The FBI is asking that the process by which people activate their phones by entering the PIN code be eliminated.
The way it works now, you can if if you forget your PIN, you've got ten chances to use it.
After ten chances, after ten failures, your phone gets erased.
You forget your four-digit pin.
You don't have it written down, you can't remember it.
The first four times you try it, you can try them instantly.
After the fourth time, you have to wait one minute.
After the fifth time, you have to wait five minutes.
After the sixth time, you have to wait 15 minutes.
Up to number nine, the ninth time you have to wait an hour before try.
Well, this means that nobody can use automated brute force technology to keep sampling four-digit codes in microseconds until they come up with the right one, which could be done in a half hour, because these delays are built in.
And if after the tenth attempt, and you get it wrong all ten times, your phone wipes.
Security.
That's how Apple builds it so that a thief can't get into your data.
Well, the FBI needs ways around that.
If they're going to get whatever this terrorist had on his phone or her phone, they need to get around all those delays.
They want to get away, they want it, they want to uh uh be able that the the real thing they're asking for, this is the key.
The FBI is asking to be permitted to submit potential passcode or pin numbers via the lightning port on the bottom of the phone,
meaning they want to be able to connect another digital device to the phone that brute force attacks the phone by in microseconds trying every different combination possible of four-digit pin codes.
They're not asking to take the phone to Cupertino to turn the phone over to an Apple engineer.
The Apple engineer goes in, unlocks the phone, takes the data off it because some of that data is encrypted.
The iMessage data is encrypted in addition to the phone pin.
You can't just some of the other data on the email, some of the emails encrypted.
So they they're asking, they're not asking Apple to go get all that and then hand it over to them.
They are asking Apple to give them the keys to unlock this phone, which would unlock any phone.
They're asking Apple for the keys, the combination to the safe.
They're asking Apple for the combination for every phone eventually that's been made.
That's what the that's their wish list to deal with all these other terrorists who are currently out there plotting, using phones.
The FBI wants to be able to track them.
The FBI wants to be able to listen to their calls.
The FBI wants to be able to read their message.
Right now they can't.
If they get even if they come across a terrorist phone, they can't crack it, they can't get in.
The message traffic is encrypted, they can't decrypt it, they need the keys.
They don't want to have to go to Apple every time they grab a terrorist phone.
They want to be able to do it in-house.
That's the big ask.
And in business terms, they're asking Apple to essentially make their devices vulnerable.
They're asking Apple to build a vulnerability into the software and the hardware, the firmware.
It's not just about removing the roadblock of the PIN code.
The FBI wants to be able to get in on their own.
That's where Apple is drawing the line.
Actually, they're also drawing the line on end-to-end encryption, and that's a whole different thing from this pin code thing.
There's two different things that are being uh battled over here.
End to end encryption is you sending a message to somebody, a text message to somebody.
Blue bubbles.
If it's green bubbles, it's a sell text message, and you've got to go to the phone company for that.
But if the bubbles are blue, then you're encrypted both ways.
End to end means sender, recipient, and back.
Nobody can crack it.
You're totally safe.
The DOD has gone public saying they can't crack it.
The CIA has said they can't crack it.
The NSA has said they can't crack it.
So even if they had the phone, and even if they had the keys to unlock the phone to get in, they still need to be able to have the keys to decrypt all of that data.
That's what's really being fought over here.
And Apple has made all of this security one of the top five reasons to buy their products.
And they're claiming you're asking us to take away things that we are promoting, things that we are guaranteeing, things that we're promising, which they can't really promise.
Total security guarantee can't do that, but there's always going to be a flaw somewhere.
But they are they're going to suggest here that you can't make us, after all of these years, just to help law enforcement.
You cannot tell us that we have to make an inferior product compared to what we've been making.
And the government thinks they can.
And a lot of lawyers think they can, and that's going to be what the battle's over.
And I already know what's going to happen.
The government does not lose these.
They just don't.
It's going to take some time to play out, but it's going to be remember, perception is reality.
And when certain perceptions have been realized here is when this case is going to be quote unquote solved.
Well, yeah, you could jailbreak.
And you can you can get data that way, but what the FBI wants, this is where we get into this notion of the back door.
There's all kinds of different terms being used here to describe what what's going on, but the FBI essentially wants to be able to get into every device with a secret trapdoor that you can't use as the owner, that only law enforcement has, and they would only use it with the warrant and uh proper legal supervision, and they would only do it when there's just cause proper correct whatever all that stuff.
And people are afraid, no, no, no, they're going to use it any time they want once they get access to it.
It's uh it's just the latest chapter in the ongoing battle of privacy from government intrusion.
I don't mean to minimize it, but that's that's what this is, with a company that has used as a primary marketing sales tool the fact that nobody can do that to their devices.
Their devices can't be cracked.
We care about your privacy, we care about your security, screw the government, screw everybody else.
So the government's coming for them.
Here's Madeline, Westchester County in New York.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hello.
I did omega dealers rush from a conservative Republican Catholic senior.
Well.
I am absolutely disgusted with this Pope.
I sincerely feel that he's a communist.
The way he talks and the way he acts.
I'm I'm very disgusted.
Very, very, very disgusted.
Well, wait a minute.
Now the communists disavow the existence of God and religion.
They hate it.
I mean, because it's it's a it's a competitor.
It's uh well then maybe communist is a harsh word.
A socialist is better.
Well uh I don't I'm I'm I'm just reacting.
I I I think with the kind of corruption going on today it's entirely possible.
Not saying that it is I'm saying it's entirely look the communists have tried to corrupt our education system.
They've tried to corrupt any number of institutions.
Why wouldn't they try to corrupt the Catholic Church?
It is a big enemy without a doubt.
Well anyway I'm not a Catholic she is and you heard her reaction and then she's not she's not the first then you've got others like our Byzantine caller a half hour ago which makes basically I guess Greek Orthodox who totally believes in the Pope.
This is not doing anything but attacking the United States which needs to be because we're not recognizing the dignity of all people Jeb Bush has weighed in on the controversy between the Pope and Donald Trump.
▲
Export Selection