All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 24, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:03
February 24, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, to everybody on hold, I want you to stay there.
We got a great roster of calls.
It's going to be my responsibility and discipline to get to them.
If you're on hold, I hope you have time to hang on.
I'm going to get to you as quickly as I can.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, 800-282-2882, and the email address, ilrushbo at EIBNet.com.
What?
Me?
No, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
I'm not in any club.
I am a 100% total loner.
I am not.
I am not in any club.
I would never be admitted to any club.
I don't want to get into any club.
That's not my world.
I don't.
It's almost akin to being able to function in a corporate setting, which I have learned I can't do.
I'm not a conformist, and I'm not a suck-up.
I couldn't do that.
I just know it.
I've seen it.
I spot it now.
Things they're talking about in the last hour.
Some people, that's the way they go through life.
I mean, that's what an Ivy League education is all about.
It's preparing you for admittance into the D.C. elite.
That's what an Ivy League education is for.
That's how you prove to the elite that you're one of them.
You have to get selected by the school first to get in.
You've got to do certain things to get in there.
After you get in there, you have to study certain things and excel at them.
And then you come out and you join your white shoe law firm or whatever you do, and you start climbing your ladder.
And you've got sponsors and you've got people looking out for you, paving the way for you.
that's not me.
I will, I would never be, I'm really, you know, Groucho Marx, he said I would never accept, I wouldn't become a member of a club, anyone, a club that would have me or whatever.
Pretty much me.
No, no, I'm not snirdlies.
Well, what club are you?
Zilch Zero Nada.
I'm not a networker.
Anyway, great to have you back, folks.
800-282-2882.
I've just come across a fascinating piece here by Ben Shapiro, who is writing at the DailyWire.com.
He also writes some things at Breitbart.
And he is a really bright young conservative out of California.
And he has a piece here on what Ted Cruz has to do.
There's only one thing Ted Cruz can do now, and he's got to do it in the next debate.
If Cruz wants to win, he's got to drop everything and just focus totally on destroying Trump and not with issues.
If Cruz wants to win Thursday night, he'll have to clock Trump with everything he's got and more.
Now, before setting up the specifics of his suggestions, some table setting.
One thing that Cruz has to realize is that Rubio will never drop out.
Cruz campaign seems to be under the bizarre impression that if Marco Rubio underperforms on March 1st and March 5th, that he will drop out of the race.
This is nonsense.
Shapiro writes, the Rubio campaign's already picked up the Jeb Bush money train.
They're cultivating the establishment endorsements they think will be necessary to push Rubio to victory on March 15th.
That's true, by the way.
Rubio is the establishment's guy from now to the rest of this campaign.
There isn't, if something happens to Rubio, the establishment's done.
They're not going to go to Cruz.
They won't go to Trump.
And Kasich's not going to do it.
Carson, their eggs are now all in the Rubio basket.
Rubio's not dropping out.
No matter what, he's not dropping out.
And Shapiro's point is that Cruz had better realize this.
Therefore, if Rubio won't drop out, Rubio is not the obstacle.
Cruz and Rubio both seem to think that each other are the obstacle.
And I happen to agree with Shapiro on this.
I think that's not the way to look at this.
Here are the specifics, what Shapiro thinks that Cruz has to do on Thursday night in the next debate.
He says that Cruz should face down Trump and say to him, Donald, you know, after a Trump insult or similar comment, that Cruz should say something like this, Donald, for months, everybody has been tiptoeing around you out of courtesy.
Well, enough.
We all know you're a spoiled brat who's never had anybody say no to him.
You're a pathetic, bloated old man who stood on daddy's money stack to make billions.
And you can't shut up about how you're a self-made man.
You're a ridiculous Dolt, Donald, who lies about his politics, brags about having sex with married women, and shafts little old ladies for cash.
And every time you attack Donald, your face turns as red as the Kool-Aid man, just like it's doing now.
And then you cite polls as though polls make you not all those things.
They don't.
You're just as much of a ridiculous clown as you ever were.
And then Shapiro says if Trump tries to interrupt him, Cruz will have to tell him to shut the hell up and then not back down.
Then it'll be brutal, but if Cruz wants to win, he's got no other choice.
Trump will not be defeated so long as both Cruz and Rubio are in the race and Rubio is going nowhere.
Somebody's going to have to knock Trump off if anybody else is going to win this.
So that, I think, is a measure of the frustration that is out there.
And there is a lot of it, folks.
There is a lot of frustration out there in the anti-Trump campaign that Trump is getting away with so much that people are afraid to call Trump on anything.
They're afraid to do anything other than tiptoe around Trump.
And that's because everybody's afraid of the people that support Trump.
They don't want to tick them off because if you take Trump out, you need to get his voters.
And if you do Trump wrong, you might tick off his voters to the point that they'll just sit at home and not vote.
So it's a delicate thing.
But the anti-Trump frustration is sizable.
And part of the anti-Trump frustration is not just anti-Trump.
I mean, there are a lot of Rubio supporters who wish Rubio were doing things differently, like Cruz supporters like Shapiro here, who wish that Cruz were doing things differently.
And you can, depending on where you go, you can see all the advice that's being written for both Rubio and Cruz over how to do this.
Shapiro is the latest to weigh in here.
So I just wanted to share that with you.
Obama and this Supreme Court pick.
Republican Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval is being vetted to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Antonin Scalia's death, says the Washington Post.
The White House press secretary, Josh Ernest, today would not comment on whether the White House is indeed vetting Brian Sandoval.
I suspect it's only the first of many stories that speculation on potential Supreme Court nominees, Ernest said.
I don't think it'd be helpful for me to get into a rhythm of responding.
Dingy Harry came out.
Hey, I love that pick.
Dingy Harry, the minority leader for the Democrats and Senate, said he could get behind Brian Sandoval.
Republican governor of Nevada.
Obama floating his name as a potential pick.
Sandoval, by the way, announced last year he would not run to replace Dingy Harry, which disappointed Republicans who had hoped Sandoval could flip the seat for the GOP.
Nominating Sandoval, this is theHill.com reporting this, nominating Sandoval would ratchet up the pressure on Republican senators who have insisted they will not consider a nominee from above.
By the way, you've got to notice Snerdley came in practically skipping and dancing to me today.
You know, you always get me.
You always get me.
I always end up being wrong, but I'm right on this when I got you.
And he's waving a piece of paper at me.
I said, what do you got in your hand there?
And it was this, McConnell, not a snowball's chance in hell.
I'll relent on SCOTUS.
So Snerdley was reminding me that I speculated that Mitch McConnell's original statement was not all that definitive.
And yet a lot of people were rallying around McConnell.
You know, when he said, Obama should not get his pick just an election year and should not be automatic.
And I said, he said, should, not would.
And so he gave himself some wiggle room.
And so Snerdley is convinced now that Mitch has etched himself in stone on this.
Not a snowball's chance.
McConnell told a group of staunch House conservatives, there's, quote, not a snowball's chance in hell that he will back down from his opposition to confirming a Supreme Court justice before a new president's elected.
So now we get news that Obama is considering a Republican governor, which is designed to take Mitch's snowball out of hell, you know, and just put it at the corner of Fifth and Madison.
Well, that's not possible, but to change the location of the snowball so that it could melt, maybe, which is what Obama is trying to do.
Get this from the state of Michigan.
From our buddies at the Daily Caller.
You've heard about all these things they call microaggressions that our young college students are so frightful of, so scared of, so they can't have microaggressions.
And they need safe places to be protected from harmful words, speech that they might disagree with.
It's just scary.
So the university is setting up safe rooms, safe, what, safe spaces for these kids to go.
A student center for gay, bisexual, and transgender students at the University of Michigan created a safe space yesterday to protect students frightened by an approaching debate on the subject: does feminism have a free speech problem?
The announcement by the Michigan Spectrum Student Center said, We recognize we recognize that the rhetoric of the speakers featured in this debate is incredibly harmful to many members of our campus community.
The Spectrum Center will be providing a supportive alternative space this evening and holding extended staff hours until 9 p.m.
There will be no program.
Our intent is to offer a relaxing, positive space for students who want to gather in community but don't want to have to face the harmful thoughts that might be expressed in the debate.
And the debate, does feminism have a free speech problem?
And that is so paralyzingly frightening to some Michigan students, they demanded a safe space to be shielded from whatever might be said at that debate.
Wait, you think I'm making this up?
You're rolling your head in there.
You think I'm making this up?
It's right here at Chatsworth Osborne Jr.'s website.
The Spectrum Center is a student center that offers various programs and services through a framework of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
The upcoming event that has Spectrum residents so upset is an appearance by a British journalist named Milo Yiannopoulos, hosted by the Michigan Review.
Yiannopoulos, bleep, Mike, and let me know when you did it.
All right.
Currently on his so-called dangerous blank tour, which is taking him to dozens of schools in the U.S., the United Kingdom, and several other countries.
In Michigan, he's scheduled to debate feminist writer Julie Bendell on whether feminism is encouraging this.
They need a safe space from this.
Yes, we had to bleep a word in there, folks, but it was not my word.
It was the title of a slide.
Just not worth the hassle here.
No big deal.
Oh, look at this, snerdly.
AP Senate GOP leaders rule out any action on Obama court picket.
It's a second story about Mitch McConnell and his snowballing hill.
So, there you have it.
There's a new poll, Reuters Ipsos.
Is it AP Ipsos?
Reuters.
Who is it?
Well, anyway, it's a poll.
There was confusing polls.
The first poll this week was erroneous.
It said a majority of people supported the FBI in this Apple iPhone, terrorist iPhone business.
But apparently, the polling data is wrong.
Most of the people, a majority of people support Apple in this instead of the, yes, Reuters Ipsos.
46% support Apple.
35% disagree.
Support the FBI.
20% said they don't know.
So that's important because the first story on this had the polling showing that a majority of people were opposed to Apple.
Apparently not true.
Anyway, back with your phone calls after this.
Okay, back to the phones.
As promised, this is Randall in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
I'm glad you waited.
What's up?
Thank you, Rush.
If the FBI forces Apple to give them the ability to go through these phones, Will that not the government be telling us that every part of our lives information that we generate be subject to search and seizure, like information between me and my lawyer, between me and my priest, between me and my doctor?
Anything that I generate and put on a phone be subject to the government taking from me because they will be saying that my information does not belong to me anymore.
It belongs to the government.
Well, now that is the last thing you said there, the way you structured that is actually quite fascinating.
But before we get to that, the FBI, if you were to ask them, would say, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, we want one specific thing.
We want Apple to give us a mechanism that would allow us to keep trying passcodes until we get the right one.
But your question, okay, what are they going to do once they get it?
I mean, everything in this terrorist life might be on that phone, including medical records, including conversations with lawyers.
We don't know.
And furthermore, let me tell you what this is really, really, really, really, really, really all about.
What's on that phone, since it's an iPhone, a lot of the stuff's encrypted.
The FBI can't read it anyway.
They'll be able to read one half some of the stuff.
What this is really about is, I think, and this goes back to 1992 when this computer stuff started hitting.
I think what the FBI really wants is to eliminate a whole lot of encryption on these devices.
I think that's the actual end game.
And this little fight here is just one step in that direction.
But yeah, it's a great question.
Okay, they get into the phone.
Well, where can they not go on the phone?
I mean, they need to find out what this guy was doing and with who.
If there are any other terrorists involved, any other future attacks, they need access to everything on that phone, right?
That's your point.
That would make this a police state from here on out, because the government can come into our houses, search our houses.
They can take our computers.
They can pretty much now taking our phones and getting the information off of that.
That would make us a police state.
We would have no privacy, no way of having any information that the government can't get to.
We would be, in a sense, a police state from here on out.
I don't know.
People want to.
Yeah, it's okay.
It does, like I said earlier in the week, the real simple way to understand this is despite everybody's fears that the NSA and the FBI are following you and tracking you and what you're saying.
Apparently they're not.
They can't crack these little iPhones.
They can't crack them.
They need assistance to get in.
So the question everybody has is, how much security do you want?
How much privacy do you want?
Do you because it isn't just about this phone.
It can't be.
Once they manufacture, once Apple manufactures away, I mean, the operating system is the same on every phone.
If they create a back door for this phone, they've created a back door for every phone that they've got an operating system on.
So I think these are important questions.
And what the FBI is relying on for the life of this country.
Law enforcement always gets the benefit of the doubt.
They benefit from the fact that most people think that law enforcement wouldn't go after people that are not guilty.
They just wouldn't do it.
That's why they think everybody arrests is guilty.
Everybody's charged is guilty.
Everybody's under suspicion is guilty.
It's automatically assumed because law enforcement wouldn't waste their time.
It's one industry thought of as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow until you have been so Snergly just asked me, Rush, why did Bill Gates come out on the side of the FBI in this Apple thing?
Well, he didn't.
I mean, they ran the story and said, was it a Fortune magazine interview that he did?
I forget who interviewed Gates, but the original report was that Gates was siding with the FBI on the premise, hey, it's just one phone.
Come on, it's not worth it.
And then the next day, after there was a hue and outcry, Gates came out and said, they misreported what I said.
I didn't say I'm actually with Apple on this.
But before anybody knew of that, why would Gates side with the FBI over Apple?
I don't know.
Latent competitive issues, Apple versus Microsoft.
Who knows?
I think in the club that Gates is in, the government's also in that club.
So that'd be my guess.
Here's Sean in Cooperstown.
We got another call from Cooperstown here.
This is more calls in one day from Cooperstown than we've had in 24 years.
Great to have you on the program.
How you doing?
I'm doing good.
How are you?
Very well.
Thank you.
Now, my question is backpedaling a little bit.
It's about the Facebook video that you were talking about yesterday with Chelsea.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
And the question really is, you previously mentioned that Bernie Sanders has a certain connection to his supporters that Hillary does not have, that Trump has, that Ted Cruz doesn't have.
I'm probably paraphrasing a little bit.
Are you familiar with that?
You're pretty close.
No, you're pretty close.
I think it's, yeah, and the bond of the connection is emotional.
Yes, and that's kind of what I'm going off of.
So my question is, do you think, I'm not saying that the video doesn't seem like sort of a hoax in the terms of the stereotypes that you mentioned, but do you think that maybe that sort of passion that the Bernie Sanders supporters have might evoke that sort of emotional reaction?
Oh, yes.
I totally think that a Bernie Sanders supporter and maybe even your average millennial could be brought to tears listening to how some people talk about, yeah, given the way kids have been protected growing up, given the way they've been taught about conflict resolution and self-esteem, and we all got to get along.
And so I can imagine that a lot of young, well, hell, I've had it said to me that I scare 24-year-old women just by the way I talk on this program.
So yeah, I can totally believe it.
That would be a genuine reaction.
But the reason I thought this might be a hoax is because I don't know if this woman's actually, her name is Chelsea.
Folks, let me reset the stage for those who know what we're talking about here.
Over the weekend of YouTube viral, the video went virals, a young woman in tears.
She's just crying her heart out because she's making phone calls for Bernie Sanders for the SEC primary, and she ends up talking to a bunch of Trump people, and they're saying mean things about Mexicans, and they're just like animals.
They're just animals, and they're white people, and she couldn't deal with it.
And the reason I thought it was a hoax is because some of the criticisms are too cliched.
But then the second thing is, what is she doing?
I mean, if she's calling people for Bernie, that means it's a get out the vote.
She should be calling people already for Bernie, just encouraging them to make sure they go vote.
She's not calling people to persuade them to vote for Bernie.
That's not what these phone banks do.
So that's why I thought it might be a hoax.
It's too easy to set up and criticize.
And look at me.
Here's a young girl.
She's in her early 20s, and she's really new and cares about politics.
And here's mean old Limbaugh making fun of her and laughing at her.
I can just see the news now if I had treated it that way.
And I think it was a setup maybe to get me to fall for the trick of being mean, apparently, appearing to be mean to this young girl.
So they could write a story about it or anybody else, not just me.
And I make mention of it just because I myself am a 22-year-old millennial.
And on observation, I've noticed that a lot of people my age that are Democratic sort of their political ideals are basically on the spectrum of, oh, I believe this is right and this is wrong.
And then the rest of the Democratic ideals sort of follow suit based on what they find is right and wrong.
In fact, pretty much the whole reason I started listening to you, Rush, is because I have almost all my political information comes from my Facebook page.
And all the people on my Facebook are millennials posting about Bernie Sanders.
And I feel like in order to make an educated decision politically, I have to see sort of both sides of the opinions.
You know what I mean?
And I feel like a lot of people my age don't do that.
They just kind of give into the Democratic ideals automatically.
Because, well, they haven't really had much choice.
That's what they've been propagandized with in most of their educational lives.
And if their parents are that way, too, then they really haven't been exposed to anything else.
All they've heard is stories about what opponents are.
They've heard that people are racist, sexist, bigots, homophobes.
But their question for you is, obviously, you know some 22-year-old women.
Are they going to be reduced to tears by I would say not even just women, but people generally do you mean like politically?
Yeah, in this term, same circumstance as the woman on the video.
She's out making phone calls for Bernie.
She calls some people that like Trump, and they start ripping into immigration and Mexicans, and she's reduced to tears hearing it.
Is that confident?
Well, if it were true, if the video is, in fact, not a hoax, I would say definitely yes, because here she is.
She hears the stories of these people that are bigots and are racist and do all of this.
And then if it is true and she actually called these people, then this is almost proof.
And that would maybe cause her to bring, that would bring her to tears because it's almost the proof that she needed to have that happen, if that makes sense.
Yeah, okay.
Now, one other thing before I let you go, and I'm going to play some clips of this video so folks, you'll know what we're talking about if you missed it.
I'm not going to leave you hanging there.
But you said you're 22 and you needed to balance what you thought you knew with opposing points of view.
It's why you're here.
Sorry, that's why you like listening to the program.
Are you still floating back and forth issue to issue what you think?
More or less.
I think I'm too empathetic of a person.
I see a lot of points to both sides sometimes, and then I find it hard to make a decision.
But, you know, I think I still need to read up more on the sort of the political spectrum.
I've only recently started being involved in current events for the better part of a month because I just graduated college.
Oh, so you're new to this then?
I'm brand new.
So even if you asked me general questions about the politics, I probably couldn't answer them because I'm kind of uneducated, but I'm now starting to be educated.
No, I wasn't going to do that.
I was thinking of myself at your age.
When I was 22, I already knew the other side was full of it.
My mind was made up.
Of course, most of my life was exposed to this kind of political discussions at home and everywhere else.
And I hear people say, I want to get all sides of the issues, but in my mind, I wouldn't trust what a bunch of liberals on Facebook are saying.
But you are not there yet.
You're still processing all this.
And that's good.
You should come to these conclusions yourself.
You should accept this because I say so.
I was just drawing comparison privately while listening to you of what I was like at 22 versus what you're like.
You're just now getting started in this, and you're going about it the right way.
It's really great.
I'd also like to make one more thing.
As far as college propaganda, I was a theater major and I was a business major, so I sort of saw that almost kind of makes sense.
Theater major, eh?
Everything there is about the other side, you've seen.
Yeah, so I, yeah, I'm going to be working in sales and theater.
Like, that's what my job is going to be.
I start next month.
And so I've seen sort of both sides of the political spectrum in terms of being influenced on different sides of the political spectrum because almost all my business professors were Republicans.
Well, here, I've got to let me do something here for you.
I want to help you.
I want to help out.
I want to give you a year's subscription to my website.
The full boat, the full ride, Rush 24-7.
I was purchasing it, but I was too broke to actually buy it.
Well, it's a $1,500 value that we charge $49 for.
But I'm going to give it to you in addition to that.
I'm going to throw in your subscription to Limball Letter newsletter.
And are you ready, an iPad Pro to read all this stuff on?
Wow.
Rush, that's crazy.
Thank you.
So I need you to hang out.
What color iPad Pro do you want?
White's good.
White?
Okay.
Gold or silver?
On the back?
Oh, well, I'll go with gold.
Gold.
Okay, cool.
So I'll do that, and I'll send you a cover for it and a nice.
You know what?
I even have an Apple pencil and a keyboard that I'll throw in there with it.
Wow, you are way too good to me, Roger.
Well, no, you that may be, but there's an opportunity here for you to.
I know your funds are limited, so we'll make it easy for you to access at least my website full way.
It's an encyclopedia.
You'll have no doubts about what we think here, what I think, and what I think is right and so forth.
So it'll be a great education.
And by the way, you know what?
My website, you'll learn more about liberalism, truthfully, than you will going to any of their websites.
Don't doubt me.
Thank you.
Don't doubt me.
So hang on, hang on here, Sean, and Mr. Snerdley will be back, and we'll get all the need a FedEx address because we'll ship it out that way.
And you'll have it tomorrow if you give us an accurate address.
In the meantime, folks, hang on.
I'll have you video, well, the audio of the video of this young woman he was calling about right after this.
Don't go away.
Leland Yee.
San Francisco guy, former mayor, San Francisco or Congress or something, was on my case all the time, got mad at me for impersonating a Chinese leader.
Guy just was convicted five years on racketeering.
Yeah, we'll have the details tomorrow.
Also, folks, I'm going to delay the playing of the soundbites of this young girl again until tomorrow because I want to get one more call in here before we have to go because I promised people that we'd get to the phones.
And Ruth here has been on a hole for a while.
She's in the upper east side of Manhattan.
Ruth, welcome.
Great to have you on the EIB Network Hive.
Rush, I got to tell you, February 24th, 2016, one of the best days of my life.
Thank you for taking my phone.
I just, man, I've been listening for 24 years.
I came to your TV show.
I snuck in at age 14 when you're supposed to be 17.
And I just, I thank you for everything, everything you've done.
Really, really amazing.
And I just want to say quickly, real, real pat on the back to your last caller.
I went through my higher education as a musician and an education major.
And it is so difficult dealing with the radical left, which is basically the entire education and music industry.
I'm calling as a former Trumpster.
Before you said that the Drive-By media is scratching their heads at the rise of evangelicals supporting Trump.
And I have to tell you, I'm scratching my head as well.
I'm not an evangelical.
I'm not part of the Drive-By Media.
And I've done a lot of soul searching and trying to figure out what is at the core of this.
I, too, supported Trump because I want to win.
I've seen what liberalism can do, whether it's student loans or what it's done to my health insurance.
I've seen it, and I want it to end, and I want to win this election.
Having said that, Trump is not a conservative, as you have so brilliantly pointed out and given numerous examples of.
And this response to him is an emotional response.
It's one I know well because I've seen it on the left my whole life.
And we are not going to change the minds of these people, as you have said about many social issues, for example.
However, I noticed this Friday night, my Shabbat dinner, I had people over, big Trump supporters, and I spoke to them.
And they said, we've got to change things that are changing.
And they're talking from their heart.
And I said to them, Okay, what's going to happen in the next, not today and not tomorrow, three, four, five, ten years?
You can't just think about your emotional response now.
There's the Supreme Court we have to think of.
There are judges that are being appointed to the bench.
And not only do you think.
You know, Ruth, Ruth, let me tell you, you are referring to something that's been a very frustrating thing for me for my entire career, and it's how to get to people who are emotionally attached to an issue, a candidate, or whatever.
It's the reason Democrats are winning and Republicans are losing.
The Republicans do not have a way to make an emotional connection with people.
Trump does, obviously.
You know, this old adage that I've been using lately that people will forget what you say, but they will never forget how you make them feel.
So you're not going to talk people out.
You can't talk somebody who's a woman that's in love with a guy to beat Trump.
You can't talk her out of it.
We know this.
You're not going to be able to talk these people out of things.
That's the wrong way to go about it.
I've been trying for 27 years off and on different ways.
And it's frustrating.
The key to this is a different emotional connection that resonates with them more.
Are turning this emotional connection they have into fear rather than adulation and love.
It's a really, really tough thing.
Whoever comes up with this answer is going to become very famous and very rich.
And they're going to get every political consultant job there is to get.
I appreciate the call.
We're not through talking about that either.
I was not comparing Trump supporters to abused wives.
That was not the analogy.
And anybody that heard me knows exactly what I was saying.
But I'm ready for the distortions to hit.
You have a great night, folks.
We'll see you back here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection