All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 25, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
February 25, 2016, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
So everybody's saying, what is Romney doing?
What is Romney thinking?
Romney has launched his own version of a dingy hairy attack on Trump about taxes.
I'm going to tell you what Romney's doing, and then we'll get some detail on this.
What I think Romney's doing.
I think Romney is freezing endorsements for Trump.
I think that in the bowels of the Republican establishment, they're very worried that a bunch of Republicans are on the verge of endorsing Trump.
And I think Romney goes out there and starts attacking Trump on his taxes to freeze any of that, to stop anybody endorsing Trump.
I think that's what this is.
There may be something to it, too, for all I know.
I mean, there are people that don't believe Trump's worth what he says he's worth.
There are people that don't think Trump has accomplished half of what he says he's accomplished in business.
There are people who think that Trump is doing all this, his lifestyle and his business on a wing and a prayer, and that the only reason he gets away with it is the banks are so invested in him by way of loans that they can't foreclose on him without taking themselves down.
There's all kinds of people who've been thinking that for years about Trump.
And what Romney's point is, hey, you know what?
Romney's trying to make it look like he's seen Trump's taxes.
And he's trying to make it look like Trump's taxes are not the taxes of a billionaire.
I mean, he's not paying very much.
This is what is being insinuated, is what being implied.
And you're supposed to infer that, well, he's not paying nearly enough taxes for a billionaire.
So either he's not a billionaire, or he's cheating, or maybe he's not donating all that money to charity that he says he is.
All of this.
And people are saying, why would Romney do this?
Because he's learned how effective it is, probably.
I guess this is exactly what Dingy Harry did to him.
And Romney didn't exactly handle it very well when it happened to him.
So I think maybe it's just an attempt.
I think it's trying to freeze Trump where he is in this possibility there might be Republican establishment types on the verge of endorsing Trump.
But boy, I tell you, folks, greetings.
Great to be with you, as always.
The telephone number here hasn't changed, 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
You know, Snerdley and I have this running little gag.
It's not actually a gag.
Snerdley is convinced that Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley are not going to cave to Obama on the Supreme Court nomination.
And of course, I, Rush Limbaugh, intelligence guided by experience, am not so confident that they're not going to cave because the experience is they do.
And because they have, it's easier to predict that they will.
But Snerdley is convinced that they are rock solid on this.
So I said to him, hey, did you see this?
Grassley scheduling Obama meeting over Scotus nominee.
And in the sub story, McConnell also trying to set up.
So these guys aren't even coordinating their meetings.
Grassley's going to have his own meeting with Obama.
And McConnell's going to have his own trying to schedule.
So I asked Snerdley.
This is bother.
No, no, no, no, no.
They're just faking Obama out.
They just got to go through the motions here, but nothing's going to happen.
Well, Karen, Obama invited both of them.
Fine.
That's okay.
Obama invited them.
Doesn't matter.
It's still going to happen.
The meetings are still going to happen.
And that's where that's where danger lurks.
I happen to be watching special report with Brett Bayer last night, and a subject came up, and it was funny.
They went to George Will, and George Will said, I really think that they should nominate somebody.
No, I think they should go ahead and schedule hearings for whoever Obama nominates.
Because obviously the Republicans need to learn themselves what they want in a nominee.
And he went on to describe all of the Republican nominees that turned out to be commylibs, such as Earl Warren and Harry Blackman, all these Republican presidents that nominate justices that end up writing Roe versus Wade.
So Will's point is cracking a joke.
Will's point, the Republicans need to do this to figure out how to do it.
Dr. Gnuthammer said if they do this, they will cave.
They ought not exchange one syllable with Obama.
If they start the hearings, it's over, they will cave, meaning the Republicans.
And the other panelist was the noted editor at thehill.com, A.B. Stoddard.
You know who she is?
Well, she's the daughter of one of the greatest broadcast executives in history, Brandon Snoddard of ABC.
In fact, that's what the B is, and her name is Alexandra Brandon Stoddard.
And she's at thehill.com.
Anyway, she's on there, and she thinks the Republicans could do it because the Republicans are rotten anyway, and they ought not stand in Obama's way.
Just do it.
It's silly not to do it.
So two out of three on the Fox panel said the Republicans do it.
Dr. Krauthammer said, no, no, no.
They will cave if they do it.
And then Obama supposedly has thrown a curveball by suggesting this Republic.
But Obama hasn't.
It's a media float.
Obama hasn't mentioned this guy from the governor of Colorado, but the media did.
Okay, speaking of the media, we've got Romney, I'm convinced, trying to freeze any continued positive or upward movement toward Trump with the allegation here that Trump's got questionable taxes.
Trump, of course, responded, well, this is typical.
I'm paraphrasing.
Here's a guy, lost, lousy, lousy candidate, had his taxes examined last campaign and didn't do it right or some such thing.
He was not moved by Romney's threats.
But the Washington Post and the Politico today both have essentially editorials.
The Washington Post is an editorial.
And it is, they're scared.
The headline to this thing is, GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Donald Trump.
Washington Post.
Now, I want you to stop and think about something for a second.
I'm going to give you details of this and what they say, but stop and think here of the premise and think about what the polling data that we have that's out there that says what it says.
There's most of the polling data.
There are just a couple that don't say this.
Most polls indicate that Hillary Clinton would beat Trump in a general, in the general election.
And most of the polls that say that Hillary would beat Trump say it would be easy, that it would not be much of a contest.
Additionally, there is another poll out today, and it's a combination of polls and exit polls.
And I forget off the top of my head the source of it, but get to it as the program unfolds.
And it's new information on Hispanics that 75 to 80% of Hispanics disapprove and dislike Trump nationwide.
70, 80% dislike Trump.
So you have that.
You have the polls that say that Hillary would beat Trump.
And there are a couple that say the opposite.
So the question is, if beating Trump is foregone conclusion, if Trump's the nominee, if you're sitting out there and you're a liberal and you're in the drive-by media, you're a Democrat, and you've got this polling data that says Hillary Clinton beats Trump, why wouldn't you want him to be the nominee?
The logical thing seems to me to be that if you are dead set on Hillary Clinton being the next president and you've got polling data suggesting that she would easily defeat Trump, why wouldn't you be trying to encourage that outcome?
And yet, what we have here is the Washington Post, Republican leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump.
Let me give you some excerpts.
The unthinkable is starting to look like the inevitable.
Absent an extraordinary effort from people who understand the menace he represents.
Donald Trump is likely to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party.
At this stage, even an extraordinary effort might fall short.
But history will not look kindly on Republican leaders who fail to do everything in their power to prevent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard-bearer.
Now, again, why do they care?
They're not Republicans.
The Washington Post editorial board is not going to vote for a Republican, no matter who it is.
They're in the tank for Hillary.
They have polling data suggesting Hillary will win easily over Trump.
Most of the polls, again, there are a couple that say every Republican, by the way, beats Hillary.
Trump by the smallest margin, but still beats her.
I can't think of the poll off the top of my head.
The poll I'm thinking of, though, says that Rubio beats Hillary the best or the easiest, but that they all do, but Trump just barely.
So we have here a full court onslaught against Trump.
We have the Politico with a similar piece to this today.
Political piece headline, is Trump making the GOP greater?
Again, his coalition is a lot broader and more diverse than is often assumed.
This kind of echoes one of my frequently made points here.
But the Washington Post, back to their editorial here, winning will not erase the bigotry and ugliness of Mr. Trump's campaign, nor will it remove the dangers of a Trump presidency.
A political party, after all, is not meant to be merely a collection of consultants, lobbyists, and functionaries angling for jobs.
Exactly right.
And that's exactly what most of the rest of everybody running has.
The fact of the matter is, political parties have become a collection of consultants who, in many cases, run the whole damn campaign.
Next come the lobbyists, and then the functionaries angling for jobs.
And then the suck-ups and the front-runner suck-ups who I described yesterday.
And then the people who want a slice of the money, which is also some of the consultants.
The Washington Post says it's supposed to have principles.
The political party is supposed to have principles.
And in the Republican case, at least as we have always understood it, to include a commitment to efficient government, free markets, and open debates.
So we're learning the Washington Post actually knows what we stand for.
They choose to distort it.
They know what we stand for.
Efficient government, free markets, open debate, and more.
But now with Trump coming along here and in the leadership position, they're scared.
My only question, why are they so scared?
What does it matter to them?
He's not a Democrat.
He's not going to beat Hillary in the primary.
He's not running against Hillary in the primary.
The polling data suggests he will not beat Hillary in the general, so what do they care?
Oh, no, there is an answer to all these questions I'm asking.
I'm just asking them rhetorically for now.
So here we have the Washington Post, and I find this kind of interesting.
Calling on the leaders of the Republican Party to destroy a candidate who says he's committed to stopping illegal immigration and preventing amnesty, which will spell the end of the Republican Party if it's not stopped.
I mean, if the Republican Party goes along with this Democrat Party immigration reform, it's the end of the Republican Party.
Need I remind people of this again?
If amnesty happens?
I understand amnesty, by the way, is becoming a word that has been so overused that it no longer has any impact.
Let me just put it this way.
If the Republican Party goes ahead and helps the Democrats get what they want in immigration, the end of the Republican Party.
And there are two Republicans in this race standing up and saying they're not going to let it happen.
One's Trump and the other is Ted Cruz.
And here comes the Washington Post.
I thought the Washington Post had the power to destroy candidates.
I thought the Washington Post could make or break anybody.
I thought all they needed to do was add a trialized stack.
The news coverage would be a little biased here.
It's interesting.
All these different news outlets are essentially admitting they can't do anything about Trump themselves.
They can't stop Trump.
So now they've got to turn to the Republican Party to stop it.
But why do they want him stopped?
If they believe their own polls and he can't beat Hillary, wouldn't they want him to win?
In their worldview, doesn't Trump make the Republican Party look odd?
Doesn't Trump make the Republican Party have an image problem?
Doesn't Trump do everything they would love to happen to the Republican Party?
So why are they urging Republicans to take him out?
Why such dire warnings in a major newspaper editorial?
Here's the next paragraph in this editorial against Trump.
He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists.
He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and sees no difference between Putin's victims and people killed in the defense of the United States.
He would round up and deport 11 million people, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot.
Well, that's a crock.
Eisenhower deported 6 million Americans back in the day.
Trump has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities, and many more.
He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed.
Wow.
They're really frustrated here.
And they're a member of a quite large group of people frustrated.
Anyway, I have to take a break here because the time factor, the constraints of the programming format and all that, but we'll be back and continue.
Don't go away.
Did you hear what John Kerry said?
This is hilarious, Grab.
Grab something by number 18.
Kerry was testifying yesterday at Capitol Hill.
It was a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the State Department's budget for this year, 2017, the budget request.
And during the QA, Senator Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, said, Mr. Secretary, speaking to the haughty John Kerry, by the way, once served in Vietnam, said, Secretary Kerry, I want to show you a picture of Ibrahim Al-Corsi, who was recently released by the regime to Sudan.
And he appeared on some al-Qaeda videos recruiting people for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
You let him out of Kwab Gitmo, and he goes over there and he starts recruiting.
Now that he's out, I would hope that we would end the policy of issuing terrorists to terrorist nations when they get out.
Well, Senator, he's not supposed to be doing that, and there are consequences for that.
Do you believe this?
Stop the tape.
We let a terrorist, we release a terrorist, we send him back to essentially the terrorist front lines.
We have pictures of him engaging in terrorist activity after we release him from captivity at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
This is mentioned John Kerry and his answer.
Well, he's not supposed to be doing that.
He's not supposed to be.
What is he, a child?
What'd you tell him to sit in the corner instead of go back to the terrorist battlefield?
What if he's not supposed to be doing that?
What?
You not supposed to be doing that?
That's our policy?
We let known terrorists out of prison.
We send them back to the terrorist battlefield.
They engage in terrorism.
Well, he's not supposed to be doing that.
And there are consequences for that.
And there will be.
But apart from that, said Kerry, fact is, we got people who have been held hostage without charges for 13 years, 14 years.
Really?
So that justifies a guy who's not supposed to be doing this, let out of prison to go do it?
It's amazing.
We.
Back we are, Rush Limbaugh here behind the golden EIB microphone, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, it was a Univision poll.
Seven out of ten Hispanics who have a very unfavorable impression of Donald Trump.
That's a Univision Washington Post poll that was released today.
Now, the Republican debate is tonight, and there's all kinds.
Oh, but let me get one thing off my chest here because I'm really setting a table for what's going to come next later.
You know, I've been listening to a number of people talk about debate this whole FBI versus Apple and iPhone thing.
And Tim Cook granted a very lengthy interview with ABC, David Muir, in World News tonight about this, and trying to explain his position, the FBI explaining theirs.
And it's, look, it's no different in this than any other thing that would come up.
But it's fascinating, really, when, in my case, I am an expert on much of this.
And to listen to people who don't know what they're talking about talk about it with passion is fascinating.
It's an interesting, it's an educational, informative thing to watch people who don't really know what they're talking about.
I mean, it's not that they're purposely getting things wrong, it's that they think they have it under control, total understanding, and when you listen to them, they don't.
I've seen this on TV from show to show, not just one particular show.
But here's the bottom line to this, and it's tough too, because James Comey, the FBI director, is a solid guy.
He worked for John Ashcroft.
I've never met him, but a lot of people I know know him and have great things to say about him.
But what the government's saying that they want here is simply not what they're actually angling for when they say it's just about access to this one phone.
Mr. Comey himself said, look, it's just, and it's not even a phone that's in wide use.
It's an iPhone 5C.
It doesn't matter, though.
This whole story, it doesn't matter what kind of phone it is.
It doesn't matter the model.
It doesn't matter anything.
It doesn't matter the specifics of the phone.
That's not what is at stake here.
This is about much more than simply a software company manufacturing an apparatus for the government to be able to get into one and only one phone is by no means what this is about.
And furthermore, this would have been solved.
This whole thing would have been over with by now, and nobody would have even known about it except the FBI took it public.
The FBI went public with this.
That put Apple on notice.
It turned them, put them on the defensive because their marketing ends up being attacked here and a number of other things.
The FBI going public with this has resulted in them not getting what they wanted.
For all intents and purposes, I mean, it's not guaranteed, but this episode might have already ended with nobody knowing anything about it.
They were talking.
That channel's private.
It wasn't public.
The FBI took it public.
The reason the FBI took it public is because they're converting this incident into a PR vehicle to get more than what they really are stating they want.
They want ultimately to force software writers and manufacturers to eliminate encryption.
And if not that, to give them the keys to be able to decrypt the content on phones.
And they're using the threat of terrorism as a means of emotionally involving everybody here.
I mean, who can oppose finding out everything you can find out about terrorists?
Who in the world would stand in the way of trying to find out what terrorism is lurking out there and who the terrorists might be?
And if all that information perhaps is on that one phone, who could possibly oppose that?
So the FBI wants to make everybody think that's what this is about when it isn't.
Their desires go way beyond being able to find out what's on this one phone, way, way beyond it.
So, and in the midst of this, do you know what Apple is doing?
And I'm here to tell you that this is going to be something that is going to end up irritating a lot of people down the road because of this.
And I think even prior to this incident happening, you know, Apple, if you trust their marketing, if you trust what they say when they market and sell their products, primarily their devices, the iPhones and the iPads and so forth, if you believe them, then you believe that they are really totally invested in your privacy and really totally invested in your security.
And they don't want anybody being able to hack your phone, to get into your phone, find out what's on your phone without your permission.
So what Apple is doing, and it may show up on the next iPhone, the iPhone 7, which is due to hit in September, Apple is working on securing their system software even more.
And what they're going to end up with, if they succeed in this, and there's nothing technologically to stop them, it's, again, a marketing decision to do this or not.
They could end up having system software that not even Apple would be able to crack.
It will be so secure that not even Apple will be able to.
Now, you might think, oh, that's really great, man.
I'll be for that.
Well, here's the problem with that.
Most people forget passwords.
Well, not most, but a lot of people forget passwords.
You would be stunned at the number of customer service calls that Apple and other similar tech companies get every day from people who have forgotten their passwords to their devices and don't know what to do.
They have no way if they've forgotten their password.
And there are mechanisms in place that if you try a number of times and get it wrong, in the case of Apple, they will delay the next attempt and delay the next attempt.
And then after 10 attempts, if you have it set, the phone's data will be erased.
Ultimate security.
Just wipe it.
After 10 attempts, the assumption is that somebody other than the owner is trying to get in there.
The first four attempts, you can try them immediately right after.
If you fail four times, the fifth attempt, you have to wait a minute.
If that fails, you have to wait 10 minutes.
On up to the 10th time, which the last time after failed attempt number nine, you have to wait an hour before trying the 10th time.
And if it fails the 10th time, Sayonara.
Now, in that case, you can call Apple now.
When you set up your device and when you establish your passcode, you were given questions to answer what your favorite course in school was.
You know, questions only you could possibly know the answers to.
In case you forget your password, you want Apple to open the phone for you, reset your password so you can get into it.
You have to be able to prove who you are more than with your credit card, more than with conventional identification data.
You have to answer certain questions that you choose to answer when you set it all up.
Apple's preparing to eliminate all that.
They're going to take this the complete end of the road.
If you forget your password, you are screwed.
There will not be.
Apple is writing it so that not even they will be able to unlock anybody's phone.
And they're doing this on the basis of promising ultimate total security and privacy.
Now, that's going to end up making a lot of people really irritated because there are more people than you would understand or maybe not understand, believe, who forget their passwords.
Have you ever forgotten a password?
I've never forgotten my phone PIN or passcode.
But if it's been years since I've used, like say a website that needs one, I've forgotten some.
It happens to everybody at the point.
It's getting to the point where if they succeed in this, they're calling it improvement in security, you forget it.
And if you did not set up ways for you to remind yourself what that password is, you're going to be out of luck.
And if they do this, it's going to make these phones hack-proof, but it's going to irritate a lot of people who forget their passwords and did not set up mechanisms whereby they can be reminded what their password is.
It's a little bit more involved than this.
I'm just giving you the surface end result of this.
One of the ways that you can beat the system now, and this is what the San Bernardino County people screwed up.
There's a way you can get into every iPhone without a passcode.
And what it is, is to put it in recovery mode and restore software, restore the operating system to it.
And you can do all of that and preserving the data on the phone.
You can do all of that by installing a new system from recovery mode.
Now, getting into recovery mode is not an easy thing to do.
It takes a little practice to get in there, but you have to figure out how to put the phone into recovery mode.
Connect it to iTunes.
Can't use iCloud for this.
And then once you've done that, you have a way of getting into the phone.
This is what's the San Bernardino people blew that opportunity by changing the Apple ID password.
They were trying to get in and find a backup on iCloud of the data on the phone that they could get to.
But because they changed, they didn't know what they had.
They didn't know what they were doing.
They didn't know that they had total control over the device and everybody else that has a device that they gave.
So it's not just about this one phone, and it's not just about whatever's on this phone stopping terrorism.
There is on the part of the FBI, much more is desired.
They want ways into all kinds of devices.
They want the devices to be less encrypted than they are now.
But they're camouflaging those desires by focusing everybody's attention here.
That's just one phone.
It's just a terrorist phone.
Who in the world could not want us to find out what was on that phone to stop terrorism?
You know, that's the position Apple finds themselves in.
He's having to explain this.
It's a tough sell.
Have to take a brief time out again.
We'll continue after this, my friends.
Don't go away.
Here is the final paragraph of that Washington Post editorial demanding the Republican Party stop Trump.
If Mr. Trump is to be stopped, now is the time for leaders of conscience to say they will not and cannot support him and to do what they can to stop him.
We understand that Mr. Trump would seek to use this to his benefit, meaning this editorial, and that he might succeed in using this to his benefit.
But what is the choice?
Is the Republican Party truly not going to resist its own debasement?
What do they care?
They are out to destroy the Republican Party.
Actually, they're not out to destroy it.
They need the Republican Party as a bumbling fool bunch of foils.
I mean, as long as the Republican Party will never win anything, they wouldn't mind it being around.
But this editorial doesn't make any sense.
If Trump is going to destroy the Republican Party and ensure Hillary Clinton's election, then this editorial doesn't make any sense.
There has to be something else going on here.
And you and I know there is.
Let me start on this on the phones.
Hayden, Idaho, this is Greg.
It's great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Well, hello, Rush.
It's good to talk with you again.
And I certainly have an opinion on what I think the answer is.
It's not just the Washington Post.
It's also Fox News, and so I was asking myself, why are...
No, no, no, wait, wait, wait, hold it, hold it, hold it.
No, let's not.
Fox News has not published anything like this.
And nobody at Fox News speaking for Rupert Murdoch or Fox News has ever said anything like this.
Now, you might have a couple commentators on Fox News who think this, but Fox News, 20th Century Fox is an entity, has not done this.
That's true, but most of the commentators, because I watch Hannity, I watch the Kelly file and all of them.
And most of the commentators are in an all-out panic this week trying to tell Rubio and Cruz what they need to do to stop Trump.
So what I think's happening, Rush, is for the first time, you know, certainly in my lifetime, both sides, and they're actually members of the same big elitist club, they realize that the unclean masses might actually determine who's going to be president, and neither side can handle this.
Interesting.
So you think what's at the root of the Washington Post's editorial is that the serfs, the hoy polloy, the rabble, the great unwashed, the human debris of our country are actually going to determine who gets the power to run the country.
And it isn't going to be anybody from their club.
And that is what they are worried about.
Is that pretty close to what he said?
But boy, oh boy, let somebody diss that high school or college, and they unite together.
And I think what's happened is Trump didn't go to that high school, and they're in a panic because he's created this wave.
If you look at the voter turnout in the primaries and caucuses so far, people are turning out, they're setting records on the Republican side.
And those polls don't matter if the record turnout favors Trump.
And that's what they're afraid of: is actually the unclean masses, people who have never voted, are going to come out and put this guy in, and then he's not going to be beholden to anybody.
Okay, well, that's what we're talking across this.
See, he can't hear me when he's talking, so he didn't hear what I just said to him.
He was talking the whole time I was talking because he can't hear me.
That's our state-of-the-art phone system.
But pretty much, we're saying the same things in different ways.
What he's saying is that people from outside the club, people that would never be admitted in the club, you, the great unwashed, are going to put some clunkhead who they also wouldn't let in the club ahead of everything.
And they're trying to protect the club.
They're protecting the ruling class.
They're protecting their own elite status.
And the Republicans are on the verge here of blowing it for every elite if they let Trump in the tent.
That's the theory.
So we'll take a break.
We'll turn that around here a while and be back and continue after this.
Yeah, I think it would help you to understand the Democrat Party needs the Republican Party like the Harlem Globetrotters needed the Washington Generals.
It's akin to the Roadrunner needing that bumbling fool Wiley E. Coyote, or there would not have been a cartoon show.
I mean, Coyote lost every damn show, but if he wasn't showing up at every show, there wouldn't have been a show.
▲
Export Selection