All Episodes
Previous Next
April 30, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
29:20
April 30, 2015, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And back we are, just as I said we would be.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network.
Great to have you.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Now, I'm not going to answer the question fully.
I'm going to hear what some of you out there happen to think about this, even if it takes us into Open Line Friday tomorrow.
But I'm going to give you one hint.
Just one, but it is by no means the answer.
I mean, there is an answer to the question.
Maybe more than one, but there's one primary answer to it.
And maybe two good ones, but there's one primary.
Here's the question again.
Less than 1% of the adult population is part of a same-sex couple.
There are 243 million adults in America, and 0.8% of them, about 2 million, are part of a same-sex couple.
Now, by no means do all of them want to get married.
Just like in the heterosexual population, people don't want to get married.
There are gay couples.
There are gay singles that don't want to get married.
My point is that by the time you winnow it down to the actual percentage of gay couples that want to get married and are politically active in the movement, you're talking about a number so small as expressed as a percentage of the population as to be unbelievable.
Yet, despite that, everything they want politically, they're getting.
How can that be?
How can let's just use how can what do you think the number of actual militant political homosexual gay marriage activists are there?
A million?
500,000?
I mean, how many gay weddings have there been?
Pick a number.
It's no more than a million.
So let's use it.
How can a million people, you're talking about a minority, how can a million people bring something as old as hundreds of millions of years, hundreds of thousands of years, whatever, the definition of marriage to the Supreme Court to get it changed.
How can and does that happen?
Or if it isn't gay marriage, whatever else they want, how in the world can less than a million people in this country succeed in shutting down places of business like bakeries and flower shops and photoshops.
Take your pick.
Pizzeria's how can this happen?
How does it happen?
One element of the answer is something that we exposed on the EIB network some time ago.
I went back to the archives of the Rush Limbaugh program at rushlimbaugh.com and I remembered I had a story that detailed what the American people thought the population of the country was, the percentage of population was gay.
And the story was, and this is part of the answer, a majority of Americans think that the gay population is 13 times higher than it is.
Young Americans, millennials especially under 35, believe that 30% of the American population is gay.
If you have forgotten this story, I'm glad I went back to the archives and found it.
30% of millennials, people under 35, believe that 30% of the population is gay.
Maximum 2% is.
Census, and there's a number of studies that have been done.
Nobody disputes.
Well, the militant gays dispute it, and that's part and parcel of what they do.
But if, for example, if you think that 30% of the population is gay, well, that's a pretty sizable 30% of 240 million is a big number to discriminate against.
If 30% of 240 million want something that's being denied them and you think it's unfair, you'll support them.
It's unfair.
The majority ought to yield here.
Because the time you start talking, 30% of the population is gay, why that's approaching what some people might say is pretty normal.
That's not that odd.
It's a far different reaction when you tell people the population that's gay is two.
It's actually 2.3%, so rounded up to two, just to use even numbers here.
The average American believes the gay population is 13 times higher than it really is.
And part of that is the media, not leaving them out of the answer here.
But the media can't do it alone.
They have to have people that allow them to make this mistake.
I mean, they're all employees there.
And we had a caller talk about market share.
Wait a minute, Rush, the percentage of the population is one thing.
What about market share?
He said the market share for the proposition that big government, the answer to everything, is 95%.
I remember a caller calling in.
Your percentages don't work, Rush.
You've got to ask what percentage of the population believe government should do everything and lump the homosexual community into that.
Well, that's a whole different argument, but it's all part and parcel of creating a false picture, image, narrative, template, what have you.
So if you are in the group that believes 30% of the American population is homosexual, understand that that's not correct.
The number is 2.3%.
And then the number of homosexuals who are in same-sex relationships, according to Gallup, is 0.8%.
2 million people, roughly, is what we're.
And again, not all of them are by any means activists, rabble-rousers, agitators, what have you.
So part of the question, part of the answer to the question, how can they do it? Is when the American people think there's a lot of them.
Okay, now you know that the number is very small.
So how does this happen?
Now moving on to, let's see, other things.
Let's get to this political story on the Clintons because it's big.
I mean, the political, a lot of drive-by media outlets are really worried about this.
They're worried about the Peter Schweitzer book.
They're worried about Hillary's emails and the servers.
This is sticking.
There are some people in the media terribly worried about this.
And what's also, I think, obvious now is that there is not, as there was with Obama, there is not uniformity in the media supporting Hillary.
She does not have blanket support in the media for her presidency, for her campaign.
There are plenty of them that want somebody else.
Some of them want Elizabeth Warren.
Some of them are going to want this O'Malley guy.
And I'm telling you, keep an eye on Jim Webb.
You can laugh, but keep an eye on Jim Webb.
It's early, and I remember at this stage in 2007, everybody thought Hillary had it locked up.
There wasn't even a breath being expelled with the name Barack Obama on it.
It was Hillary's.
It was a fait accompli.
It was going to be a core.
She thought so too.
Out of the blue came Barack Obama, and the media immediately fractured.
And it took this program and Operation Chaos to maintain Mrs. Clinton's campaign all the way through the summer.
If we hadn't engaged in Operation Chaos, Obama would have wrapped up that nomination in April or May instead of June or July, whatever he did it.
Now, the Politico, a handful of deep-pocketed donors are reconsidering their gifts to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation amid mounting questions about how the foundation spends their money and suggestions of influence peddling.
This according to donors and others familiar with the foundation's fundraising.
The story is based on interviews with more than a dozen donors and staffers and operatives who have interacted with the Clinton Family Foundation or continue to do so.
And the Politico says, taken together, the accounts of all of these donors and staffers and operatives portray an organization scrambling to address concerns about its budgeting, about its fundraising, about its donor vetting while being buffeted by a raging political storm.
I'll tell you this.
Let's say you've got sleazy donor A over here who has donated $10, $15, $20 million to the Clinton Foundation.
And he's expecting Mrs. Clinton's going to be elected the president and that Bill Clinton and Hillary are going to be back in the number one and two seats of power.
And that he's going to get paid back for his donation.
Whatever it is he wants, that's why he's giving the money and he's going to get it.
But it requires her being elected.
Well, now all of a sudden, what appeared to be a slam dunk doesn't look like it's going to be a slam dunk.
It may be harder.
And some of these donors are so, wait a minute, have I maybe thrown my money away?
Then they see that 60%, sorry, 85% of the money donated to this foundation is going to salaries, travel expenses, entertainment expenses, everything but actual charitable or other kinds of functioning donations.
Only 15% of all the money collected actually goes to something like hurricane or earthquake relief or disaster relief of some kind or malaria, whatever the foundation claims that it's doing.
Only 15% goes.
Now, they don't particularly care about that.
What they care about, the donors concern, uh-oh, that's not good.
That could mean the people I'm investing in to win the election are going to have a tougher time winning.
If these people are going to get caught playing games with this kind of money, then this is looking like a riskier and riskier proposition.
And so they're starting to get concerned.
The worst case scenario for the foundation, its allies say privately, would be if Hillary lost her presidential campaign in a manner similar to 2008 when she lost it to Obama, which at least temporarily tarnished the family's political brand.
Now, unlike 2008, a losing campaign in 2016, that would wrap it up.
That would end the political perspirations and ambitions of the Clinton crime family.
This is it.
If this one blows up, if this one bombs out, there is no give us four more years and we'll get it right.
This is the last stop.
That would thrust responsibility for the foundation's future squarely into the hands of Chelsea.
And she's being groomed to take over.
But these people don't know Chelsea from Shmelse.
They don't know who they're dealing with.
They got to trust that she's going to grow into the family tradition as the mother and father have dictated.
All the while Bill is out there.
And by the way, Clinton Foundation, this is in the New York Post, Clinton Foundation called a slush fund by the charity monitor, a charity monitor.
It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons, said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at Sunlight Foundation, which is a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.
Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Crime Family Foundation because it's atypical business model and it doesn't meet our criteria.
I'm telling you this kind of stuff.
You know, the donors, people that give big money to these people, they're not nearly as confident as you who are afraid of the Clintons are that they're going to be okay in this.
I mean, they've got their money at stake.
And here's a quote, by the way, from this story.
Last year, former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald drew two years in prison.
He was accused of accepting golf outings, free travel, and loans from a political donor, well under $200,000 in value.
Now, what this shows is you have the right politics during a time of Democrats president, you are bulletproof.
But Bob McDonnell and his wife went to jail and they are pikers compared to what the Clintons are doing and have done.
Wow, I'm not sure I believe this.
Lookie here, folks.
This is immediate headline.
Republican representative has new argument against gay marriage.
Look at what's going on in Baltimore.
Hmm.
In a conversation with Family Research Council's Tony Perkins on Tuesday, Representative Bill Flores, a Republican from Texas, argued against same-sex marriage by citing the tumult in Baltimore as an example of the consequences of family breakdown, which Perkins points out, legalized gay marriage would only exacerbate.
Legalized gay marriage would exacerbate family breakdown, he says.
The single best indicator of whether or not a child is going to be in poverty or not is whether or not they were raised by a two-parent household or a single-parent household.
So the breakdown of the family has contributed to poverty, Congressman Flores said.
And then he said, look at what's going on in Baltimore today.
You see the issues that are raised there.
Healthy marriages are the ones between a man and a woman because they can have a healthy family.
They can raise children in a way that's best for their future, not only socially, but psychologically and economically from a health perspective.
There is nothing like traditional marriage that does that for a child.
Each of us have a mother and a father, and there is no way to get around that.
I believe Republican actually said this.
Look at what's going on in Baltimore if you want to understand what gay marriage is about from the family breakdown standpoint.
And no matter what, each of us has a mother and father, no matter what you want to think.
No way around it.
Here's Art, Russell de Arkansas.
Glad to hear you, Art.
Thank you for calling.
Hello.
His art there.
Okay.
Yeah.
Hi, Art.
How are you?
In answer to your question as to why the small percentage gets a big piece of the pie, it's big business and it's capitalism at its best.
You create a victim society, you create a group, and you make big money.
Hence the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation.
Wait a minute.
What's the Bill and Hillary Foundation having to do with the percentage of gay people in the country?
Well, just another victim group like American Indians, the black community, rape victims, natural disasters.
You have a.
Yeah, but see, that's the way.
Wait, wait, wait.
See, that's my – you're calling this capitalism.
And that's interesting, but every group you just mentioned dwarfs the gay population.
I mean, there are far more of almost every group except a couple that you mentioned that dwarf the numbers of gay people in America.
And yet, I mean, the gay population is getting more of their agenda advanced politically than the Christian majority is, for example.
Now, there's there are, you want to say it's money and capitalism.
Money is power.
And I don't refute that.
That's clearly part of it.
But there have to be other things going on in order for all of that to work.
Abby Fishers, Indiana, great to have you.
I'm glad you waited.
And welcome to the program.
Thank you.
Hi, Resh, great to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Hey, regarding the Madam Secretary Show, do you think that was another attempt to distinguish Hillary from Obama?
Let me first ask if you saw it.
I didn't.
I'm just going off of what you said earlier.
Okay.
Well, that's important because I'm not sure.
I always worry that I convey my meaning properly in this story.
I don't think that's what the episode was about.
This episode, if you take the homosexual element out of this episode, which you can't, but I mean, for the purposes of answering your question, if you take the homosexual element out of the show, and this show is about nothing other than our government making a deal with Iran on nukes, there's no way you would support Obama and John Kerry or anybody, and there's no way you would believe them.
This episode nuked the idea of doing a nuclear agreement with Iran.
And I just couldn't believe that.
I could not believe it, given the kind of people that write these episodes in Hollywood.
I did not associate Hillary with this episode at all, to be honest with you.
I don't think she had anything to do with it, because we now have to put the gay element back in.
What happened is this program was actually not about the Iranian nuclear deal.
It was about discrimination against gays.
And the real reason in this episode that Iran is supposed to be hated and not trusted and despised, and the reason that we are not supposed to do a deal with them is because they literally do execute homosexuals when they find them.
That's true.
They are a Muslim country, and if you are found to be homosexual, you'll be stoned to death if you don't repent, recant, and undergo treatment for it.
And sometimes you don't even get that opportunity.
They went into great detail about what happens in stoning, what kind of death that it is.
They had insubordinate people in the Secretary of State's office just telling her how full of it she was and how wrong she was and how she ought not sign on to this deal and how they ought not be part of it, or she ought to try to undermine it.
They had gay activists, a friend of hers, come into her office and tell somebody that works in the office that he was worthless, even though he supports the gay engineers, worthless because he won't do anything to stop the Iranians from stoning this homosexual on the day they're signing the deal.
I'll give you one example.
The gay activist is in the office talking to one of the assistants for the Secretary of State, and the assistant is saying, look, we're working real hard.
We're trying to get the Iranians to move the execution.
And the gay activist loses it.
The gay activist just hits the ceiling.
What do you mean?
Move it.
You're no better than them.
It's okay he dies.
It's okay the Iranians kill him.
Just not on the day you get your precious nuke deal signed.
You're no better than them.
And he walks out.
Well, that employee then is converted to an inside-the-office gay activist himself.
And he approaches the Secretary of State and he treats her almost with insubordination in telling her how wrong she is and how she ought to be doing more than just trying to get the Iranians to move the date of the execution.
She ought to be telling the Iranians they're not going to sign a deal unless the gay guy is set free and not killed.
So it's clear that, look, the homosexual, the militant political homosexual element in Hollywood ran this episode.
This episode ends up being about how the Iranian nuke deal is worthless and should not be done because of how they treat gays.
Now, in a way, that's positive step.
Now, the next shoe to drop would if we had an episode like this about the way women are treated in Iran and other such countries.
But my point here, and I still haven't expressed this, but it dovetailed well, but it dovetails with my question today.
A prime time television episode about an Iranian nuke deal is dominated by a discussion of the way the Iranians treat homosexuals.
And because they treat them poorly and kill them, no deal should be done.
That to me is an example of the power of the militant gay lobby in Hollywood to be able to write an episode and have it approved and acted, produced, and aired with that theme.
The secondary aspect of it was that the nuke deal stinks.
Now, you would think on CBS at 8 o'clock on Sunday night, right after 60 minutes, a primetime episode, that if a show called Secretary of State, Madam Secretary, is going to do an episode on the nuke deal, it'd be how about how great it is.
It'd be an episode supporting Obama.
It'd be an episode making the female Secretary of State look like she was a fundamental part of it.
She's supposed to be Hillary in disguise here.
But it wasn't any of that.
Now, the character, Madam Secretary, ends up looking, as she does in every episode, heroic and great and flawless and should be the president and all that.
That's the theme of this show.
And the president's typical boob, and the chief of staff is a mean-spirited, rotten guy.
And she is the conscience of everything.
But this episode just struck me because it was clear who won in the writer room on this episode about what it should be.
And furthermore, let's put the low-information viewer in front of the TV set Sunday night or streaming on his iPhone, however, he watches this stuff.
And he watches this episode.
And here is just yet another in what seems like a never-ending parade of prime time TV shows where homosexuality is featured and always in a 100% thoroughly positive light.
That is another illustration of the power.
What percentage of people that do this kind of thing in Hollywood, that write TV shows, produce TV shows, direct TV shows, stage-managed TV, what percentage of that universe do you think is homosexual?
And that number is much greater than 1%, like the general pop.
That number is huge in Hollywood.
And that's a partial answer to the question I've given you, but not all the way there because I vow not to answer this until somebody, a caller, gets close.
I know I'm not taking that many calls, but that's not by design.
In fact, take a break and come back with some more after this.
So don't go away.
Brevity is the soul of wit, said William Shakespeare.
So let me sum up the Madam Secretary episode.
If you had to tell people what the episode was about in one line, which I should have done in the first place, this is it.
Homosexuals are more important than the fate of Israel, than the fate of the Middle East, than the foreign policy of the United States.
If you were watching the episode on Sunday night, that's what you would conclude.
I mean, if you watch this stuff totally as a sponge and you're unbiased and you don't care, you're just watching to soak it all up.
And when it's over, think about what you just saw.
That's what you would conclude.
That homosexuals are more important than the fate of Israel, than the fate of the Middle East, more important than what the Iranians might do with a nuclear weapon.
And it's just another stone on the pile that's growing.
Not the best analogy.
It's just another example, another bit of evidence that promotes a cause.
And it's something that you wouldn't even be aware you're being affected by.
In most people, I'm talking about the low-information viewer, a subliminal reaction type thing.
That's also part of the answer.
I've been checking the email.
There's a lot of people getting close.
A lot of people are getting really, really close, at least to explaining it as I would.
And of course, my way is the answer.
But we'll let this stew overnight, deal with it again tomorrow.
Tim in Pittsburgh, we got about a minute, a little bit more.
I wanted to get to you before we had to go.
Hello.
How are you doing, Rush?
Good.
Thank you.
Good.
I appreciate you taking this call and everything you do.
I just wanted to express that nobody's talking about the Vietnam vet who stood up there and said that I am an American, not a black man.
Don't look at me like that.
That's the way I took it.
And he was trying to stop the rioters from he was probably the first one I've seen try to go up there and try to stop the rioters.
Yeah, see, that is a problem for them.
The people that are milking this and the people profiting from it, you always have to ask who benefits with something like this.
You always do.
And the people benefiting from this will not benefit if African Americans are not seen to be involved and supportive.
And that's why the person you talk about is being ignored.
I bet you most people don't even know what you're referring to and haven't seen it.
Precisely for that reason, cuts against the grain.
Look, I'm going to ask Allie, Tim, if we can get your number and call you back and continue this tomorrow on Open Line Friday.
Totally up to you.
We'll take a break and be back.
Do not go away, folks.
Yeah, yeah, I saw that.
If you have a tattoo on your wrist, the Apple Watch has things about it that won't work.
And I don't have any time to comment on that.
I don't know what I think about it anyway.
Well, I do, but I don't have any time to tell you because we're out of time.
But that doesn't mean anything because we got more time tomorrow.
Open line Friday in 21 hours.
▲
Export Selection