All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:40
May 1, 2015, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Just looking for something.
I found it.
Well, I didn't find it.
It didn't matter.
I was just looking to see if something was there, and it wasn't.
That's why it took a little longer, but we're here.
It's Friday, so let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And our final big hour of Open Line Friday is upon us 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
You get to choose what we talk about.
You can pretend it's your show.
You can ask questions or comments, virtually anything except complaining about the telephone bill or the electric bill or sewage problems, trash problems.
Anything else have at it.
800 282882.
Okay, yesterday on this program I asked a very important political question, and I did not provide the answer because I wanted to see what kind of answers I got.
Sort of a status report kind of thing.
Figure out just how up to speed some of you in the audience might happen to be on something that's important.
On this program some time ago, within the past year, it it might have even been last December.
I ran into a story that said most millennials, most of the people under 35 in this country think that the Africa the gay population of the United States is 30 to 35%.
And I remember being stunned by that because it's never, it's never been 35%, and it's never going to be.
But yet the millennials thought so.
And when some when a thought like that exists, I mean, you can understand then a lot of sympathy for so-called discrimination against said people.
My gosh, I mean, 30%, that's a minority, but that's a lot of people.
We're telling them they can't get married.
Gene, that's not fair.
Come on.
And in the millennial generation, gay rights and gay marriage is a big deal.
It's all part of equality and fairness, and I think the country's messed up.
People are mistreated, so they're all for gay rights.
They fall for this stuff.
Um based on the incorrect percentage.
I thought the percentage was a number that I was wrong about, too.
I thought the gay population, five or six percent, and I had to consult my own transcript to find out that the actual gay population of America is about the per of adults, 240 million adults, 243 million, and the actual percentage of homosexuals is about 2.3%.
2.3 of 243 million is 2.7 million people.
But then we had to make that number even smaller because not all of them want to get married, and not all of those who do are political activists.
So the number keeps getting smaller when you ask what percentage of the adult population in the country is actually politically motivated and activist on the issue of gay marriage.
You're now talking about fewer than a million people, which is a lot of people, but expressed as a percentage of 243 million, it's tiny.
Yeah, okay, the question thus was.
How can such a small number of people come to so dominate the American political system?
How can less than a million people cause the havoc that they caused in Indiana recently?
How can so few people end up closing down businesses like flower shops or bakeries or photo shops or what have you?
And it's an interesting question because we are a majority country rule, a majority rule country, but yet this is significant achievement.
I mean, less than less than let's let's just do the population at large.
Let's pretend they're all political activists just to make the point even more profound.
Let's say two million people, and not all of them vote either.
They're like any other subset of people.
They're not monolithic.
They don't all think the same way.
They'd all vote the same way.
They don't all vote.
But let's assume they do, just for the purposes of this question.
How is it that 243 million people have allowed two million people to push them around on something as age-old as the definition of marriage?
How does that happen?
I posed this question yesterday.
And now let's use the real number.
Two million people, roughly two and a half million people represent the gay population of America.
Now you think that's tiny, probably because you are under the impression it's much larger, like the millennials are.
And this goes to answering the question, by the way.
But I'll ask it again.
How can a million people, how can two million people who are not monolithic, so it's not even that full number, succeed in getting to the highest court in the land, the proposition that the thousands of years old definition and structure of marriage is wrong.
How does that happen?
Now the short answer to this is that this could not happen unless these people were sponsored and represented by a political party.
If they were not, if they didn't have the Democrat Party championing their causes and running interference for them and the like, then they wouldn't have anywhere near this kind of power.
First, that may seem obvious to you.
But secondly, they wouldn't have the ability to affect all of this fear and intimidation, which they have succeeded in doing.
Now, why do you people think, why what did the people in the audience who think the population of the country that is gay is much larger than 2.5%.
Those of you who might have believed it was 30 or 32%, 3%, why do you believe that?
It's not hard to explain, because if you go to a smaller area of the country and take the percentage of the population which might be gay there, then you're going to have an entirely different picture.
You go to Hollywood, where television shows and movies are written, produced, directed, paid for, starred in, you will find the homosexual population is much, much larger than 2%.
It is much larger.
And therefore, control of the media or having a fair amount of control in the media is paramount to achieve what they have achieved.
So you can't turn on a television show now in prime time.
You really can't, without seeing some form of homosexual love relationships, and sex.
You can't miss it.
It's everywhere now.
And it's been creeping up in with more and more prominence over the years.
It's so prominent now that it is being made to appear in many ways as normal as anything else, which will then lend credence to the idea that the gay population is 30%.
And if people end up thinking that, combined with the both subliminal and conscious realizations that you have by media exposure, then you can come to believe that there is a much larger number than there really is,
with much more power than they actually have, then there are added societal pressures that are that are added on to all of this that genuinely result in people caving and acquiescing and caving in and not standing up for what they believe in, because the Democrat Party is also the media.
And without the Democrat Party and the media, and by the way, the gay population in the media would be much higher than 2%.
The activists in the community have long known where to seek careers and jobs in order to affect this kind of change.
So the illusion has been created that it's much greater than 2% or 2.3%.
And then you slap on the guilt and the threats and the fear, and you have people basically acquiescing to it.
And this is how it's happened.
But it's amazing to me, nevertheless, it's quite an achievement, folks.
I mean, you have to admit that less than two million people.
And I can I know some of you are disputing that.
Rush, it's gotta be more than.
I'm just going on numbers from the Gallup poll, folks.
Source for all of these numbers is the latest Gallup survey.
And I I do know, and there have been many besides Gallup, I do know that the 2.3 to 2% number is accurate in terms of the percentage of the entire country population that is gay.
The gay population on TV shows is over 40%, however, according to GLAD, the gay lesbian alliance against defamation, the gay population on television shows is over 40%.
Meaning over 40% of the characters on TV in primetime and throughout the day are gay.
Here's the actual stat.
2014 from GLAAD.
Out of 813, 813 primetime broadcast scripted series regulars, 32 will be LGBT this year 3.9%.
So I left out a decimal point.
It's 3.9% as opposed to 2.3, and it is it is climbing.
And I think it, but if you if you concentrate it all in prime time, it appears to be even more, but for forget the characters.
Now you've got to look at the issues.
The subject matter of these shows, like the Sunday night episode of House of Madam Secretary that I described yesterday.
Don't worry, I'm not gonna get into it all again today.
Suffice it to say, if you missed the show, Madam Secretary, if I could explain it to you in one line, gay rights and gay issues is more important than the state of Israel and the safety of the Middle East was the subject of the show.
Forty primetime shows feature gay characters, gay storylines.
But then House of Cards did the same thing that Madam Secretary did.
A gay character, the plight of gay people was more important than our policy with Russia, more important than uh defense policy and so forth.
And this is, I mean, you gotta give it to them.
They've taken over these industries and they're using it to politically promulgate and promote uh their political power and project it.
That's what it's for.
Anyone can do it, they are.
And so that's why that's such a small percentage can effect some so much major change.
They're willing to try, they're willing to use it, and others are being docile and relying on somebody else to do their opposition for them or what have you.
Um I've had also, can I take you back to Indiana, for example?
This is likely to infuriate some people, but I just want to use this as an example.
We talk about Sharia law on this program quite a bit as it relates to militant Islam.
And Sharia law is people warn about it constantly, about what militant Islam intends and how militant Islam intends for people to live.
And Sharia law supersedes all other.
It's Sharia law that allows women to be stoned for not wearing face cover.
Uh sharia law is what permits homosexuals to be stoned to death in Iran.
Homosex uh Sharia law is believe me, you wouldn't want any part of it.
I mean, it it is basically the seventh century religious beliefs as the law of the land on a daily basis.
I mean, it is the it's a giant constriction on freedom.
What happened in Indiana when this whole notion of the uh would you serve pizza to a gay wedding?
You saw the reaction on Twitter, Facebook, all of the social media.
You saw the media descend on these businesses, thrust microphones in innocent people's faces.
People had not done anything, and ask them, would you cater a gay wedding with your pizzeria?
No, my religious beliefs stated I cannot, and the whole country descended on that little pizzeria in a town of 2,000 people, and they didn't know what hit them.
And all they were doing, all that young woman from that family was doing was telling people what her religious beliefs were.
She was standing up for her own.
You saw what happened.
That is a great example of how Sharia operates.
You will do this.
You will think this, you will like this, you will behave the way we're going to tell you to behave, and you will respect it and you will like it, and you will profess that you like it.
And if you don't, then this is what's going to happen to you.
Sharia does not permit freedom of any kind.
It has its its requirements, it's law, it's guidelines, and if you're caught in violation, that's too bad.
And there's no court per se.
It's nothing.
So i it's to me it's fascinating to watch all of this happen.
You know, I've one of the things I do, I've often said I live life by watching other people live it.
I mean, I have my own life too, but when I've I've uh I I observe life in many ways by living it, vice versa, live life by observing it.
And I'm I'm fascinated by how people win elections, and how people uh fascinated by how people gain power politically, particularly minorities.
And it takes two to tango.
I mean, you can have all of the uh take it, take any political minority you want that's seeking majority status, even though they are not the majority.
They can use all the intimidation tactics in the world they want.
As a victim, they're entitled to break the rules because they're the aggrieved and so forth.
It's fascinating to me to watch it transpire and and watch hardly any opposition rise up against it.
It's the only way it can happen.
No pushback.
And it's exactly what is happening.
We are being run.
This country is being run by a veritable minority, and that is of liberalism.
Liberals are a minority of thought.
The percentage of the country that's liberal is less than 50.
It's not a majority.
But where are they?
They are in the classroom.
They're running colleges, universities, high schools, school systems.
They are running the media.
News, movies, books, television shows.
So the impression, particularly with the control of the media, the impression is that they are much larger in number than they are, much more widespread than they are, and much more powerful than they are.
Well, they are powerful because they own those institutions.
Anyway, I've gee, I just saw the clock.
Where was the warning?
And we're back, open line Friday, Rush Limbo on the EIB network.
Gimme Gary in line three, Gary in Norfolk, Nebraska.
I'm glad you called, and welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Uh yes, uh, thank you, Rush, very much for taking my call.
You bet.
Uh uh, Rush, I had two comments today, and I was uh looking very much forward to speaking with Mr. Snerdley, and uh unfortunately he has the day off, I guess.
But uh, I hate to put you on the spot uh because I was gonna talk to Mr. Snerdley about this, but uh, have you ever considered allowing your uh official program observer to guest host your show when you in your absence?
No.
Well, I'm not sure.
What did That's not what that's not what you said you wanted to call, Gary.
That's not what you said you wanted to talk about, so see you later.
I'll be glad to answer any question, folks, if you'll be honest with me about it.
That's not what he said he wanted to talk to me about.
And why'd you take it down?
He had some question about Iran, and um, and it just happened to be where I was gonna go next.
Because I'm watching, I just saw Seth Myers, some comedian, just is asking for the Iranian foreign minister to be applauded for the way he is talking about that's that's not quite it.
It it here's the it it's it's focused something for me about the left, and you know, one thing I've been wondering here is how is Obama getting away with allowing Iran to have a nuclear.
Why do liberals, why are they not troubled by this?
Why are they not bothered by what might happen based on what the Iranians have even said about why they want to nuke?
Why does nobody on the left worry about what Obama is doing?
And this tweet from Seth Myers gave me the answer.
Welcome back, Rushlin Baugh EIB network executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Now, the point I was going to make here, there's a I just saw this tweet, and I thought the guy we had on the phone, he's he we said it that he was going to ask me about Iran and the GOP and something.
So I was gonna dovetail it with Seth Myers, well known late-night comedian, Seth Myers, cheers the Iranian foreign minister's well-done response to Republican Senator Tom Cotton.
Now you know what this is about.
Obama's about to give away the store in Iran.
He's about to let them develop nuclear weapons within two or three months after signing the deal with him.
We're gonna lift sanctions.
There's not going to be any penalty, they're going to become a nuclear state.
Obama's doing this.
The left is not bothered by it.
And I frankly have been, why are they not bothered by this for crying out loud?
Do they not understand who Iran is?
Hold on, I've got the answer.
This is all right here in this tweet.
What happened?
The foreign minister, Tom Cotton, a Republican senator, as you know, sent this letter.
Well, he didn't send it, he posted it on a website, uh claiming what all would happen.
And he he promised that the United States Senate would not ratify the deal that negotiated Obama was negotiating.
So the Iranian foreign minister goes public with what a bunch of rotten scumbags the Republicans are.
And how Obama's great, which they would obviously think.
And an American comedian is cheering the Iranian foreign minister for humiliating and disagreeing with great comedy a Republican senator.
It's even worse than I thought, folks.
I think, and maybe you all have figured this out, I may be arriving late in the day on this.
just But you know where I think we are in this country right now.
I think that anything that is of a traditional nature, long-term traditional belief, even in policy, is considered invalid if it is a tradition and belief found within the Republican Party.
For example, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, the Iranians have always been an enemy.
When those guys were president, Iran was treated as an enemy.
They were treated for what they are, the state sponsor of terrorism.
We did not do deals with them.
We did not go out of our way to enable their nuclear aspirations.
And apparently, The left today, including these young twerp Canadians, comedians, apparently the belief is anything the Republicans have championed or believed in in the past is laughable.
Is wrong.
I think it's worse than we have even thought.
I don't this goes beyond hero worship and idolatry of Obama.
The left supporting him and whatever he does.
It's bigger than just the fact that they're enamored of Obama.
I actually think that with much many of these people, the Republicanslash conservative brand, if you will, has such well, it's not even Cachet.
I think that they're so hated and despised that whatever is associated with Republican president's Republican policy is automatically disagreed with and discounted.
How else could some twerp comedian side with the foreign minister of a country that's the state sponsor of terrorism that openly assassinates homosexuals and treats women the way they do, and the American left happens to side with this country over the Republican Party.
How do you figure that?
It's got to be the hatred, the absolute disgust that these people have for Republicans is totally perverted their sense of judgment.
And as such, these people are participating in putting this country at greater risk than we otherwise would be.
Yes, I can remember it wasn't that long ago where it wasn't a national divide over whether or not Iran is a bad guy.
And just to pick Iran's one, uh there are many other nations that their sympathy for Venezuela, there's sympathy for North Korea, the sympathy for Cuba.
And we've always thought it was just, you know, oddball leftists having some romantic tie to socialism.
I think it's deeper than that.
I think it's simply because Republicans don't like these people.
It's not Republicans don't like it, not the way to put it.
Republicans oppose communism, communism must be good.
Republicans oppose a nuclear deal with Iran, it's gotta be a good deal.
I think this is how these jokers look at it.
It's kind of stunning.
Let me grab uh Dave in Indianapolis.
We promised to call Dave back yesterday because we didn't have much time with him.
And Dave's in uh Indianapolis, and he called yesterday to to side with the um uh you called about the mother who came out of her house and and uh and and hit her son for being stupid and joining the protest in in Baltimore, and you agreed with the libs who criticized her, right?
Well, uh I'm not on the fence very often, Rush, but in this case, like I have to say I sort of was because when I saw that mother smack her son upside the head, I applauded as well as my wife did, and we said, now that's good parenting right there.
Because in that moment, what we see is he meets life with, I'm paraphrasing part of her quote, he meets life with aggression, so she meets him with aggression.
That's what was happening.
But what she said in her quote was that this mother has dealt with aggression and her life growing up there, and if she meets her son with aggression, he will meet life with aggression.
Almost as if she's excusing why this kid is the way he is, and I think she's making some assumptions that those smacks to the left side of his head were not the first ones.
Maybe he's been getting those since he was little.
And maybe that's why he has turned out the way he is, but there's a lot of assumptions in there.
What we saw in the video and applauded was that he was being the aggressor.
And if he had connected with a brick much worse than what he got from his mom, she came along and did what millions of us would have done and said, What are you doing?
Well, I think this woman Was assuming that maybe somewhere in this kid's life he's responding to what he's gotten in the past.
Well, that's acting like that.
That could be.
But remember now, when this happened, there you your reaction was like most people's.
Everybody applauded her.
She became a hero.
She was on morning show television.
She was a hero.
And a couple days later, here come people on the left accusing her of child abuse and mistreating her son, and she shouldn't have done this in public, which is something I predicted.
And uh it didn't take she lost her heroine status pretty soon as she became an example of poor parenting.
In fact, and then when they talked to her, I found this very she said that, and it it changed my perception of what she had done.
She said she essentially didn't trust the cops.
She didn't want him out there riding because he could get killed.
Not because it was the wrong thing to do, but because he could get killed.
I heard her say she's seen the way the police act, police kill people, people get killed in riots, police get away with it.
I don't want that happening to my son.
I want him to stay alive.
I got I gathered that it wasn't because she was opposed to what he was doing from a standpoint of the cause.
She just worried about his life as a mother, and she didn't want him putting it at risk.
And on the protest march, she thought, I don't want any part of that.
He can't win doing that.
Well, I would think, unless the mother expressly left out, I mean, on purpose, and said, Well, I'm not worried about, you know, the reason he's doing it.
I'm just worried he's going to get hurt.
I wouldn't assume that she didn't think both things.
That number one, he shouldn't be doing it.
And secondly, I don't want him to get hurt.
That's her primary responsibility at the moment, just get him out of there.
But um I I just think there were a lot of assumptions made, and I'm a I'm a twenty-seven-year student of EIBU University.
Yeah.
And a resident of Realville, and here I am thinking about Colin Rush and disagreeing with him.
But when I heard you say that yesterday, you said that makes no sense, or that's nonsense.
And I looked up at the radio, as you've probably done before, and said, Well, of course it made sense.
And grabbed the phone, and the first time I called, it rang, and someone answered, and I almost couldn't believe it.
Well, hang on, I gotta take a quick break here, or I'll come back and close it out with you.
But uh this is Dave in Indianapolis, and I by the way, thanks for letting us call you back.
Because I took his call yesterday and I misread the clock and didn't have nearly the time left I thought we did.
Okay, so Dave, to wrap it up, where are you now on the whole thing with Toya Graham coming out and slapping her son and telling him to get off the uh the protest march or the riot.
Right.
You think she did the right thing?
You still think she did the right thing or not?
Well, I think uh all we see is that picture.
I didn't look into her life.
I didn't see uh I mean when people were asking where was the father, I just assumed he was at work.
It was only later on I found out that she was single.
Um I didn't really pry into it, so all I see is that moment.
At that moment, yeah, she did the right thing.
That's what I would have done, that's what you would have done.
That's what uh I mean my wife is uh was well raised by her parents, and I know her mom might have even done worse.
So it's it's it's all good.
Well, but see, I look see that the thing going on in the past, it's not every parent she stands out because she's the only parent to do it.
That anybody saw anyway.
And that's why it stood out.
And she was applauded.
What is that tell you?
Uh good sign applauded until she spoke.
Oh, I just didn't want him getting killed.
She didn't comment on the protest itself.
She's she um six kids, no husband, lives alone, no job.
And I I think I don't remember well enough.
She she witnessed a gunshot death in her family, some kind of recent past, so it was fresh on her mind.
Uh, but she just wanted harm coming to her son.
Um a lot of parents would have thought their kids are doing a valiant thing by going out there and protesting the cops.
I would have encouraged them to do so.
We didn't see any.
We we don't see this often, parents when they find out their kids are out there running out there and yanking them off the streets.
What the hell do you think you're we don't see it?
That's why it made news and stood out.
Good job, folks.
That's uh great job you did today on open line Friday.
It encourages me to keep trying it, to keep doing it again.
Glad you all are there, and I hope you have a great weekend, a fun one and uh fulfilling, whatever that would mean to you.
▲
Export Selection