RUSH: Now, Madam Secretary. I’ve teased this enough and I didn’t mean to tease it all. Madam Secretary is a fictional show, fictitious show. It stars Tea Leoni as secretary of state. I jokingly say that she’s portraying Hillary Clinton. I don’t know what the purpose of the program is. I thought, at one point when the first show was first announced, that it was an effort by virtue of a TV show… You know how many people cite TV shows and movies when they want to tell you things that really happen.
“Oh, yeah, I saw it in a movie! Yeah, did you see this?” It ends up being real. So you do a TV show and you have a strong female character — big, strong secretary of state — you might be trying to subliminally connect with the audience in a way that suggests that Mrs. Clinton, as a brilliant secretary of state, would make a great president. That might have been the purpose; I don’t know. Anyway, I watch it now and then because I find it entertaining, and it’s good.
Sunday night’s episode was fascinating. In Sunday night’s episode, the president of the United States was welcoming to Washington the president of Iran, and they were going to sign a treaty in which Iran was promising to not go nuke. At the same time that this ceremony was to happen, Iran was going to stone to death a militant gay individual who was being stoned to death simply because he was gay.
And the secretary of state, Tea Leoni, was being blasted by friends of hers in the gay community who were gonna protest the signing of the treaty with Iran because of the stoning of the gay man (which is an execution) on the same day. She was being lobbied, implored to do everything she could to see to it that the president didn’t sign this, to not go through with this because of the way Iran treats homosexuals. She tried as best she could.
She asked the Iranians to please move the day of the stoning so that it wouldn’t take place on the day of the signing ceremony on the nuke deal, and this just enraged the gay lobby on this show even more. “You’re telling me that it’s okay if they stone our fellow homosexual just on a different day? How dare you! Do you know what happens during a stoning?” and then they detailed it. She gets very guilty and starts feeling very, very troubled by this and wishing she could undermine the signing ceremony.
But she can’t. She’s secretary of state. She takes steps, she does everything she can to try to get this not to happen, but it doesn’t happen. They go ahead and they sign the deal. This is the part of the show that just stunned me. They signed the deal, but if you watch this show — if you’re a low-information voter and you watched this show Sunday night — there’s no way that you could conclude that there’s anything good about Iran and there is no way we should be signing an Iranian nuke deal.
I’m watching this in total shock and dismay. I’m expecting just the opposite. But, no! If you’re a low-information viewer and you watched this episode Sunday night, there is no way you could conclude that what Obama’s doing is good. If you have the mental powers to put two and two together. The Iranians were portrayed for what they really are. We couldn’t trust whatever they sign, that whatever they sign doesn’t mean anything, that we can’t trust them. Why are we doing it?
The State Department wanted no part of this, but the president was gonna do it for his legacy for whatever. But the key was, the reason, the real reason it shouldn’t have happened in this show was because the Iranians were stoning to death a gay man on the same day. The real takeaway from this is: In a battle of left-wing interest groups, on this program, the gay lobby won. Because on this episode, the real reason Iran looked bad is not because they’re gonna do nukes, and not because they’re dishonest.
But because they stoned to death a gay individual. That was why we shouldn’t have done the Iran deal. Not because of nukes, not because we can’t trust ’em. So I’m imagining this program being written, and I’m imagining the competing forces in the writers room putting this episode together. Because I, first, can’t believe that the episode even ran. This episode… Again, if you have any modicum of intelligence watching it, and you’re aware that we are engaged in a nuclear negotiation with Iran, there’s no way…
If you know that, there’s no way that you would support Obama going forth, if that show made an impression on you. You would hate the Iranians. You wouldn’t trust ’em; you wouldn’t trust the president dealing with ’em; you think you’re being lied to by the media about all of it. It’s that powerful an episode. The end of that episode, it was clear to anybody watching that any deal with Iran is a huge mistake on any number of levels but the worst aspect was that they murder gay people.
So the gay lobby — the militant, the political, extreme gay lobby — is very, very, extremely powerful in Hollywood. It’s why I’ve also made mention of the fact that I vastly overestimated the percentage of the population of this country that’s gay. I said yesterday it was 5% or 6%, and it turns out that it’s barely 2%. This is Gallup, by the way. Furthermore, there’s this: “According to a recent Gallup survey, of the total U.S. adult population (approximately 243 million US adults), less than 1%, only .8% (approximately 2 million US adults), are part of a same-sex couple.”
Out of 243 million Americans!
Now, let me ask you a question before I go to the break. Let’s take two numbers: The overall gay population, 2% — and, by the way, not all of them are militant and not all of them are leftists. Not all of them are political. The gay population’s like any other group. They have people who don’t care about politics. They have people that don’t want to be known, seen, any of that. They have people that want to live and let live. They’re not part of any activist group.
Just like every other group you would take of any population there’s a cross section of people in it. It’s often thought that the entire gay population is militant and leftist and rich and active, and it’s not the case. So the numbers are even smaller. Population, 2%. The percentage of US adults that are part of a same-sex couple is less than 1%. And again, not all of those are political activists involved in Democrat Party and Washington politics to effect change. This is my question for you.
Let’s just round the number up and let just one. How can 1% of the population accomplish what it is accomplishing? How can that happen? Just 1%, rounding it up, of the population is part of a same-sex couple. Not all of them want to get married. It’s even smaller. The percentage of same-sex couples that want to get married, is 1/2 of 1%, and yet look at what they are accomplishing. How are they doing it?
How can 1% of the population cause what is happening now? How can 1% of the population end up ruining and destroying an innocent little family in Indiana that owns a pizza shop, or close down a bakery in Oregon or Colorado, or a flower shop in San Diego, or you name it? How can less than 1% of the population succeed in getting the whole concept of redefining marriage all the way to the Supreme Court? How can less than 1% of the population do that? You think about that.
RUSH: Now, I’m not gonna answer the question fully. I’m gonna 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 gonna 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 .8% of them, about two 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, you have people who 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’re wanting politically they’re getting.
How can that be? 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…? (chuckles) 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? 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 photo shops, pizzerias? Take your pick. 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 that I had a story that detailed what the American people thought the population of the country was, the percentage of population that was gay. 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. Thirty percent of the Millennials, people under 35, believe that 30% of the population’s gay. Maximum 2% is. The census and there’s any 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, you think that 30% of the population is gay, well, that’s a pretty sizable number. Thirty percent 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. If 30% of the population’s gay, why, that’s approaching what some people might say is pretty normal. It’s not that odd.” It’s a far different reaction when you tell people the population that’s gay is actually 2.3%. Round it to 2% 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.
I’m not leaving them out of the answer here, but they 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. We had a caller talk about market share. “Wait a minute, Rush, the percentage of the population’s one thing. What about market share?” He said, “The market share for the proposition that big government is the answer to everything, is 95%.”
I remember a caller calling in, “Your percentages don’t work, Rush. You gotta 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 .8%. Two million people, roughly, is what’s found. Again, not all of them are by any means activists, rabble-rousers, agitators, what have you. So part of the answer to the question, “How do they do it?” is, “Well, because the American people think there’s a lot of ’em.” Okay, now you know the number is very small. So how does this happen?
RUSH: Here’s Art, Russellville, Arkansas, glad to hear you, Art. Thank you for calling.
CALLER: 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.
RUSH: Wait. What’s the Bill and Hillary foundation have to do with the percentage of gay people in the country?
CALLER: Well, just another victim group like American Indians, the black community, rape victims, natural disasters, you have a —
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait. You’re calling this capitalism, that’s interesting, but every group you just mentioned dwarfs the gay population. I mean, almost every group, except a couple that you mentioned, dwarf the numbers of gay people in America. I mean, the gay population is getting more of their agenda advanced politically than the Christian majority is, for example.
Now, you want 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.
RUSH: Abbie, Fishers, Indiana, glad you waited, and welcome to the program.
CALLER: Thank you. Hi, Rush. Great to talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
CALLER: Hey, regarding the Madam Secretary show, do you think that was another attempt to distinguish Hillary from Obama?
RUSH: Let me first ask if you saw it.
CALLER: I didn’t. I’m just going off of what you said earlier.
RUSH: Okay. Well, that’s important, because I’m not sure — you know, 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, which you can’t, but, I mean, for the purposes of answering your question, if you take the homosexual element out of this show, and this show was 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 ’em, is because they literally do execute homosexuals when they find ’em. 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, how she ought to try to undermine it. They had gay activists, a friend of hers come into her office and tell somebody that works for the office that he was worthless, even though he supports the gay agenda, he’s 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. 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. 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 gonna sign the deal unless the gay guy is set free and not killed. So it’s clear that, look, 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 a positive step.
Now, the next shoe to drop would be 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 dovetails with my question today. A primetime 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 eight o’clock on Sunday night right after 60 Minutes, a primetime episode, that if a show called Madam Secretary is going to do an episode on the nuke deal, it’d be about how great it is. It’d be an episode supporting Obama. It would be an episode making the female secretary of state look like she was a fundamental part of it, if 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. The president’s a typical boob, and the chief of staff is a mean-spirited, rotten guy. 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 on 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 manage TV, what percentage of that universe do you think is homosexual?
And that number is much greater than 1%, like the general population. 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.
RUSH: “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 all 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. 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, subliminal-reaction type thing. That’s also part of the answer. I’ve been checking the e-mail. 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. Of course, my way is the answer. We’ll let this stew overnight.