Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Chuck Schumer: Constitutionally illiterate, or intentionally deceptive?

In a statement  on Sunday regarding President Trump's moratorium on immigration from several majority-Muslim countries, Senate Minority Leader Chuck  Schumer described the policy as "unconstitutional" and said (emphasis mine):
The refugee program should be for all religions that are persecuted. That's the point. There should not be a religious test. The Constitution prohibits it.
Let's parse that carefully.  The Constitution does, in fact, prohibit "religious tests" – but does it prohibit religious tests for foreign refugees?  The relevant passage is Article VI, paragraph three:  
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Clearly, the "religious test" clause prohibits religious tests as a condition for elected or appointed officials to hold office.  It absolutely does not apply to any immigration policy or refugee policy.
Chuck Schumer is a Harvard Law School grad.  He was first elected to the Senate in 1998, and he served in the House of Representatives before that.  With a résumé like that, Schumer ought to know the Constitution well enough to know that his statement is completely false.
Is Schumer constitutionally illiterate…or is he deliberately misrepresenting the Constitution to deceive the public?
I'd bet my money on the latter.


Remember the crowds protesting when Obama banned immigrants?

 Crowds, crowds, crowds!  Or, in some cases, are they a mob of useful idiots?  As Ed Lasky noted, the hysterical reaction of the anti-Trump crowd, erroneously called civil and human rights defenders, to President Trump (R)'s executive ordertemporarily banning visitors and immigrants from a few Muslim-majority terrorist countries (not a ban on Muslims) is hypocritical.  (The Women's March and the airport mobbers all look alike – all sound and fury, signifying nothing but moral narcissism.)
Below is a photo from the massive crowds in Chicago protesting former (thank goodness!) President Barack Hussein Obama (D)'s 2011 order banning Iraqi refugees for six months.
Or maybe this is the large, angry crowd reacting to Obama's decision in the final weeks of his administration banning desperate Cubans fleeing failing Communist Cuba from entering the U.S. without a visa.
President Barack Obama is ending the longstanding "wet foot, dry foot" policy that allows Cubans who arrive in the United States without a visa to become permanent residents, the administration announced Thursday.
The move, which wasn't previously outlined and is likely one of the final foreign policy decisions of Obama's term, terminates a decades-long policy that many argued amounted to preferential treatment for a single group of migrants.

Perhaps if a large crowd greeted Syed Rizwan Farook as he brought his mail-order bride, Tashfeen Malik, a Pakistani national raised in Saudi Arabia, into America breezing through Chicago's O'Hare airport over two years ago, they could have convinced them to love the USA instead of plotting to slaughter innocent Americans.
This twisted, evil Muslim (yes, a coincidence I know) couple bonded over their hatred of America, its people and their freedoms, and their religions, going on togun down many in San Bernardino, California in December 2015.
If Malik had already radicalized years ago, how did she get the go-ahead to immigrate to the United States in 2014?
A senior State Department official told CNN on Wednesday that Malik was not asked about jihadist leanings when a U.S. consular official interviewed her in Pakistan for her fiancée visa application last year.  That's because no red flags were found in the Department of Homeland Security application that was submitted and checked before the interview, the official said.
The consular officer who did the interview reported that Malik was able to answer enough questions about Farook to prove that she knew him well and that they had a personal relationship, a main focus of the consular interview process, according to two senior State Department officials.
After the interview, Malik passed two other security database checks before her visa was adjudicated.  Records show that the visa was decided on the day after the interview: May 23, 2014.  Malik came to the United States on July 27 of that year.  According to California marriage records, she married Farook just one month later.
As we were taught in kindergarten, safety first!  Oh, how their victims, not to mention those of September 11, the Boston Marathon, the Orlando nightclub, and other innocents slaughtered in this country by those who entered into America's welcoming doors, wish America had followed this basic rule.
And most Americans agree with President Trump's order.
Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) 
Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.
This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.
Now, perhaps the news media will report on these crowds...



Democrats Will Go Nuclear on Any Trump SCOTUS Pick, So Choose a Conservative!

RUSH: We got Trump’s Supreme Court nomination. Every network’s doing a countdown: Seven hours, 41 minutes, 25 seconds and counting! It doesn’t matter who it is. Well, actually it does.
Actually, it does matter now because the Democrats have signaled that they’re gonna go nuclear on this. I’m gonna explain what this means. I’ve found in talking to people that they don’t know what the nuclear option means or is. They think they do, but they don’t, just like people think the Statue of Liberty is about immigration. It isn’t. It never was about immigration. The left… That’s another thing the left’s appropriated. The Statue of Liberty is about liberty and freedom, and it’s a thanks to the United States for ensuring it around the world. It had nothing to do with immigration. But the left has appropriated it using that poem written by Emma Lazarus was a fundraising letter to pay for the pedestal for the darn thing.
Anyway, we just have much to sort out here, but the nuclear option being triggered means it doesn’t matter who Trump nominates. See, the theory was that Trump could nominate initially somebody less than a full-fledged hardliner, somebody that might be somewhat acceptable to moderates, somebody about whom it could be said is not guaranteed to be doctrinaire conservative in order to get the guy confirmed. Well, if the Democrats are gonna go nuclear from the get-go, then you may as well nominate the full-fledged, 1000% conservative. Bring it on! Take off the gloves. Let’s get the fists ready to go and get this administration up to speed on just what liberalism is, who liberals are, and how to oppose them.
RUSH: Let me grab Jessica in Naperville, Illinois. Great to have you, Jessica. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you so much for talking with me.
RUSH: Yes, ma’am.
CALLER: First, I just want to say thank you so much. I’m in Illinois, and I’m a Republican Millennial, so I feel pretty isolated these days, surrounded by all the liberals. (chuckles) So it’s been really great to listen to your show. It’s a relief. But anyway my question is I know that the liberals in the Senate are saying that they’re gonna put up a huge resistance to the cabinet picks and especially the Supreme Court pick, and I just wondered what they’re hoping to accomplish with this, and, like, how long can this really go on, you know? (sigh) So…
RUSH: Well, let me… That last question is a good question, and your other question: What do they hope to accomplish?
RUSH: You know the answer to that.
CALLER: (chuckles)
RUSH: How would you…? If the roles were reversed here and I was asking you — Jessica, Millennial babe in Naperville, Illinois — what they’re hoping to accomplish, what do you think?
CALLER: Well, it’s kind aof hard. It’s kinda hard. I just feel like it’s more bothersome. I don’t see how they can, like, actually keep him from picking someone. So, you know, I guess I’m not really sure why they’d do that.
RUSH: Well, look, this works both ways. Let me explain it to you, Jessica. You might remember the name Merrick Garland. Let’s start there, just to tick ’em off. When Justice Scalia passed away, it created an opening in the U.S. Supreme Court, and this happened on Obama’s final year as president. So Obama wanted a pick. He wanted to pick the replacement. This is crucial. If he could get a liberal on the court, that would tilt the court for a generation, give the liberals a 5-4 advantage. However, there was a rule of long-standing…
Not a rule; it was an understanding of long-standing that had been in place for many, many years, and that is that presidents do not actually get to foreclose a Supreme Court pick in the final year of their administration. The reason that rule exists is because the Democrats insisted on it during a prior Republican presidency, and it was Joe Biden who came up with this rule. It didn’t exist anywhere. Biden just created it out of whole cloth and said that it made common sense and moral sense and legal sense for any nominee in the last year of a president’s term.
Because he’s leaving, and we’re in the middle of a campaign to replace him, and so that ought to be something the new president does. The Democrats started this whole business of the sitting president in his final year should not have his pick confirmed. So the Republicans let Merrick Garland sit there, no hearings, and the Democrats fumed because that pick meant everything. And Obama supposedly chose Merrick Garland because he was a moderate, that he could possibly get some Republican votes, and he could actually get confirmed, rather than pick somebody who was a hard-core extremist lunatic leftist judge.
But the Republicans held firm and they did not move the nomination forward, Jessica. They were able to forestall it by refusing to have frequent sessions, by just refusing… I mean, the Senate was run by McConnell, and he just refused to bring it to the floor, and there was nothing the Democrats could do. So now it’s payback time in one sense. That’s one thing going on here. But even without that this would be happening, the Democrats would be obstructing that and all these cabinet picks because it’s crucial. They hate Trump; they hate the fact that they lost.
And the reason that they are delaying and the reason they are trying to stop all this is just to make trouble for Trump and to create circumstances like happened with Sally Yates. They do not want Trump to have his people in place. Now, it can’t go on forever, but it’s all part of the gamesmanship, one-upsmanship, the play for power. This is the establishment (Democrats running it) basically telling Trump, “Screw you. We don’t care that you were elected. You don’t get to nominate anyone. We’re not gonna hurry along for you.”
People said, “Well, Obama got seven of his nominees in the first day after his inauguration.” Democrats said, “You’re not Obama. You don’t get that. You don’t get that kind of respect. We don’t think you should have been elected. We think the Russians stole the election. We think the Russians hacked us. We think you shouldn’t have been elected; everybody knows Hillary Clinton should have been elected.” So that’s their mind-set. Then you get to the practical realities, Jessica. A lot of people want to blame the Republicans here because the Republicans have the majority in the Senate.
People think that the Republicans ought to be able to determine the agenda in the Senate, and when it’s time to bring somebody to the floor for a vote, that the Republicans decree it and it happens. Except, Jessica, the thing that you have to know — that anybody has to know in understanding the Senate — is that 60 votes are needed for most things, the vast majority of things. Sixty votes are needed, not a simple majority. The Republicans have a simple majority. They’ve got 52, 53, depending. But they’ve got at least a 52-seat majority versus 48 for the Democrats.
Bernie Sanders in there as an “independent,” but he caucuses with the Democrats. And even in those instances, Jessica, where 60 votes are not needed, because of Senate rules, the minority has lots of rights to force hearings. And the way they’re bottling up hearings… Like they just announced today that they’re going to delay Mnuchin, who’s Treasury, and Tom Price, Health and Human Services because they claim that both men have lied to them in their confirmation hearings, and therefore further investigation is needed, further examination is needed.
All they have to do is allege that these guys lied, and it brings the process to a screeching halt while that is looked into with further interviews of the nominee, the nominee providing even more data. There’s not much Mitch McConnell could do to get these nominees appointed quickly. I’m not making excuses, but I’m not gonna blame McConnell for that which he doesn’t have that much control over.
Just because the Republicans run the Senate does not mean that they get to dictate what happens there. And the need for 60 votes, that’s where the nuclear option comes in, and the Democrats nuking it — 60 votes is called a filibuster. And cloture is when you have a vote to see if you have 60 votes. And if you get 60 votes on any proposition, be it a confirmation or a piece of legislation, then you’ve reached cloture, and then you have the second vote to make it official. And right now there aren’t 60 votes for some of these nominees. Republicans, even if they stand unified, they need some Democrats to cross the aisle and vote. That then falls to Chuck-U Schumer to see just how unified he can keep his caucus.
Now, it gets a little bit more complicated because the next election’s in 2018, the 2018 midterms. There are a lot of Democrat senators up for reelection, and a lot of them are from states that Donald Trump won. They’re called red states. And those senators want to be reelected. And the people in those states elected Trump because they want Trump to govern. They want Trump to get his nominees. So Schumer is eventually — most of these people are gonna get confirmed, but Schumer has to pay fealty to his base, he has to obstruct, he has to try to stop in order to keep fundraising coming in.
And again, if he can deny all these people, he would. But the practical and political realities make that unlikely. But this one is not per se the Republican leadership’s fault, or at least it’s not their fault alone. Senate rules, the need for 60 votes, any number of things. I’m glad you called, Jessica.
RUSH: Let’s go to the audio. Oh, the Supreme Court pick is tonight. CNN — I’ve gotta get this out there — CNN is reporting that Trump has brought both of the likely nominees to Washington, Hardiman and Gorsuch. They’re both being brought to Washington. There’s only one of them gonna be picked. This is a publicly televised choice, ceremony tonight that Trump is conducting. Why would you bring both of them if you already know which one you’re gonna pick? Why would you bring both there and are they going to be part of the public show, or whatever Trump has planned? (interruption) Who would the other guy apologize to? What do you mean, bring the other guy in to apologize?
Oh, you mean you apologize to him publicly and in person? Trump apologizes to him is what you’re saying. Nah. Are they both gonna be on stage and Trump’s gonna be behind ’em walking eeny, meeny, miny, which one is it gonna be? Is it gonna be that kind of show? Are they both gonna be there and Trump’s gonna do a show, he doesn’t know which one yet, he’s not gonna make up his mind ’til he actually gets on stage with both of these guys standing there or sitting there? Is he gonna read off the ups and downs of both guys while they are standing on camera?
(imitating Trump) “You know, I really like the Gorsuch here, but over here Hardiman, let me tell you, bud, you really stand out here. But Gorsuch, don’t feel bad because I like you for other reasons.” I’ve never heard of this. Why would you bring both of them in? Let’s see. CNN says that Gorsuch is the choice. “Increasing indications that Gorsuch –” now, Gorsuch of the two, just so you know, Gorsuch is the supposed rock-ribbed, dead-straight center, solid, no-doubts-about-it conservative.
Hardiman is the guy who’s largely conservative but might surprise you down the road. But Gorsuch — and, see, the reason that this matters, again, the Democrats have already announced that they’re gonna do everything they can to stop the nominee. If they weren’t gonna do that, then the first person that you would nominate would be the least contentious, which would be Hardiman in this case, for the simple reason it might be easier to get him confirmed, and once you get somebody confirmed, then the next ones supposedly become easier.
But if they’re going to announce, the Democrats, if they’re gonna resist and they’re gonna go nuclear, if they’re gonna do everything they can to stop it, then you may as well go with the best you’ve got, or the one you really want. I don’t mean to characterize either of these guys as lesser or greater, but Gorsuch, by reputation, is supposedly the most real-deal conservative and therefore the most hated and despised by the Democrats.
So that’s the guy, if they’re gonna go nuclear, then you go nuclear and you throw your guy right at ’em and you beat ’em back on this. And then after you beat ’em on this, every other nominee you get with decreasing opposition.


You Cannot Appease Liberals, President Trump! (More from Rush)

RUSH: Would you like an illustration of what I mean by Donald Trump not being ideological and how it’s a problem? He understands he has opposition. How could he not? (chuckles) I mean, I’m sure he knows that he’s got opposition. Don’t misunderstand me, now. And I’m sure that he may have had his eyes opened about some of these people. In his mind, they’re Democrats. Liberal, conservative, that’s not in his lexicon, folks. I’m not offering this as a   criticism. It’s just a truth. It’s something that, if you want to understand Trump, then there’s no better deconstructor of Trump and explainer of Trump who’s not in the inner circle than me.
All during the campaign I did my best to explain to everybody — leftists, media, conservative, Republicans, Never Trumpers — who Trump is, why Trump is, why Trump was winning, who Trump’s supporters are. And the thing that I kept saying is, “He’s not ideological.” So he knows he’s got opposition, he knows Democrats, and he’s probably had his eyes opened here. I’m sure that over the course of his life some of these people now calling him names trying to destroy him have been his friends. So his eyes are no doubt opened. I don’t doubt that.
But I don’t think that he… Well, you can’t become ideological overnight. One of my great laments is that not enough Americans understand the ideological definitions of liberalism, don’t really know what it means. They know Democrats are, but liberalism? Low-information voters and others don’t know. It’s an area of weakness, frankly, the Republican Party has engaged in by not going the full mile in identifying the opposition or the enemy or however you want to tag them. But it’s crucial because I believe, if… Let me finish my sentence.
I believe if more people understood liberalism and knew it as I do, or even half as much as I do, that they would have even less influence than they do. Do you realize that of our entire population, the percentage that will openly call themselves liberal in poll after poll after poll is 25, 26%? And yet the media and the Democrat Party working together make it look like everybody in this country is liberal and there’s just five or 10% oddball conservatives who aren’t. The number of people who self-identify as conservatives in this country is 36%.
I think it would be higher, but many of them are afraid to because of what the pollster will think, just like many people are afraid to tell pollsters the truth about what they really thought of Obama’s presidency, because of the racial component. So just 25% of the country admits to being liberal. That’s a pretty small percentage, when measured against what it is made to appear to be. I’ll give you another closer-to-home example. The gay population.
If you don’t know better, if all you had to go by was what’s on prime time television or movies, you’d think at least half this country’s gay, if not more. And a lot of Millennials do. The true population percentage of gay individuals, according to gay groups, is 3.5%, and I think that’s high. Just 3.5%. The percentage of the population is transgender is so small it’s an asterisk. But they are now being positioned as numerous as gays and lesbians are. All of this is done to intimate and silence any opposition to any of this.
And, believe me, when we’re talking Democrat gays and lesbians, we’re talking liberal politics. We’re not talking lifestyle. We’re talking liberal fundraising and donors. We’re talking ideology. The politically active gay community is almost exclusively Democrat, and it isn’t about lifestyle. It’s about liberalism, and lifestyle is a subset of it. There are many gay people who are not devoted to left-wing liberal politics. But we are being made to believe that half the country is gay and transgender and that they’re all liberal Democrats — and that there’s no political component to it, is another thing that they try to convince us about.
So liberalism is about lies and distortions, creating false impressions and buzz and PR and image, all for the purposes of intimidating and bullying and silencing opposition. Which, in this case, is conservative Republicans. And if more people understood what liberalism is… Like look at Obama’s presidency, look at how many people didn’t like Obamacare. But how many of them didn’t like it because they understood the liberalism that made Obamacare what it is? I mean, it’s one thing to oppose Obamacare because it cost too much.
It’s one thing to oppose Obama because you lost your doctor or you lost your health plan. It’s one thing to oppose Obamacare because your taxes went up, but why did all that happen? Liberalism is why that happened and a belief that the government is better equipped to live your life for you than you are living it yourself, because they want the power over you to dictate to you how to live because they simply want the power, because they are a minority.
They can’t win that power at the ballot box unless they create a bunch of illusions, and the first illusion they create is how many of them there are, and they own the institutions necessary to create and sustain this illusion: The media, Hollywood, pop culture. That’s pretty much… If you own those three, then you own image control and image making. And then when you control that, you can then characterize your opponents as bigots and homophobes. “Transphobic” is a new term that’s entering the lexicon now.
Transphobic! You’re automatically transphobic if you’re Republican-conservative. It means you’re afraid of transgenders. Homophobia means you’re afraid of homosexuals. So the reason that I come here everyday with ontological certitude about what I believe is because I understand liberalism. I understand it better than many of them do. I know them better than they are willing to admit who they are themselves. And I’m extremely, profoundly confident I know exactly what liberalism is.
That’s why I’m so adept at predicting what they’re gonna do, ’cause I know who they are and what they believe. I wish Trump were ideological. I wish they had more people… Pence is ideological. The vice president is very ideological, but I don’t know if he’s a warrior ideologue or just a knowledgeable ideologue. I would think of myself as a warrior ideologue. I’m on the battlefield waging war against it every day here, in my own mind. But Trump is not. He knows he has opposition.
If you do not realize your opposition is liberal, you’ll never realize that you can’t compromise with it. If you think your opposition is opposing you for other reasons, then you’ll always believe there’s a common ground you can reach. And you will try to. And in the process, dealing with liberals, there isn’t any common ground. We do not — especially now, folks. The divide is greater than I’ve ever seen it in my life. There is no common ground. There is very little culturally, socially.
We don’t even agree that America’s great, for crying out loud. They don’t even think that. They think America is the problem in the world. We don’t believe that. We believe America’s the solution. We believe and love America. They don’t. And it descends from there. So how does this manifest itself? Well, in this news story from TheHill.com — ready? — “Trump Will Enforce LGBTQ Workplace Protections — The White House said early Tuesday that President Trump will continue to enforce an Obama-era executive order protecting the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community in the workplace.
A statement from the press secretary’s office said: “President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community. President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election.”
“As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology,” he said, as he accepted the GOP nomination. Okay, so what does all this mean? Well, let’s go a statement from the Human Rights Campaign, which is a gay rights — it’s a liberal organization. The point in what Trump is doing here is agreeing with a liberal interpretation of biological differences and cultural differences and he is agreeing with a liberal interpretation, and he’s trying to codify and mollify opposition by doing this.
It never works. It will not gain him a single point. It won’t calm down any of the protests. It will not silence them. They’ll continue to say things, that he doesn’t really mean it. “He was going to violate our rights, but our protest here scared him and so he realized that he’d better not.” He’s never gonna get credit for this. They’re gonna hate him and be as disrespectful of him after he continues these Obama regulations as they were before he announced he was going to, because it’s not about LGBTQ workplace protections. It’s about liberalism.
And all of these things that appear in public are an actual camouflage and mask for what the real intent is, and that is undermining the distinct culture of Western civilization and redefining it and transforming it. Here’s the statement from the Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin in a statement on Tuesday. “LGBTQ refugees, immigrants, Muslims and women are scared today, and with good reason.” This is after Trump has agreed to continue the Obama-era protections.
“LGBTQ refugees, immigrants, Muslims and women are scared today, and with good reason. Donald Trump has done nothing but undermine equality since he set foot in the White House,” said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement on Tuesday. “Donald Trump has left the key question unanswered — will he commit to opposing any executive actions that allow government employees, taxpayer-funded organizations or even companies to discriminate?”
It’s already against the law to discriminate. So even after authorizing the continuance of Obama’s executive order, it didn’t matter. And notice now that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer — that’s what the Q is in this new amalgam — are equated to refugees and immigrants and Muslims and women. That’s liberalism, making everybody the same, and everybody’s the same victim of the same oppression. No distinctions drawn whatsoever. And all of them are scared.
They’re scared today, and they have good reason to be scared because Donald Trump, despite saying he’s gonna continue it, has done nothing but undermine equality since he set foot in the White House. Nothing of the sort! “Griffin also criticized Vice President Pence and Trump’s selection for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), saying the president ‘talks a big game on his support for LGBTQ people, yet he has filled his cabinet with people who have literally spent their careers working to demonize us and limit our rights.'”
This isn’t about LGBTQ workplace protections, just like Planned Parenthood is not about Planned Parenthood. There is no parenthood, if you go to Planned Parenthood, because you don’t become a parent because your kid gets aborted. There is no parenthood if you set foot inside Planned Parenthood and they succeed with you, because your parent status would be interrupted with an abortion. But you will never know this if you don’t understand the ideological left. You will not understand.
If you’re Donald Trump and you issued a statement that you’re gonna continue to enforce Obama-era executive orders, protecting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer community, and after you do that they come out and assault you as one of the greatest offenders of freedom, you’re not gonna understand. You just thought you bought peace, you just sued for peace, you just reached out, you just extended a hand of friendship, common ground, let’s move forward together, and what’d they do? (raspberry) on it.
And if you don’t understand liberalism, you’re not gonna understand what happened. And you’re not gonna understand why there is no common ground with these people, ’cause it isn’t about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer freedom, civil rights. It’s about liberalism, which is about destroying Republicans and conservatism and capitalism and, in fact, freedom.
RUSH: So I checked the email during the break, and a very astute emailer said: “Wait a minute, Rush, I think Trump does get ideology. He’s opposed to climate change.” That’s an excellent observation. Trump is opposed to climate change, but not because he understands it’s a liberal idea. He’s opposed to it on — well, let’s review what he said. Trump has said that climate change is a hoax hatched by the ChiComs to make American businesses less competitive.
Now, that’s not what climate change is. That is one of the results. The origins of climate change are 100, 1,000 percent in socialism, liberalism, communism. Militant environmentalism became the new home for displaced communists when the Soviet Union imploded when the Berlin Wall fell. Climate change, global warming, whatever, the reason that I am so opposed to it, the reason that I have probably spent way too much time talking about it and many of you probably, “Could you move on?” every time I bring it up, is because everything that is wrong with liberalism is encapsulated in climate change.
Everything, every danger, every choke point, every potential item of destruction of everything we believe in, is encapsulated in climate change, from the ideology to the lies to the funding to the lies and the distortions to the takeover of science by politicians and politics. This is why I’ve always objected when our so-called scientists object to climate change with their own science which attempts to debunk the science of the globe, theirs is not about science. Climate change has nothing to do with science.
It’s fooled all kinds of Millennials and all kinds of tech gurus and all kinds of other lazy people into believing climate change is about science and actually about climate, but it isn’t. It’s about the erosion of freedom; it’s about the expansion of government; it’s about the expansion of government control; it is about politicizing science and being able to take every aspect of science over and reconstruct it for political purposes to serve the agenda of the left, which in this country is the Democrat Party. There isn’t any science. If science were the sole factor in climate change, it would have been debunked as a hoax already.
RUSH: Well, looky here. Lo and behold, this is from USA Today. Headline: “Boy Scouts of America to Welcome Transgender Youngsters.” See, just like that. This is not about the Boy Scouts welcoming transgender youngsters. This is about the leftist campaign to take over, infiltrate, and destroy as many traditions and institutions that trace to the traditions and founding of this country as they can. And it’s premised on the fact that the Boy Scouts of America is a discriminatory bunch of bigots, because they won’t let any every boy — even the girls who think they’re boys.
They’ve been working on the Boy Scouts of America for, I don’t know, decades! And they wore ’em down. Or they just took over the leadership of the group. You would never understand this, though, if you don’t understand liberalism. It’s not a question of, “You mean you don’t approve?” Folks, it’s not about this! That’s the whole thing. This is just another bit of evidence of what the overall leftist agenda is. There is nothing safe! The Catholic Church. They’re not gonna stop until they “reform” that. You’ve seen this new show on HBO called The Young Pope? Have you seen is that?
Well, if you’re Catholic, I challenge you to watch this and just pass it off as some idle entertainment. (interruption) Well, it’s a… What’s the actor? I can’t think of the guy’s name. It’s about Lenny Belardo from Queens who becomes pope, and it turns out he doesn’t believe in God and he’s not a Catholic and he thinks everything that Catholics don’t believe. It’s not subtle. It’s not subtle, and it’s also not idle entertainment. It has a purpose, just like HBO reviving that little movie or mini-series, whatever it was, on the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill confirmation, so that Millennials who aren’t alive when that happened got the right leftist interpretation of what the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas was all about.
Oh, let’s see. What else? Ba, ba, ba, ba, ba. (interruption) “How do you become pope if you don’t believe in God?” You fool ’em! You lie to the congregation! The whole point is you become a fake Catholic and become a fake priest and you fool everybody by lying. You become a Bill Clinton. You become, you know… I don’t know. It’s to demonstrate how easy it is to expose the Catholic Church as a bunch of frauds by how easily you can fake ’em out and become pope, by going from, you know, Mel’s Diner in Astoria to the Vatican — before you’re 40, by the way.
And then he’s telling other prelates, “I don’t believe in God, and I know you don’t believe in God, either. There isn’t a God. Everybody knows there’s not a God!” “We’re running the biggest scam on earth,” The Young Pope says to his secretary of state. “Oh, it’s just a TV show, Rush.” Now, see, it’s more than just a TV show. Look, I’m not getting any conspiracies.