RUSH: There’s been a leak of a papal encyclica, and essentially what this papal encyclica is saying is that every Catholic should vote for the Democrat Party. Well, no, that’s what it is! How else do you interpret it when the pope comes out and sounds like Algore on global warming and climate change? Or when the pope sounds like Clinton or when the pope sounds like any Democrat? Meanwhile, we’re in a ten-year cooling period! There hasn’t been any warming.
The whole thing is a hoax, and we’ve got this leak of a papal encyclica on the “fact” that global warming is man-made. It’s man-caused and we have almost a religious commandment here to deal with it. I mean, it’s just right out of the Democrat Party.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Look, folks, you know, I hate saying I told you so all the time. But when it needs to be said, I do not shrink from it. Did not I tell you early on that Pope Francis…? Remember this? Early on he started attacking capitalism using Democrat Party language. “Unfettered capitalism.” I said, “This guy sounds like a Marxist,” and remember the ruckus that that caused?
The Vatican (without naming me, of course, ’cause I’m just a peon) started denying it left and right. “The Pope is not Marxist! This is an extreme characterization of the pontiff’s remarks. There’s no way.” But I stood by it at the time. I caught a heck of a lot of grief from the Drive-By Media for pointing out early on that Il Papa sounded like a Marxist. Well, this global warming encyclical — that may be Latin for “rant” — seems to confirm it. (I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding. I know that encyclical is not Latin for “rant.” I just watched Trump.)
But he doesn’t even disguise it folks in this encyclical. Doesn’t even disguise it! Every other word seems to be about how unfettered capitalism is destroying the world and how the rich countries have to give more money to the poor countries to make amends. I mean, that’s — call it what you want — Marxism, socialism, what have you. But if this thing is real, then it leaves no doubt here what the political leanings or inclinations of the of the of the pontiff are.
It’s from the Washington Post. The Washington Post is giddy reporting this. “Pope Francis Blasts Global Warming Deniers in Leaked Draft of Encyclical — A draft of a major environmental document by Pope Francis says ‘the bulk of global warming’ is caused by human activity and calls on people — especially the worldÂ’s rich — to take steps to mitigate the damage by reducing consumption and reliance on fossil fuels.” Now, I couldn’t find… I know the pope…
Get this: Pope Francis actually got a degree as a chemical technician back in 1936. See, I looked up this stuff, want to find out, where does this come from? So he got a degree as a chemical technician 1936, which gives him a leg up on Algore, who’s got nothing. Algore doesn’t have anything scientific pedigree whatsoever. But still there’s no record of Il Papa having studied meteorology or climatology or any of the related sciences. So we’re supposed to take his assertions on faith.
Now, “deniers” does not show up in the text of the article. The Washington Post here has “deniers” in their headline: “Pope Francis Blasts Global Warming Deniers.” But that does not appear in the article. It’s what we were talking about yesterday. Deniers. See, there’s a consensus, in this case, a consensus of scientists. The grand illusion is that the climate of the earth is abnormal caused by this current crop of human beings occupying the planet at this moment.
I’ve always found it interesting that as old as the earth is — and I don’t think there’s an exact science to document it. For as long as people have been around, isn’t it interesting that the vanity of humanity is the assumption apparently 50, 60, 70 years ago the earth was quote/unquote “normal.” Whatever was going on back then, that was the norm. It just so happens that it’s when we are alive. That’s the norm.
So anything that happens above or below that line, from 70 years ago to today, we are responsible for, according to these people. But what is the norm? Does anybody know? Can there be scientific proof? What is the norm? The climate, the planet Earth. There’s nobody that knows this. So all of this is speculative. It’s all just politics. But it has a grand delusion about it, fulfilling the requirement that propaganda be part of the delusion.
You got a consensus, and everybody goes along with the consensus ’cause that’s the path of least destruction and anybody who objects is a “denier” or “weirdo” or “kook” or worse. That is to discredit people who are not going along with the consensus. The Washington Post says, “In words likely to anger some of his conservative critics, the pope backs the science of climate change, saying ‘plenty of scientific studies point out that the last decades of global warming have been mostly caused by the great concentration of greenhouse gases … especially generated by human action.'”
Now, as we know, “plenty of scientific studies” say a lot of things turn out to be untrue. Most scientific studies are bought and paid for. Every scientific study on the dangers and benefits of various foods, from eggs to oats to red wine is shown to have been wrong. But, I mean, the empirical data here is there hasn’t been any warming, actually, in the last 18 years — and the latest data is that the last ten years we are witnessing a cooling!
“‘The poor and the Earth are shouting,’ reads the draft of the encyclical…”
The poor.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, near the end of the Washington Post piece, there is an allusion, not illusion, allusion to the fact that this whole papal encyclical on global warming is an attempt to ruin the pope. The leak “immediately fueled rumors about schemes to take down a pope many see as left-leaning on some issues.”
So it can’t really be that the pope is a Marxist. We’ve had a few calls that the pope’s degree in 1936 is impossible, given his age. Well, find out what researcher fed me the information and just fire ’em then. Anyway, the leak “immediately fueled rumors about schemes to take down a pope many see as left-leaning on some issues.”
It’s not just the Washington Post. There are a couple of other people who have raised this possibility. In fact, you know, there’s a history of this with this pope. The pope will be reported to have said something, or the pope will be reported to be writing something that is off the wall and hard to believe, and then later somebody will come along from the Vatican and deny it and say that it was a trick or it was incorrect and the pope never said it, almost like the Vatican sends out trial balloons.
So I guess it’s possible this could be one of those things. If it is, typical move by the left. And, by the way, it’s entirely believable that the left would attempt to co-opt the Catholic Church. The left does not like the Catholic Church and the left does not like any religion, but the Catholic Church particularly is an institution that they despise, fear, all of that because it stands as stark reminder in opposition to what the left believes and seeks. The efforts to corrupt the Catholic Church and religion, period, by the left have been undertaken for years. So I guess it’s possible it could be a leak.
But I’ll tell you what, to get serious about this for just a second. I mean, here you have a papal encyclical about how the rich nations of the world are destroying the planet with global warming and need to give even more money to poor nations. I mean, this is right out of the Democrat Party playbook, right out of the leftist Alinsky manual, or any other leftist manual. Meanwhile, Catholics and Christians are being wiped out all over the world by Muslims and other enemies. Literally wiped out.
Catholics and Christians are being targeted for mass murder all over the world, and here we get a papal encyclical on climate change and global warming? I don’t know. The two don’t go together. If we’re gonna have a papal encyclical, you would think it be something opposing war or the real enemies of people. Is climate change an enemy of the Catholic Church? Is climate change an enemy of Catholics? Even if it is happening, as they say, is climate change a matter of faith? Is it something that the church believes is a weapon being used against the faithful? I don’t know folks. It just doesn’t wash here. And that’s why when I first heard the pope start talking about economics, just like in this encyclical on global warming, just sounded like pure, not even diluted, Marxism.
Here is it is from The Daily Caller today: “Data from AmericaÂ’s most advanced climate monitoring system shows the US has undergone a cooling trend over the last decade, despite recent claims by government scientists that warming has accelerated worldwide during that time. The US Climate Reference Network was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide ‘high-quality’ climate data. The network consists of 114 stations across the US in areas NOAA expects no development for the next 50 to 100 years. The climate stations use three independent measurements of temperature and precipitation to provide ‘continuity of record and maintenance of well-calibrated and highly accurate observations.’
This is the most advanced climate station data, which shows that the US is in a 10-year cooling trend which, by the way, is also widely known and widely accepted by people outside the delusional consensus.
Michelle Obama, during a conversation with students in the UK, in the United Kingdom. Yeah, that’s right, Pope Francis was born in 1936, so he couldn’t have a degree in 1936. I got the date screwed up. But he’s got a degree in chemical technicians or whatever. But the point is that in all the research to find out what kind of technical, scientific background Pope Francis has, I just found one thing, which is more than what Algore has in the field. But that is it. I don’t know what the date of his actual chemical degree is. Looks like it’s sometime in the late fifties or early sixties, before he took up religious studies. But ’36 was the year he was born.
Anyway, Michelle Obama in the UK during a conversation with students told these women that men were useful for promoting the idea of more education for girls. She said, “WeÂ’ve got to change cultural norms too, thatÂ’s why work on the ground is so important. We’ve gotta send different messages about the importance of educating our girls.”
“She suggested that while boys and men were important, it was crucial for them to talk about the lack of education for girls around the world. ‘You know our sons are important, we love men, we all do, theyÂ’re good, theyÂ’re useful,’ she said. ‘I have one in my life,’ she added, referring to President Obama. ‘I like him but you know we have to change the definition of what it means to invest in our young girls.’ Young men, she explained were important to supporting the idea of education for girls, revealing that Prince Harry endorsed the idea of having male voices in the conversation.
“The First Lady added that it was essential for women to be involved on the ground with people and keep informed about the issues of the day. ‘DonÂ’t just be book smart, be smart about the world, know your community, understand your politics, read your papers, know whatÂ’s happening in the world,’ she said. ‘You have to know how your government works, and you have to vote and be actively engaged at all times, thatÂ’s part of an education.'”
That used to be understood. Something like that makes news today? A statement of education, what education ought to be makes news when it used to be standard operating procedure. You used to not have to define what education was. I love this line. “Men are useful. I have one myself. I have one in my life.” And of course that’s okay. We’re not supposed to take anything from that, no, no, no, no.
That’s not insulting, it’s not discriminatory, no, no, no, no, no. But you let some poor schlub in a university say he can’t let girls in his science lab because if you disagree with them they cry and all hell breaks loose and the guy gets fired and his wife gets fired from her job as a professorette at the university.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. Sorry, folks, for the goof-up. Here’s the skinny on Pope Francis and his education in chemistry. This is according to the National Catholic Reporter. “Pope Francis studied chemistry and worked as a chemist prior to entering the seminary,” before he began his life with God. But the chemistry diploma is from “a state-run technical secondary school” — this is the National Catholic Reporter –which is comparable to “a certificate from a community college in the US.”
That’s the extent of the pope’s scientific education and knowledge. So all the rest of this is politics. All the rest of it is politics. That entire papal… Well, we haven’t even seen it yet. Whatever has been leaked, the leaked aspects of the papal encyclical are pure politics. And they’re right out of the left. Pick any Democrat Party candidate, and it’s what they’re saying. Any leftist, any socialist around the world, it’s what they’re all saying.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Stacy in Fort Collins, Colorado. Great to have you with us. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. It’s nice to speak to you. I have to start out by saying that I was waiting tables in Fort Collins at Cooper’s Brewing the day that you gave your speech for Dan’s Bake Sale and I thought, “What a crazy bunch of people you are,” and now, 20 years later, I am a Rush fan.
RUSH: Is that right? (chuckling) You were working in Fort Collins the day of Dan’s Bake Sale? That was 1990-some-odd. I mean —
CALLER: I was. I was. standing on the parking garage, at the top of the parking garage and I watched your entire speech.
RUSH: Well, it wasn’t much of a speech as I recall.
CALLER: It was very short, yeah.
RUSH: But there were like 75,000 people there.
CALLER: It was unbelievable. I’d never seen anything like it before.
RUSH: And you’re standing up there saying, “What a bunch of kooks”?
CALLER: “These people are crazy,” yeah. Now I’m one of them.
RUSH: And now you are.
CALLER: And I’m talking to you. It’s surreal.
RUSH: It’s great to have you here.
CALLER: Thank you. I’m calling on a topic I never thought I would be calling about. Not politics, but religion. I am a Catholic, and I’m in so much pain today at the possibility that my pope is spreading Marxist error. I will refrain from judging him until I’ve read the encyclical, and I will hopefully give him the benefit of the doubt and maybe this is all taken out of context. But it will not shock me if it is true. I think there is… You know, a lot of people are using this as a way and a vehicle to discredit the Church.
But I want to point out that there is precedence for this in the Catholic Church all the way back from its inception. Judas was an apostle who chose politics and power over God, and he ended up betraying our Lord with a kiss. And if the pope chooses Marxism over the mystical body of Christ, this is indeed a betrayal on a scale that we haven’t seen before. It also is a realization of what the Blessed Mother warned us against at Fatima, which was that communism would spread her errors.
So I am… I’m absolutely distraught that I have to come out and defend my church against this, but I hope that people don’t use this just to discredit it. It’s kind of like the Constitution. You know, we have the bedrock principles of our Constitution, and people pervert and try to use that for their own benefit all the time. So I see the church, whose documents have not changed… The teaching of the church is still the same, but people are using her to push their own agenda.
RUSH: Well, here’s the troubling thing. Politics by its very nature is subject to change. There’s nothing… Very few articles of faith in real terms in politics. You’ve got a plethora of different political views. You have elections where people win and lose, various different theories are implemented, and people get to experience the results of those theories. In many cases it’s hard, cold fact. Religion, at its root, is faith based. A church is the exact opposite of politics in the sense that politics is designed to bend and shape to the will of public opinion.
At least in a democracy or representative republic, it is.
Politics is designed to take the temperature of the American public and react accordingly (i.e., in elections), and there’s all kinds of things that get encompassed in politics. The culture is part of politics, but religion is what it is. The Catholic Church is what it is. It’s not supposed to bend and shape to accommodate the failings of the flock. It is not supposed to bend and shape so the flock can get away with committing sin. It’s not supposed to redefine sin. The church is supposed to… This is why the left hates it.
CALLER: Correct, but the pope is not speaking ex cathedra. He is not speaking infallibly. He is giving out an encyclical, which is just his teaching. So it goes out to all the bishops and they can… You don’t have to believe this to be Catholic. The bedrock principles that you have to believe as a Catholic are the same. So people can try and pervert them all they want to, but they don’t change, like birth control and gay marriage. So people can try and politicize them all they want, but if you really look at the documents and the teachings of the Catholic Church, they are exactly the same as they were going back to Peter.
RUSH: For the most part, yeah. I mean, you’ve had Vatican I and Vatican II.
CALLER: Which is highly…. You know, this has been such a wound to the faith. I’m a traditional Catholic. I hate saying that word, but I go to the Tridentine Mass because I do see the modernism that has seeped into our church, and it has caused a great deal of pain and suffering. But the comfort that we have is that we do have these… You know, everything about the church is still there. So if people want to love the church, if they want to be Catholic, the rules haven’t changed. The teachings and guideposts of it church are the same.
RUSH: The articles of faith.
CALLER: They are exactly the same. Despite how much people want to change them, they are the same.
RUSH: And that’s the point. It is not supposed to bend and shape to popular opinion.
CALLER: Absolutely.
RUSH: That’s why it’s valuable. That’s why terms like “the rock” are used. I know that the encyclical is not a religious article of faith, and Catholics are not required to believe it. It’s not part of the actual teachings of the church. But what it represents… If this is true, if the pope has come out and said that, he just sounds like another member nation of the UN.
CALLER: That’s right.
RUSH: The US is guilty. Western nations are rich. They’re polluting the world, they’re destroying the climate, and they’ve got a duty to stop and give more money to the poor and so forth. If the left can get to a pope and corrupt an encyclical, they’re gonna be inspired to keep going and try to corrupt the whole thing.
CALLER: Correct. But the church’s official teaching on communism is that it was condemned. So like I said, this is absolutely one of the most painful phone calls that I’ve ever made, to have to defend my church against something Marxist that my pope has said. I can’t even believe I’m living in a time like this.
RUSH: Well, Marxism, in the sense… I was making an economic analysis. Obviously the Catholic Church has to stand against communism. Communism doesn’t believe in God. Communists do not permit belief in God. There’s no such thing permitted or allowed. The Catholic Church can never, ever become communist.
CALLER: Correct. But if the pope is coming out and he’s promoting an idea that says that we should annihilate all countries and have a world government, I mean, we are at a scary and spooky place.
RUSH: It is.
CALLER: And, you know, I think I have an obligation to speak out.
RUSH: I understand. It’s gonna make a lot of people nervous because this is the kind of thing that the church has always been a safe haven from. There are exceptions, of course. But never forget, always remember, that even the Washington Post story reporting on this encyclical alludes to the possibility that it’s totally made up and is a leak designed to harm Il Papa. And this has happened a lot. The pope is reported to have said something, whatever it is that sounds way off the beaten path, and people react to it.
And then later it is learned the Vatican announces, “The pope didn’t say that! That was taken out of context. That’s not what the pope actually said. This is the work of muckrakers trying to create problem. The pope never said it.” It’s happened a lot, which is what has made me think they engage in the trial balloon aspect of politics. Float something, see what the reaction is, and then decide later whether to legitimize it or say, “Nah-nah-nah-nah. That’s a leak. That’s not true.”
We’ll have to wait and see on this. But this has been predicted, rumored or what have you. This encyclical still hasn’t been released, but even prior to today there has been speculation that what it’s reported to be today was exactly what it is and is coming. Anyway, Stacy, so many years after Dan’s Bake Sale at Fort Collins, it’s great to know you’re still there and part of us now.
Related Links