Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it's big news to open the program with.
CNN just reported that you, Papa, Pope Francis, upon boarding the Pope Jet for the return to Italy from MayCo, said that Donald Trump is not a Christian.
Man, are they pulling out all the stops now?
The Pope says that Donald Trump is not a Christian because Christians do not build walls.
They build bridges.
Never mind that the Vatican is surrounded by a wall, and we won't even talk about who built that wall.
But that's what the Pope said.
Given the Pope's political leanings, I'm surprised he isn't on the campaign trail for Bernie Sanders.
And maybe Bernie Sanders is too far to the right for the Pope.
And Susan Sarandon, it's falling apart.
Now, that may be a bit of a stretch, but I mean, it really, it's unraveling for Hillary Clinton.
Susan Sarandon, who in Hollywood carries weight, she's out there saying she's going to vote for Bernie.
She feeling to burn.
And when questioned about it, she acted insulted.
She said, I do not vote with my vagina.
Who does?
You know, I would like to see that.
She's the second or third woman who said she doesn't vote with her vagina.
I don't know that anybody ever has.
I mean, if somebody had ever done that, you'd think you'd see it on the news.
You haven't seen that on the news.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's great to have your Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone here at 800-282-2882.
Email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Earlier today on the Drudge Report, the lead story was Hillary Clinton.
And the Drudge story actually was a photo of Hillary at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas today.
She appears to be wearing those same heavy Coke bottle glasses, heavy-rimmed, thick glasses that she wore after her concussion during her first Benghazi testimony back in January of 2013.
And that's leading some doctors to speculate that she is having a recurrence of some kind.
But Yahoo took the story down.
Drudge links to it, and it was a Yahoo story.
And they took it down.
They kept a picture of Hillary up, but the story Drudge linked to is something unrelated to her glasses and to her health.
There's also budding news out of the Hillary camp that they're thinking of tanking David Brock, that David Brock's too radical, too extreme, too over-the-top, too negative, whatever, and might be doing her great damage.
Meanwhile, Bernie continues to just get closer and closer and closer and keeps getting more public support from prominent, well-known leftists, such as Susan Sarandon.
Then you go to the polling data today.
The political world was dealt a shock last night, late yesterday afternoon, when the NBC News Wall Street Journal poll came out that had Ted Cruz up by two points over Trump.
And immediately people go, whoa, I mean, it was stop the presses kind of poll.
There was no data like this in any other poll.
So people started examining the details.
What was the sample size?
What was the makeup of the sample?
When was the poll taken?
And it's a national poll.
It was taken after the debate on Saturday.
Speaking of which, my stated explanation for why Trump moved so big to the left in the Saturday night debate.
Audio soundbites of my theorizing have been played for other analysts on cable news shows, and other analysts have been asked to respond to my analysis.
And without fail, they all say I am missing it, that Trump was not strategizing.
He's not doing it.
He's just speaking from the heart.
That there was no attempted strategy to move left, no attempted strategy to try to appeal to moderates and Democrats in the Saturday night debate with the pro-Planned Parenthood comments and the anti-George W. Bush comments.
No, no, no.
He was just speaking from the heart.
He was not strategizing about anything at all.
But if you listen to Trump last night on MSNBC, he had a counter appearance.
There's a series of town halls that CNN's doing with the Republican candidates.
Last night was Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio.
And by the way, and tonight Trump gets his turn with, I think Jeb is going to be there tonight, and maybe Kasich.
But Trump scheduled a counter appearance at 8 p.m. last night on MSNBC.
And I'll tell you, the MSNBC host Mika Bzezinski and Joe Scarborough being ripped by other leftists out there for being in the tank for Trump and not taking Trump on and giving Trump a pass.
But in this appearance last night, it sure sounded to me like Trump is strategizing, making moves on attracting voters from the left.
You'll hear it for yourself and be able to decide.
Also on this, the story with Apple and the terrorists' iPhone 5C and the FBI, the White House weighing in on it, I think there needs to be some further explanation of what's really going on here, folks, because it's become a PR battle, and it looks like Apple is going to lose this.
And it's going to be very tough to win because here we have a terrorist cell phone and law enforcement wants in it and find out what else might be planned, who else might be involved.
And it's very tough to stand up for citizens' privacy rights when the FBI and the White House, hey, it's just that one phone.
Don't panic here.
All we want is that one phone, but that's not all they want.
That's not, this is the federal government making a move on a private corporation.
And this was a strategically planned, this was a specifically chosen event by the FBI.
In fact, I don't even think what's on this phone is the real target for the FBI and the government.
I think it's just the way they're getting in.
And just to set the table, and I'll come back later and give you details of this, the best way that I have found to explain to people what's going on here, instead of this being a cell phone in possession of a dead terrorist or a terrorist, a dead terrorist cell phone, think of it as a safe in the terrorist's house.
And think of it as a six-number combination safe, although the number of twists and turns really are not relevant for the discussion here.
And the government says, no, no, no, we just want that one safe.
We just want the government.
We just want the safe company to crack that one safe.
We want them to give us the combination to that one safe.
And everybody says, well, what's wrong with that?
The terrorists are dead.
Who knows what's in that safe?
Let's go in there and get it.
But that's not what they're asking for.
And I'll detail this in a moment.
What the FBI is asking for is for the manufacturer, the safe company, to give them the combinations of every safe they have made and will make.
That is essentially what the government, the FBI is asking of Apple.
Give us the key that will allow us to crack any phone.
Now, they're not saying that, but that's going to be the end result if the FBI wins this.
And they probably will because I don't care how big Apple is, when the full force of the government comes at you, there's any number of ways they can get what they want.
And they can maybe structure it in such a way so that Apple appears to be hanging tough and hanging tough and hanging tough.
And so they get the PR value of really hanging tough and trying to defend their customers.
And at the end of the day, they cave to it.
More than likely that's going to happen.
But I think that this is, for all of you people concerned about privacy and security, this is one of the biggest, I don't know, contradictions or dilemmas.
I mean, I hear from people all the time, paranoid, scared to death.
The NSA's tracking them.
NSA's listening to their phone calls.
The NSA is activating the cameras on their phones and watching them.
Particularly, millennials don't like any of this invasion of privacy stuff.
But all of a sudden, everybody is demanding Apple give up and let the FBI into that one phone.
And it's just curious because when you dig into this and find out, it's not just this one phone.
And I don't even think it's this phone that's really the ultimate long-term target.
I mean, the FBI has been trying to get Apple to give them the code or the keys to break peer-to-peer encryption.
That's really what they want.
They want to be able to decrypt your messages, your emails.
And they need to get into your phones to be able to do that.
So in fact, look at, this is, I think, an interesting way to look at this.
Look at how differently a publicly traded company views the security of its customers compared to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and agents of the federal government and how they protect, try to guarantee the safety and security of the citizens.
Wouldn't it be nice if Obama and Hillary were doing everything they could to protect the American people from all of these threats from an open border, from Mexico, from ISIS, all of these migrants, all of these refugees?
You think it's not a security breach?
You think those are not security breaches waiting to happen?
Can you believe Apple is doing and appears to care much more about the privacy and security of their customers than the United States government seems to care about the privacy, security, and what have you of American citizens?
Look how Hillary treated America's secrets on her off-the-grid email server.
Look at all the top secret data she was trafficking in, all the top secret documents, emails, and so forth.
Her email server wasn't secure, and it wasn't just hers, was it?
Hey, we just want in this one phone, says Josh Ernest.
We just want in that one phone.
We don't want anything.
Yeah, it was just one Hillary email server.
Well, who else was she dealing with?
Who else was able to traffic in these documents that Hillary was trafficking in?
Who else had similar setups and so forth?
The irony of this is that Tim Cook is probably going to vote for people like Hillary or Bernie Sanders or what have you, and they want to seize his company.
If you listen to Bernie, listen to Hillary, his company and companies like his are the problem.
They're the enemy.
And yet Tim Cook, who's doing a greater job protecting the security and privacy of his own customers, is going to vote for people who blow it up for everybody else.
A well-known professional golfer sent me a little story going around in the professional golf world today.
It's an attempt to illustrate to people who might be attracted to Bernie Sanders for whatever reason to understand what Bernie's actually proposing with his 90% tax rate.
And it's very simple.
You go into a pro shop and you want to buy a ball marker to mark your ball on the green.
So you ask the guy at the pro shop, how much is a ball marker?
Guy says it's a dollar.
You hand over your dollar and he gives you a dime as your ball marker.
And that's Bernie Sanders' tax policy.
He's going to take a dollar from you and give you back 10 cents.
It's a great way to illustrate for people what Bernie Sanders' tax policy is all about.
So we have a review of the polls.
We have audio sound bites of Trump on MSNBC last night.
And I'll tell you, the Republican town hall last night on CNN with Anderson Cooper started off with Dr. Carson and then Rubio and then Cruz.
And it was so much better than having these programmed press conferences called debates.
Each guy got about 45 minutes Q ⁇ A with the host and then they had audience questions.
There was interaction.
And what you had last night was on display was two brilliant, substantive Republican senators, conservatives.
They had all the time that they needed to communicate their political views.
I thought it was impressive.
You can nitpick and find some problems with what everybody says, but I'm talking about the difference in format from this pressured debate with the 60-second limit, the 30-second limit, the buzzers going off everywhere, the audience applauding or booing and interrupting the procedure versus what happened last night,
which was genuinely substantive, and each person had enough time for a personality to develop for people watching to get to know somebody and their personality as opposed to just listening to rapid-fire explanations of policy and so forth.
And what a great contrast it was to Crazy Bernie and Hillary Clinton.
And I just, you know, I keep thinking, I can't drop this.
Had the Republican establishment not just sat down and sat on the sidelines for these last six years, We would have such a much different circumstance going on now.
We would have had people in the last six or seven years would have been able to demonstrate their chops in terms of opposing Obama, explaining why they oppose Obama, illustrating and exposing Obama and the Democrat Party.
But when the Republican Party sits down, takes itself off the stage, off the field, out of the game, there is no contrasting that goes on.
And there's no explanation of who the Democrats and the Liberals are.
And last night, we finally got a little bit of that.
There was no circus last night.
I don't care what people are saying about the debates and how they are affecting the campaign.
There was no circus last night.
And I don't know if it's going to shake out and mean anything.
I don't know how many people watched.
I don't know for average ordinary people not caught up in all of this.
I don't know how compelling it was to stick with it for, well, three times 45, so it's two and a half hours.
And they're going to do it again tonight.
Anyway, we have audio soundbites from it that will treat you to, because I'm sure many of you didn't sit down and watch the entire thing, but we got the highlights.
As I say, the poll review and other exciting news, such as what just broke before the program started, Pope Francis suggesting that Donald Trump is not a Christian.
Christians do not build walls.
Christians build bridges.
Meanwhile, the Vatican is surrounded by a wall.
So hang tight, folks.
Hang in there.
Be tough.
Quick timeout and back before you know it.
I just got an email.
Somebody said, hey, Rush, is this now a problem for Trump with the Pope claiming he's not a Christian?
Ladies and gentlemen, no, if you're still looking for that straw that's going to break the campbells, but this is not it.
That's not even the question.
The real question here is who is the Pope working for?
What is the Pope doing inserting himself?
He's the vicar of Christ.
He is the worldwide leader of the Catholic faith.
What is he doing inserting himself into the American political system this way?
That to me is the larger question.
People might be able to make a case for it.
I'm not saying there's no answer to it.
I'm saying the question is not, is this going to hurt Trump?
Is it going to hurt Trump?
Trump, for his part, is out there saying it's outrageous for a religious leader to say that he's not a Christian.
Trump's out there saying, I'm the one guy that's out there saying the attacks on Christianity are going to stop when I get elected.
Now, he's not the only guy saying that, of course, but that's what he's saying in response to this.
He had a rapid-fire response to it.
But no, no, no, this isn't going to hurt.
This isn't going to hurt Trump.
I mean, the question, once this settles, is going to be aimed at the Pope.
And the question is going to be, what is the Pope doing?
For whom is the Pope doing it?
If the Pope is doing it for anybody.
But that's going to be what it boils down to.
What is the Pope doing here?
Why?
And I'll tell you this.
The more establishment figures and the Pope qualifies as an institutional leader, and therefore the Pope would qualify in many people's eyes as an establishment figure, particularly this Pope who has not hidden his ideological alignment, much less his political alignment.
People that support Trump are going to circle the wagons around Trump even more so after this.
This isn't going to cause Catholics or other Christians to, oh my God, Pope, oh no.
Pope says Trump's not a Christian at all.
Well, I got to abandon Trump.
No, no, it isn't going to happen that way.
I don't believe.
And then all you need to do is show people a picture of the wall surrounding the Vatican.
I've seen it.
If that wall, that wall's got to be 40 feet high, folks.
I mean, you're not climbing over that wall no matter what you do.
No, no, no, no.
I don't care what you've heard or what you think you know.
The FBI, I'm going to stick with my safe analogy here.
Forget we're talking about a cell phone.
Think of it as a safe.
The FBI is not asking Apple to go to the terrorist's house and open it with the combination they know the safe has and then let the FBI look around.
The FBI is asking for the combination.
The FBI is asking the company that makes the safes to give them the combinations of all the safes that they have made and will make in the future because they don't want to have to go to Apple every time they need to get inside some potential criminal's phone.
They want the key.
They are using a 200-year-old law called the All-Rits Act, W-R-I-T-S.
which is a law that compels private companies to help the government in law enforcement primarily, but other endeavors as well.
The argument here is, does the All-Rits Act enable the government to tell a private company that it must weaken itself, that it must build vulnerabilities into its product?
In the case of Apple, Apple has made a big deal out of the fact that if you own an iPhone, nobody's getting in it unless you let them or unless you screw up and somehow don't use the systems they provide.
But nobody's breaking into your phone.
And in the case of a lot of applications, there is encryption both ways from the sender to the recipient and back.
And even if somebody gets in your phone, they're not going to be able to crack your communications because it's encrypted and nobody has the key to decrypt it.
FBI wants all of that, but they're claiming they want it for just one phone.
And they want the data.
They want the key.
They don't want Apple to come in and open the phone.
They want to do it themselves.
That means they have to be given the key.
Well, okay, so the FBI has the key.
Then other law enforcement gets the key.
And then by the time the first week is over, hundreds of thousands of law enforcement people have the key to get into IOS devices.
I think one of them is not going to leak it.
One of them is not going to make a mistake.
One of them is not going to see to it that it ends up in the hands of some bad guy.
I mean, this is, it is highly likely that this scenario could play out if Apple is made to give up the ownership of the combination to all of their safes.
But there's more to this, and I will get into it later.
I'm not doing it now because I don't think it's priority in terms of everything we're talking about here.
But that's basically what this is about.
And again, I need to draw the comparison, the analogy.
I mean, look at the lengths to which a private sector, American business, is going to protect the privacy and security of its customers compared to the federal government's efforts in that area, and they don't compare.
You know, you remember the hack not long ago that SHICOMs and the Russians are now in possession of the federal records of over 20 million government employees.
Remember that hack?
Remember hearing about that?
How about the IRS and Lois Lerner and all these people digging deep into private tax return data and leaking that and then using the leaks to deny tax-exempt status to otherwise qualifying applicants or qualified applicants?
I mean, it's not even a comparison.
Anyway, for later, let's get a quick poll review here.
First, the one that shook everybody up late yesterday afternoon, NBC Wall Street Journal, Ted Cruz 28, Donald Trump 26.
That's never, it's a national poll, not South Carolina specific, but the poll was taken after the Saturday night debate.
Cruz 28, Trump 26, Rubio 17, Kasich 11, Ben Carson 10%, Jeb Bush at 4%.
The sample, 400 likely voters.
Most polls like this are using a sample of 500 likely voters, but that's not the way to attack this.
It's an outlier.
And by that, I mean it's the only poll that says this.
It's the only poll of all the polls and all the iterations of the polls.
This is the first of this poll and the only poll among all of them that says this.
So people are saying, wait a minute, did the NBC Wall Street Journal polling unit, which is Bill McInturf on the Republican side, did they happen to really catch the beginning of a wave here?
Is it really not an outlier?
Is this really true?
Is it going to be confirmed with polls released later in the week?
Did they happen to be polling at just the right time to get an accurate representative sample of people in their reaction to the Saturday night debate in South Carolina?
The other way of going at this is, if you want to believe, and a lot of people do, if you want to believe the NBC Wall Street Journal poll is right, then you have to believe that all of the others are wrong,
including Quinnipiak, including Bloomberg, including Reuters, including public policy polling, including Fox News, all have polls out in the last couple of days.
You have to believe that all of those polls are wrong because all of those polls still have Trump at 32 to 35 to 36.
And it's true.
You could accurately say that Trump is not consolidating.
We've had two candidates leave the race.
Chris Christie got out, Carly Fiorina got out.
Now, admittedly, we're not dealing with large numbers of voters here in those cases, but Trump's support has apparently not grown.
And so analysts are happily pointing out, establishment analysts are happily pointing out, hey, hey, Trump's not getting any of these votes from people that have gotten out of the race.
None of Carly Finerita's supporters are going to Trump.
It doesn't look like Christie's are.
They're going elsewhere.
They're going Cruz Rubio.
So the establishment's holding out hope here that if they could just get some people to drop out and make this either Cruz versus Trump or Rubio versus Trump, and then Cruz or Rubio could consolidate and get all these other votes, say from Jeb and Kasich and Carson and Rubio or Cruz, depending on which one drops out, then they would be beating Trump.
That's what they're desperately hoping for.
Except it isn't going to happen anytime.
So Kasich isn't going to get out.
And Rubio isn't going to get out.
Rubio just got the endorsement from Nikki Haley.
That's another thing.
That destroyed Jeb Bush.
You could see it in his face.
It just destroyed him.
And it disappointed Cruz a little bit, too.
And when you look at one angle, Sarah Palin, if it weren't for Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley might not be where she is right now.
And Palin, of course, is in a Trump camp.
But Nikki Haley is GOP.
The GOP establishment wants Rubio.
And so that's where she went.
It's predictable.
I don't think there was any question that that was going to happen.
There was a lot of hope, but there shouldn't have been any question that was because she was never going to endorse Cruz.
And she's not going to endorse Trump.
She publicly said she used her response to whatever was State of the Union to go out and hammer Trump.
So you know she wasn't going to endorse Trump.
And she wasn't going to endorse Cruz.
She's an elected Republican governor.
There aren't any Mavericks in that group of people.
They're going to stick with the party.
If they don't, they are putting giant roadblocks in their political future.
You become a Republican governor, a high-ranking Republican official, senator, member of the House, you pretty much go with the party.
Not in all cases, obviously.
There is the Tea Party, there is the conservative caucus in the House, but people we're talking about here, they're going to do what the party leaders want.
There was no question Nikki Haley was not going to endorse Trump.
And I never thought she was going to endorse Cruz.
To me, it was always a question of Jeb versus Rubio.
And then you have to, you have to.
There's no way I don't think she was going to endorse Jeb because why endorse somebody's at four points and hasn't shown the ability to get much higher than that?
Nikki Haley's endorsement's not going to save anybody.
She couldn't save Jeb.
It's even questionable whether these kind of endorsements help.
But Rubio is running with it.
You know what Rubio's benefiting from right now?
This is fascinating thing, the way these things all work out.
Rubio has yet to win a state, but you wouldn't know it by watching the coverage.
You would not know that Rubio hasn't won a state.
You could, if you're a columnist, if you're a conservative blogger, you could even headline a post.
Isn't it about time Rubio started to win a state or two to go along with everything going on?
No, this is not being critical.
Can I not analyze things without people thinking I'm jumping down somebody's throat?
Well, but it happens to be true.
I said the same thing.
I said the same thing once about Michelle Yee, the golfer.
Well, I did.
I caught hell from the young 18 to 24-old male golf fan community.
She was getting coverage like she'd won the U.S. Open a couple times.
And it was after a round at the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, and somebody ambushed me.
Some TV clown shows up, six-hour round.
I'm trudging off.
The course guy jams a microphone and camera in my face.
What do you think about Michelle?
I said, isn't it time she started winning a tournament?
That's all it took.
I ended up having to call a family and apologize.
It wasn't an attack.
I'm a media analyst, and I am fascinated by how media covers things and what that makes happen, what that makes possible.
Anyhow, Bloomberg Poll, Noah Carol, outside of NBC, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg Fox, you've got Trump doubling his next competitor, Eder Cruz, Eder Rubio.
So, and now the Pope entering the fray here, claiming Trump's not a Christian, throws a entirely new, not a wrench, but it adds a new that's a little miniature explosion that people are going to be running from or talking about, so we will too.
But I got to take a timeout now, folks, because this is the fastest three hours in media, and that means the fastest segments in the hour are also taking place here.
So, Trump is in Kiawa Island, South Carolina, campaign event.
He heard that the Pope accused him of not being a Christian.
So, naturally, Trump responded: We have the first of two soundbites here.
So, the Mexican government fed the Pope a tremendous amount of stuff about Trump is not a good person.
And the Pope just made a statement.
Can you imagine?
I just got a call.
As I'm walking up here, they said, Mr. Trump, the Pope made a statement about you.
I said, The Pope.
What did the Pope say?
I like the Pope.
I mean, was it good or bad?
Because if it's good, I like the Pope.
If it's bad, I don't like the Pope.
Now, Trump is out there saying that what the Pope said is a disgrace.
He didn't specifically call the Pope a liar, and he didn't threaten to sue the Pope.
So maybe he's moderating.
You know, if Ted Cruz had told him he wasn't a Christian, he threatened to sue him and so forth.
But no, I'm just teasing.
He brought up a good point.
Trump brought up a good point.
He said, When has the Pope ever questioned the faith of another private citizen?
And don't, by the way, folks, don't anybody, don't anybody, I'm just warning you here, don't anybody ask about the president's religion.
Don't even get close to going there.
Don't do it.
That is a forbidden area.
You cannot even ask about.
The Pope can go ahead and claim that Trump is not a Christian, but you can't go there when we're talking about the President of the United States.
Trump wants to know: has the Pope ever questioned Obama's faith?
Has the Pope ever questioned any other private citizen's faith?
Has he questioned the faith of the Castro brothers?
Has the Pope questioned the faith of any communist leaders?
He spends a lot of time in communist countries.
There's a lot of potential recruits there.
I mean to the flock.
I'm not, no, no, it's true.
The Catholic Church spends a lot of time in very poor countries trying to recruit, spread the gospel.
Let me put it that way.
So the Pope is simply saying, has he ever said that Mao Zedong, that Fidel Castro, that Raul Castro, any other communist, is not a Christian?
Why Donald Trump?
Because Trump wants to build a wall.
You've seen the Vatican Wall?
I got a picture here I can show you on the ditto cam if I had the time and where it's over 50 feet high.
It's over 50 feet high.
It's not even the kind of wall Trump's talking about building.
Here's the second Trump soundbite, by the way.
So I just wrote this out very quickly about the Pope.
Do you want to hear it?
Should I read it to you?
Okay.
He actually said that maybe I'm not a good Christian or something.
It's unbelievable, which is really not a nice thing to say.
So it's a response from Donald Trump.
It says, if and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, you know, ISIS, their primary trophy, very few people know this.
I read this about two months ago.
Nobody even believed it.
Their primary thing, you've seen what they've done all over the Middle East.
Their primary goal is to get to the Vatican.
That would be their ultimate trophy.
They want to do what they did to all of these magnificent artifacts and all of the beautiful museums that they've totally destroyed all over the Middle East, right?
So what Trump is saying is the Pope will pray for Trump as president because Trump is going to be the only guy trying to stop ISIS, which wants to take out the Vatican.
It is.
It is quite a curious thing.
And Trump, we don't have the soundbite right now, but he did ask those questions.
He did.
Has anybody, is the Pope questioned the Christianity of the Castro brothers, of any other private citizen?
Here is Jim in Balsam, North Carolina.
Got a phone call in here quickly.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Megadittos.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, I was disturbed and disgusted.
I'm a devout Roman Catholic Notre Dame Seminary, the whole nine yards.
And the Vicar of Christ is supposed to be on this earth for one thing, to guide people to the Christian faith as Christ spoke it and the Bible reveals it.
And that's his job.
I want him to go out and convince populations to turn to the love of Christ and not turn to socialism.
I can't tell you as a Catholic how disturbed I am at what this Pope, a very liberal Pope, you're not the first.
I'll tell you what it represents.
And people don't want to hear this.
This is whatever you, socialism, liberalism, this is who they are.
They corrupt everything.
Folks, their targets are the institutions and traditions that have given the world its morality, its virtue, the institutions and traditions which have defined freedom and liberty.
That's what the left attacks.
And it's clear that they have had success in corrupting quite a few of them because old Jim here is exactly right.
What in the world is the vicar of Christ doing getting down to this level of things?