We Get Trump, Thanks To Rush

May 4, 2016

I will grant you that I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program every day. But I do consider myself to be a “regular listener” in the sense that whenever I am in my car during the 11 am to 2 pm time period, I listen. And there are occasions when I listen to him on my computer when at home or in my office. I cannot say with absolute certainty that Rush has not made the declaration before, but I can say without any reservation that I heard Rush say for the first time today “Donald J. Trump is not a conservative.”

And there-in lies the problem. Rush is hardly bashful in calling out those who are “not conservative.” His ire is usually directed at democrats and other “liberals,” whether they be in the political or social realms and in the overlaps between the two. And he is unreserved in his criticism of those on the political and social “right” when they do not conform to true conservative principles. The GOP establishment is an example of one of his favorite targets. The exception to this rule however seems to have been Donald Trump, who we learn today from Rush, “is not a conservative.”

I am convinced that Rush’s fascination with Trump’s ability to handle the mainstream media, GOP establishment and other adversaries, clouded his judgment about Trump’s politics to the point of ambivalence. And in that fascination and resulting ambivalence, he failed his audience and by extension the country. Rush’s normal approach to those who are “not conservative” is to call them out and to squash them rhetorically. Had Trump been dismissed by Rush very early in the primary process in 2015, his ascendancy to now the presumptive candidate of the GOP and opponent of Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 General Election might have been avoided.

Rush demurs when identified as the heart, mind and soul of the conservative movement in the U.S., but it is virtually irrefutable that he is indeed a thought leader among conservatives. I contend that his silence on Trump’s political positions was deemed by listeners to be implicit support for him.

For the last month or so, Rush has attempted to defend his “neutral” stance on the GOP primary candidates, but the fact remains that he deviated from his normal modus operandi with Trump with respect to a thorough analysis of his politics and look at what we have as a result.


Interesting Year-End Thoughts on “Politics”

December 30, 2011

No, not thoughts from me, but from one of my favorite columnists and commentators, Charles Krauthammer.  While there are certain aspects of his philosophical constitution that I do not agree with entirely, vast amounts of it I do.  And either way, he has a wonderful way of expressing his views that make reading them a pleasure.

And such is the case in his article for today, that can be found by clicking HERE


The hottest topic in the G.O.P.

October 11, 2011

One of the most predictable events in the debate among G.O.P. presidential candidates tonight will be some question, framed in some way, targeted at least at Rick Perry and likely others, about Mormonism.  The question probably will not be settled when the debate ends, and likely won’t be until a nominee is selected sometime next year.  And, if Romney is that nominee, the question will likely endure through the general election just about a year and a month from now.

There have been a number of articles written on this matter over the last couple of days, and one can surely bet that there will be many more written as time goes on.  Two of the best that I have seen so far are these.  The first was written by Al Mohler, Southern Seminary President, and the second by Denny Burke, who is a Bible professor from Boyce College which is the undergraduate arm of Southern.  If you only read one, pick Mohler’s.  It is a bit long, but it is outstanding and will help clarify the issue and may be useful to both helping you form your thoughts on the matter and helping others who are struggling with this question of how Christians should think about a Mormon candidate.

UPDATE:  Here is yet another interesting article, this time mostly from a political strategy perspective.  Written by David Murray who is a professor at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, it leans heavily in the direction of media conspiracy theory, but frankly it is so plausible that it almost demands that we give it more than just a second thought.  Well worth the few minutes to read.


A light of reason in an otherwise dark sea.

January 10, 2011

The New York Times is notorious and unapologetic for its liberal leanings.  It rarely even tries to portray itself as objective in its coverage of the news.

With that said, it is indeed refreshing to see at least one reasonable opinion article in the NYT published yesterday, covering the subject of the horrific shooting in Tucson, Arizona over the weekend.  Ross Douthat is a light of reason in what is otherwise a very, very, very dark sea of biased liberal thought quartered in the NYT building.  Read his outstanding article at the link below.

United in Horror – Ross Douthat

And then if you dare, read the articles, published the same day by these two hacks, who in several examples don’t even get their facts straight much less have supportable opinions.  Case in point, the assertion (by virtue of a quoted source) by Gail Collins, that the particular pistol used by Jared Laughner is used only for the purpose of killing or injuring lots of people very quickly, and not for personal protection.  The particular pistol used by Laughner is the exact same model used by law enforcement officers all around our country and probably around the world.  Seldom if ever are we made aware of police officers using their guns for the purpose of killing or injuring lots of people quickly.  What we DO hear are stories of police officers using those same guns for self-protection and the protection of the people they serve.

You can read the highly biased and factually deficient articles by Gail Collins and Paul Krugman at these links.

A Right to Bear Glocks? – Gail Collins

Climate of Hate – Paul Krugman


We can only hope the Repulicans in the “new” congress are smarter than the ones in this one.

December 10, 2010

Once again Charles Krauthammer’s assessment of this week’s announcement of an as yet unapproved plan to extend the current tax rates is right on.  He outlines the political calculus of the President as he CONTINUES to advance his hard-left agenda, all under the approving watch of the current mess of Republicans who make up the current Congress.  To Obama’s credit, he really is masterfully playing these guys,….or he is just incredibly lucky that he has such a stupid opponent.  Some will still be around next year.  We can only hope that many of the ones elected a month ago are brighter, strategically, than the crowd representing us now.

Read the article HERE and see if you are STILL excited about what was agreed to earlier this week.


What a weiner!

December 9, 2010

Folks, this guy is a poster child for what you get when you elect democrats.  He is snarky, impertinent, spiteful, and untruthful.  Anthony Weiner’s view of the government’s entitlement to a significant portion of a person’s estate, the corpus of which has at some point been taxed as it was originally earned by the deceased, is laughable, if it were not the current law of the land, and an essential element of democrat tax policy.


He’s got this one right again.

December 3, 2010

If you are not in the habit of reading Charles Krauthammer, you really should treat yourself to some of his writings, periodically.  In fact, right now would be a good time, as I have a really good article for you published by Dr. Krauthammer regarding wikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, about whom I will decline comment, out of consideration of the possible tender eyes that might read this.

In any event, feast on THIS from the good Doctor.  He’s got this one right.