Rush Limbaugh: Trump supporters don't think running around with Playboy playmates means anything compared with saving the culture

Incredible. What's to save, then? 

The basis of culture is the cult, that is, religion. Mine teaches that such behavior is wrong. I'll bet Melania's does, too.

If you want to make promiscuity the new cult, well, count me out.

Keep in mind that Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict and serial monogamist who has been wrong about far more than little old GDP in his lifetime. He was ecstatic to have that flaming homo Elton John sing at his third fourth wedding, so there you go. His Methodism is thimble deep, like his education.

Trump is nothing more than a transitional figure. Once the force of his personality is gone, nothing will be left . . . unless of course he builds that wall.

Here:

For example, Lowry says this incident on tape with Trump talking to a fixer about paying off a Playboy playmate would sink anybody, particularly any Republican candidate. Why doesn’t it sink Trump? Well, we’ve been through all the reasons for this. One of Lowry’s explanations is that the bar has been set so low with Trump that no new revelation is gonna shock anybody, not after the NBC Access Hollywood video. And so there just isn’t anything that’s gonna shock anybody. Trump’s already survived numerous such attempts to take him out.

So something like this, as far as Trump supporters are concerned, there’s nothing new here. No reason to get upset. But I think it’s far more than that. I think not enough credit’s being given to the sophistication of Trump supporters. And it is that it doesn’t mean anything, when compared to what these people think is really important, like saving the country, like growing the country, like saving our culture. Whether Trump’s running around with Playboy playmates is not relevant to them.

Rich Lowry of National Review almost gleefully reports on the death of white America

Please love me, please!

As if the deaths expiate his guilt.

Here, where it's a "health cataclysm", "a slow-motion economic and social meltdown", a veritable expression of "American exceptionalism".

But wait, there's more!

"The white working class is dying from the effects of a long-running alienation from the mainstream of American life", he intones, "but there is no guarantee only one generation will be lost."

He only hopes.

See Rich Lowry in 20 years: Still hiding in the jungle resisting Donald Trump

Here:

LOWRY: We will be like the last Japanese soldier in the jungle resisting this guy.

Trump's attacks on Cruz in December struck Rush Limbaugh as "Democrat", but we had narry a word today criticizing National Review's cooperation with Politico against Trump

Here was Limbaugh in mid-December:

'But even people who are not particularly aligned with Cruz on the right have gotta be curious about this because this is no different than what the media would say about Ted Cruz.  This is no different than what the Democrat Party would say.  I mean, this is what the Republican establishment would say, for crying out loud.  I mean, this is akin to saying, "I'm the guy who can cross the aisle and work with the other side."  That hasn't been the way Trump has come off up 'til now.  He's not positioned that way.'

National Review provided its anti-Trump issue in advance to Politico, for whom Rich Lowry has written a regular column for many years.

So who's crossing the aisle now to work with the opposition? Who's adopting the methods of the left?

Remember Republican Lowell Weicker losing to Democrat Joe Lieberman in 1988 because of National Review's overt support of Lieberman?

Remember Jeffrey Hart et al. voting for Obama?

National Review commits utter treason, joins the left to stop Trump, cooperating with POLITICO to do it

From the story here:

'“This is the time to mobilize,” said National Review editor Rich Lowry, who is also a weekly opinion columnist at POLITICO. “The establishment is AWOL, or even worse, so it’s up to people who really believe in these ideas and principles, for whom they’re not just talking points or positions of convenience, to set out the marker.” ... Lowry was slated to go on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News program Thursday night to promote the anti-Trump package. National Review plans to begin posting the essays and editorial, which were provided in advance to POLITICO, on Friday. While National Review ran an anti-Newt Gingrich cover and editorial in 2012, Lowry said, “I don’t think we’ve ever done something like this,” summoning a cross-section of conservative leaders to try to dislodge a GOP frontrunner.'

National Review has famously attacked its own in the past, from the John Birch Society to Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan and John Derbyshire, among others over the years. But this takes the cake. Trump doesn't even pretend to be an intellectual with ideas, but the fanatics are going to excommunicate him anyway.

It's a very sad day for those of us old enough to remember how the editorial pages of National Review were like water to men wandering in the desert. The magazine now drinks the full measure of the wrath of God.

The girly men at National Review still feel like Trump attacked them

Lowry and Ponnuru, here, who think Megyn Kelly, Carly Fiorina and Rosie O'Donnell make a "whole pattern":

'Trump’s discarded wives and his habit of making gross sexual insults of women also make it easier for liberals to campaign against Republicans’ supposed “war on women.” Perhaps one or two of Trump’s comments were not as disgusting as they have generally been taken to be: Maybe he didn’t mean to suggest that Fox anchor Megyn Kelly asked him tough questions because she was menstruating. But look at the whole pattern — his repeated attacks on her as a “bimbo,” his slam of Carly Fiorina’s face, his description of other women as pigs — and it’s clear that these bits of ugliness are not gaffes so much as a way of life.'

What a couple a pussies. No one who goes off on three men automatically becomes a man-hater. Men do it all the time, and so do women. But "discarded wives" gives it all away. They were no more discarded than any other gold digger is discarded. Women always take the side of the women.

Besides, the Megan Kelly and Carly Fiorina examples are weak. In the one case Trump artlessly hunted for the ages old idiom "seeing red" and came up short (and isn't everything he says equally artless?), and in the other the source for the story is as suspect as suspect can be but people who are purportedly conservative are still prepared to buy it? Predisposed to buy it is more like it. Carly Fiorina's success with this fake story among Republicans tells you all you need to know about the Republican Party, and Carly Fiorina.   

Rosie O'Donnell, on the other hand, has a big fat target on her back for a reason, and deserves everything she gets.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Used To Be "The Law Of The Land" Too, But That Didn't Stop Democrats From Trying To Repeal It

Rich Lowry in The New York Post, here:

Having done the deed, Democrats now expect Republicans to salute smartly, accept “the law of the land” and suggest minor improvements that Democrats will, in their wisdom, decide whether or not to adopt. In other words, they recommend the acquiescence of surrender. If this were a consistent principle rather than opportunistic advice, Democrats would have been content to leave “don’t ask, don’t tell” in place and never would have agitated to repeal the Bush tax cuts, out of deference to duly constituted policy and law. ...

[T]he law suffers from basic design flaws beyond the question of whether the Obama administration can get its software to work. It depends on young, healthy people buying insurance even as it reduces their incentive to do so; it encourages employers to dump workers off their current insurance; it suppresses full-time work, through the employer mandate; in 10 years, the law still leaves 30 million people uninsured.

To Forgo Something is Acting, Says Judge Kessler

But National Review's Rich Lowry is having none of it, here, responding to this statement by Kessler:

"It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something." ...

Long ago, the Commerce Clause got stretched beyond recognition. In 1942, the Supreme Court used it to uphold a law penalizing a farmer for growing wheat in excess of his approved allotment, even though it was for his own consumption. At least the poor sap was doing something. According to Kessler, Congress could also punish him for acting on a thought not to grow wheat.

Opponents of ObamaCare say that if it's blessed by the courts, there will no longer be any limiting principle on federal regulatory power. If that seems far-fetched, behold the mental activities of one Judge Gladys Kessler.

Which begs the question, Isn't Kessler's reasoning a residual influence of the Christian religion on matters of state?

Christianity teaches that there are plenty of sins of commission, but also of omission, as per Paul's letter to the Romans, and the letter of James. By refusing to purchase health insurance, by Kessler's reasoning, one is almost committing a sin against the state, of, by and for the people, who will have to bear the costs of paying for the deadbeat's omission.

At the Last Judgment the offender would be punished in hell, but in the Immanentized Eschaton which ideologues are trying to foist upon us, he'll just pay a fine.

Virtue should be so easy.