Written by Bob Siegel and originally published by Communities Digital News
SAN DIEGO, May 10, 2016 — It happened. Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee. Now the liberal media is salivating because they are so sure Hillary will beat him. The GOP golf and country club establishment is aghast because they are also sure Hillary will beat him.
Actually, a few of the latter want to be sure Hillary wins. Yes, some of these elitist GOP pundits are calling for Republicans to stay home, consequently throwing the election to Hillary for the sake of “keeping our Republican party pure.”
Otherwise (supposedly) Donald Trump will re-write the very meaning of the word “Republican.”
There is another group within the Republican Party, a more honest, sincere group driven not by power but genuine ideology and values.These people call themselves “conservatives.” Conservatives are split almost down the middle. Some are licking their wounds from the defeat of Ted Cruz. They were hoping for a contested convention.
They do share one thing in common with Trump supporters, but only one: They were both disenchanted with the spineless GOP establishment. The problem is that they don’t trust Trump either. They don’t view him as a real conservative.
They are disgusted by the insults that come out of Trump’s mouth. They were shocked at the name calling and mud slinging. They have zero faith in his promises. And they have seen him change positions more times than a gymnast on a balance beam.
So how do we navigate through these disappointing and turbulent waters? Is there any hope left? Is there anything Evangelicals and other conservatives can do?
Yes. We can admit that Trump was not our first choice; not even our second. He may have even been at the bottom of the 17 Republican candidates’ list. But he did get the nomination.
That alone isn’t a reason to vote for him. Preventing another 4 years of the leftish, destructive policies of Barack Obama is a reason. And that is just exactly what we will get if Hillary, Bernie, or any other Democratic candidate wins this fall.
And so we may need to vote for Trump. That will be hard. We’ll need to plug our noses while we do it. But difficult as that may be, it needs to be done. Yet, that won’t be the hardest part. We have an even trickier task to perform first: We must persuade other conservatives to also vote for Trump.
“Well, now you’re just asking the impossible.”
It may seem that way. But it can be done. How? We start by pointing out that we are not so much for Trump as against liberal, Democrat alternatives
After that, we will point out that there are two different kinds of Trump supporters; the groupies and the realists.
We are in the second camp and we must be willing to express criticism of the first camp; those who defend the man right or wrong and follow him as if he was some kind of Messiah.
Let’s be honest. Many of Trump’s groupies are marching in lockstep for the same reasons people followed Obama in 2008; blind, uncritical, emotional euphoria based on charisma and talking points that don’t offer a lot of substance.
“Make America Great Again.”
“Hope and change”
They almost sound the same, because without elaboration, nobody knows what they mean.
Ironically, many in the “anything goes with Trump” camp are true conservatives who detest the policies of Barrack Obama. How ironic that they now follow another pied piper.
But Trump realists are a different brand.
We are not groupies. We are not so naive as to portray Trump as a conservative. He’s not a conservative. He’s a populist who skillfully felt the pulse of an angry, betrayed nation. At the moment, he’s a populist who articulates a few conservative values. That’s not as good as a real honest-to-goodness conservative, but it’s light years from allowing the leftists to completely control our country. Not only will we admit that Trump is a populist, we will point out that he’s a very flawed populist at that.
When he makes mistakes, we will acknowledge them, not as quick, obligatory disclaimers, but as genuine concerns.
We will admit that much as Trump calls other people liars, he has lied himself, many times. We will even site examples, such as his claim that George Bush was responsible for 9/11 and his attempt to walk it back days later by saying that Bush may have been responsible.
Politicians are notorious for claiming they didn’t really say what they said. Even in the age of video playback, they still explain what they “truly meant.” Apparently, they have been led to believe they can get away with it. Almost all of them do it and Trump, the self-proclaimed non- politician, has been quite political himself.
True, in some ways he is different from other politicians. The man speaks without a filter, then thinks about what he said the next day. Upon better judgement, he adjusts his position. The adjustment is fine. But it should be accompanied by an apology, or at least an honest admission. He should simply admit he was wrong instead of trying to spin it. When he spins, he has gone full circle, sounding like a politician once again.
And so, Trump realists will be honest, even when Trump himself is not.
Our honesty will squarely face his problematic track record:
On both social issues and foreign policy, he’s been all over the map; for a single payer system; against a single payer system; for abortion, against abortion.
He woos Evangelicals, yet when asked, he cannot name any personal examples of asking God for forgiveness. He holds up the Bible as a good book to read, only slightly higher on the list than his own book.
He’s a man who at any time could say anything, do anything, or stand for anything.
And yet, scary as this profile looks, there is another side.
The brass and tactlessness of Trump may make some flinch, but it is still satisfying to see somebody who does not consult a politically correct dictionary before talking.
Meanwhile, there’s more than brass. There has been a modicum of substance, hopefully the tip of a bigger iceberg. While Trump groupies only memorize his talking points, Trump realists have listened to some of his meatier speeches on foreign policy and trade. When well thought out detail is offered, it is not so bad.
Should the man surround himself with a conservative cabinet, (maybe even some of the people he ran against) we might see his business executive experience kick in, the experience of knowing that one must listen to advice and consider all angles before making a decision.
He has gone on record as saying that he will at least take the advice of generals more seriously than Obama did. That alone is significant, given the global anarchy Obama will leave behind.
As for the way Trump insults his opponents… An insult is abominable… IF… it was unnecessary and IF it was untrue.
Such was the case when Trump used insults during the primary. That will not be the case in the general election. If Trump were to go after Hillary with the same fervor he went after Rubio, Bush, Cruz and others, we might just experience that rarity of rarities; a Republican presidential candidate winning an election for a change.
Not that we would want him to be cruel or crass. But frankly, he wouldn’t need to be. All he’d have to do is speak the truth.
Both Mitt Romney and John McCain walked on eggshells to not insult Obama in 2008 and 2012. They were surrounded by campaign strategists who warned them again and again to avoid being offensive.Therein lies the Republican trap.
Democrats are not shy about attacking, even if the attack is a downright lie.
Harry Reid shamelessly commented on Romney’s tax returns without offering a shred of evidence.
President Obama claimed that Republicans wanted dirty air and water.
None of this matters to the Democrats. It works. Without hesitation, they lie about Republicans, while Republican candidates will not even speak the truth about Democrats. These days, there is a lot of truth to be spoken; truth which puts a spotlight on Democrat lies; lies about Benghazi, lies about health care, lies about Fast and Furious, and lies about countless other things.
Trump will not be so timid. He has shrewdly calculated that conservatives (at least a significant portion of them) are tired of the mealy-mouthed approach. They want a candidate who takes on his adversary as if he were stepping into a ring.
They want somebody to fight for their values, even if they are uncertain how much he actually shares those values.
” Trump is a racist and sexist”
No he isn’t. The man does have many problems, but those are not among them.
Yes he has insulted women, but you’ve probably noticed that he insults men just as much. He pops off at anybody who confronts him and he does so as a quick knee jerk reaction. His big mouth is an equal opportunity weapon.
As for racism, nobody can look into another person’s heart but if we’re going to judge a man by words during this election campaign, he has not said one racist word despite people choosing their own interpretation of his speeches.
Does a desire to protect our borders mean that one hates Hispanics? Then explain why so many Hispanic Americans support Trump. True, many others do not support him, but many do!
As for his idea of vetting Muslim immigrants more carefully, it’s time for a small education: Islam is not a race. Neither is it a nationality. Islam is a religion.
Yes, we will call Trump out when he lies, but not when he speaks the truth!
By the way; Democrats would have portrayed any Republican nominee as racist and sexist.
Do you think they weren’t going to say that about Ted Cruz? Of course they were. He too talked about borders, defended traditional marriage, and spoke against Islamic Jihad.
The Democrats would even have portrayed moderate, self proclaimed nice guy, John Kasich as anti woman and racist. You don’t think so? He already got in trouble with feminists for nothing more than discouraging female college students from drinking too much.
Mitt Romney was a moderate. They called him a racist for being a Mormon and a sexist for having the names of women he wanted to consider hiring in a binder.
Columnist George Will hopes to save the GOP by encouraging a Hillary win against Trump. The idea is that since Trump doesn’t truly represent the Republican Party, more damage would be done to its brand should Trump win.
“If Trump is nominated, Republicans working to purge him and his manner from public life will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party while working to see that they forgo only four years of the enjoyment of executive power.”
That all looks good on paper. The problem is we won’t survive another four years as a free nation, not with the vacancies that are likely to open up on the Supreme Court.
Once we have a completely liberal supreme court, it won’t matter anymore who the president is, or which party is running congress, or what the will of the people accomplishes with a ballot measure.That’s practically true already. For all intents and purposes our country is no longer a democratic republic.
Our country is run partly by an oligarchy and partly by a dictator whose decisions are canonized by this oligarchy under whitewashed terms such as “judicial review” or “executive Orders.”
“Doesn’t it ring hollow that Trump now calls for unity after dividing Republicans and conservatives?”
Of course it rings hollow! Trump realists should call upon Trump to make the first effort toward reconciliation. He owes that to his defeated rivals.
What he owes to the GOP establishment is another story. True, some in the establishment are biting the bullet and supporting Trump, but many were scheming to take him out at a contested convention. Some seem to still be scheming. Romney will not endorse Trump. Neither will the Speaker-of-the-House. Neither will the Bushes.
Remember, this same GOP establishment asked Trump to take a pledge that he would support the nominee should he lose.
We’ll never know if Trump would have kept that pledge but we do know that Jeb Bush and every other GOP candidate was asked to make the same pledge. Jeb has already gone back on his.
“But don’t they have a right to be concerned? The GOP establishment is only critical of Trump because he’s not a true conservative.”
Really? They had a true conservative in Cruz and they hated him even more. Why? Because Senator Cruz had the audacity to keep his campaign promises and challenge his fellow senators and congressmen to do the same. How was he rewarded? Just recently former Speaker-of-the House, John Boehner called him “Lucifer.” So much for concern about electing a true conservative.
Would Cruz have been a better choice than Trump? Absolutely! There is no comparison. There’s nothing to even think about.
But that ship has sailed!
When the GOP establishment acts like their concern for Trump is his lack conservative values, they have difficulty making such comments with a straight face. We gave them back the House in 2012 and they did nothing. We gave them back the Senate in 2014 and they did nothing. They could have defunded Obama Care. They could have defunded his amnesty executive orders.
They could have done a lot of things. Instead, they were abysmal failures.
They worried about how Obama would portray them. They worried about how the media would portray them. They worried about pleasing everybody but the voters who had already spoken! Their failure left a vacuum that Trump has filled. They created Donald Trump!
Now they need to suck it up and live with it.
“But my conscience will not allow me to vote for a man like Trump.”
Will your conscience allow a liberal Supreme Court? Do you think Clinton, Sanders, or any other liberal Democrat will appoint a Supreme Court justice who lets the vote of the people prevail instead of legislating from the bench? What will happen to free speech and religious liberty? They barely exist right now. They are being suspended by a very thin thread. Four years of a Democrat administration, with its agenda of tipping the Supreme Court balance of power and you will no longer recognize the country you grew up in. It will still be called the United States of America and that title will be all that’s left.
“I’m not going to vote for the lesser of two evils.”
The alternative to the lesser of two evils is the greater of two evils.
In summary I am not calling anybody to be a Trump groupie, but rather, a Trump realist. As a realist, I have been painfully honest about his flaws, but I have also defended him where defense was warranted.The areas we presently see as strengths are still uncertainties, partly because the man is a volatile loose cannon, and partly because nobody can predict the future any way. This leaves an interesting choice on the menu: We have a candidate who is unpredictable or a Democrat who will be entirely predictable, whose policies will be inscribed by the Supreme Court as permanently as Mt. Rushmore. Given that choice, we would be wiser to roll the dice.
Think of it as that last ditch, eleventh hour unconventional drug that a doctor tries on a dying cancer patient because nothing else has worked. The doctor isn’t promising that his latest idea will work either. He is merely saying, “We better try it.”
This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.
Bob Siegel is a weekend radio talk show host on KCBQ and a columnist. Details of his show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net
Comments 13
Many — most, I think — of the best minds disagree. Trump is not the lesser of two evils.
https://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2016/05/12/when-the-choices-are-so-bad-i-go-with-the-lesser-evil-hillary-clinton/1/
http://www.city-journal.org/html/my-pen-pal-donald-trump-14442.html
https://ricochet.com/trust-trump/
A Different Take:
The Good – Since I live in a super blue state, my vote or non vote for Trump won’t matter because California will go Democrat as it has done since 1988 in the presidential general election. Meanwhile in the primary, I can vote my conscience by casting a vote for Cruz, who will still be on the ballot.
The Bad – Contrary to what Trump says at times, it looks like unborn babies, marriage and religious liberties, will continue unprotected. Transgender bathrooms will become a sacred right.
The Ugly – The sad spectacle of well meaning conservatives twisting their souls into pretzel like positions to defend the latest cringe-worthy statement or action by Trump.
A revealing interview with a local Trump supporter: http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2016/05/25/totally-for-trump-an-exceptional-chat-with-sean-colgan/
Sad.
Especially this lingering absurdity that serial liar Trump is “telling it like it is.” As Charles Murray tells us, systematic fact-checks over four and a half hours of stump speeches and press releases reveal that Trump is this season’s blue-ribbon winning BS’r, telling one factual untruth every five minutes.
Sigh.
Maybe there’s some solace in knowing that there really is “no new thing under the sun.” As Teddy Roosevelt noted, “When there is a great unrest, partly reasoning and partly utterly unreasoning and unreasonable, it becomes extremely difficult to beat a loudmouth demagogue, especially if he is a demagogue of great wealth.”
The war we face is a battle of ideas. False ones versus true ones. Conservatism vs. Progressivism.
Progressivism is being successfully promoted via two groups. Democrats and Trump supporters. Like Democrats, Trump supporters reject natural rights.
It is an incoherent statement to claim one holds that all men are endowed with unalienable rights while voting for an individual that does not.
A homeowner doesn’t compromise with a burglar. Not even one piece of silverware. To do so only compromises the inalienable right of the property owner. The burglar’s value is not compromised and the first compromise sets precedent for the second and the third.
Trump voters, those passionate and those reluctant “lesser of two evils” types are both burglars. One could make the case since the GOP has controlled both houses yet failed to “check and balance” the Executive that there would be even less restraint for constitutional government if the GOP were to elect a faux Republican.
Forgive me but I make no distinction between passionate Trump supporters and reluctant ones. Whether my property is taken at gun point or by an unjust law is immaterial. Both the passionate Trump voter and the reluctant Trump voter votes count and transfer power in an equally immoral way. Both voters reject the idea of inalienable rights.
“Lesser of two evils” remains a hopeless political philosophy incapable of producing reform. At best it can only slow a negative descent.
Eric,
Abraham Lincoln once wrote that he’d “choose any great evil to avoid having to choose a greater one.” Isn’t having to choose between significantly less than ideal candidates–the “lesser of two evils”–just as much a part of political life today? And is this a “political philosophy,” or merely an unpleasant, yet unavoidable, aspect of political life?
Several generations now of American politicians and their advisors–our “leaders”–have been disabused of their faith in the validity of permanent, guiding norms–i.e., natural rights and/or law. Yet they’re all we have, and some qualitative differences in character and competence between them are still discernable.
Aren’t we obliged to, at the very least, choose the one who will do the least harm?
Lincoln was also responsible for one of the most violent events in history. 600,000 Americans lost their lives fighting each other. Wilberforce/Britain addressed it without violence. Just saying.
The lesser of two evils (Lo2E) philosophy would exhort a nation to support Stalin over Hitler. Oops.
Conservatives and classical liberals posit a Creator. Transcendent ideas are not to be compromised. A conservative should be conserving something. If we are voting for the Lo2E we must let go of our principles and begin fusing progressivism with conservatism. We are governed by what controls us.
I will compromise on our approach but will not compromise a truth. Does the Creator give us that choice? Can I violate rule of law and grant favors to your neighbor? Do I have the freedom to initiate violence against my neighbor or redistribute his property?
What individual would enter a social contract and consent to such a system?
The difference between myself and one espousing the Lo2E is that my vote matches my rhetoric.
“is this a “political philosophy,” or merely an unpleasant, yet unavoidable, aspect of political life?”
Ideas have consequences. We face a war of ideas. That is the battle. Political life today is as it is because of a departure from a fundamental idea “the laws of nature and Nature’s God”. We have steadily moved away from that idea and as we have done so the constraints on the State have been removed. As state government has increased, the spheres of church, family and self-government have decreased. This is the reason for our decline in character. Societies with little character consent to be ruled by tyrants. Do I need to give examples here?
The solution isn’t more relativism, at least not for me. Our solution is to recognize the ideas that transcend politics and to reform our hearts and minds individual by individual. Trump does not articulate these great ideas and therefore I will not consent to be governed by him.
I am not concerned with saving a geographic nation at a point in time as much as I am concerned with demonstrating my gratitude to my Savior for the cross. For that reason I am called to come out and be separate, not follow men but follow Him. It is his judgment that concerns me not man’s.
Neither Wilberforce nor Britain faced a slave state fully intent on spreading it’s hideous institution across the rest of the nation.
“Just sayin.’ ”
And we did favor and support Stalin over Hitler. And it’s a very good thing, too. Without him, Hitler would certainly have taken England; and, with England gone, the rest of Europe, including Russia.
You’ll need a better examples to make your point.
Transcendent ideals are, of necessity, compromised every day and in every way. Earth, as I pointed out before, is not, as well we know, the Kingdom Heaven; and forcing this very imperfect place to perfectly conform to otherworldly standards is a recipe for nothing but disaster–as examples a disparate as Calvin’s Geneva and 20th century Soviet Russia and Maoist China richly demonstrate.
So how did the ancient and medieval thinkers, those who devised and developed the theory of natural law, come to grips with the discrepancy between moral/political ideals and sordid reality? With virtue; namely, the cardinal virtues, the first and most important of which, prudence, consists of our understanding of how we adapt the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” to the world around us.
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
a. Prudence
In order to act well, we need to make good judgments about how we should behave. This is precisely the sort of habit associated with prudence, which Aquinas defines as “wisdom concerning human affairs” (STIIaIIae 47.2 ad 1) or “right reason with respect to action” (ST IIaIIae 47.4). In order to make good moral judgments, a twofold knowledge is required: one must know (1) the general moral principles that guide actions and (2) the particular circumstances in which a decision is required. For “actions are about singular matters: and so it is necessary for the prudent man to know both the universal principles of reason, and the singulars about which actions are concerned” (ST IIaIIae 47.3; Cf. STIaIIae 18.3). This passage may appear to suggest that prudence involves a fairly simple and straightforward process of applying moral rules to specific situations. But this is somewhat misleading since the activity of prudence involves a fairly developed ability to evaluate situations themselves. As Thomas Hibbs explains: “prudence involves not simply the subordination of particulars to appropriate universals, but the appraisal of concrete, contingent circumstances” (Hibbs, 2001: 92). From this perspective, good decisions will always be responsive to what our situation requires. Thus we cannot simply consult a list of moral prescriptions in determining what we should do. We must also “grasp what is pertinent and to assess what ought to be done in complex circumstances” (Ibid., 98).
According to Aquinas, then, the virtue of prudence is a kind of intellectual aptitude that enables us to make judgments that are consonant with (and indeed ordered to) our proper end (ST IaIIae 57.5). Note here that prudence does not establish the end at which we aim. Our end is the human good, which is predetermined by our rational nature (ST IIaIIae 47.6). Nor does prudence desire that end; for whether we desire our proper end depends on whether we have the rights sorts of appetitive inclinations (as we shall see below). According to Aquinas, prudence illuminates for us the course of action deemed most appropriate for achieving our antecedently established telos. It does this through three acts: (1) counsel, whereby we inquire about the available means of achieving the end; (2) judgment, whereby we determine the proper means for achieving the end; and finally (3) command, whereby we apply that judgment (ST IIaIIae 47.8). While we need a range of appetitive excellences in order to make good choices, we also need certain intellectual excellences as well. That is, we must be able to deliberate and choose well with respect to what is ultimately good for us.
As a cardinal virtue, prudence functions as a principle virtue on which a variety of other excellences hinge. Those excellences include: memory, intelligence, docility, shrewdness, reason, foresight, circumspection, and caution (ST IIaIIae 49.1-8). Without these excellences, we may commit a number of cognitive errors that may prevent us from acting in a morally appropriate way. For example, we may reject the guidance of good counsel; make decisions precipitously; or act thoughtlessly by failing “to judge rightly through contempt or neglect of those things on which a right judgment depends” (ST IIaIIae 53.4). We may also act for the sake of goods that are contrary to our nature. This invariably happens when the passions cloud our judgment and make deficient objects of satisfaction look more choiceworthy than they really are. In order to make reliable judgments about what is really good, our passions need some measure of restraint so that they do not corrupt good judgment. In short, prudence depends on virtues of the appetite, and it is to these virtues we now turn.”
(BTW–Josef Pieper’s the Cardinal Virtues is, by far, the best introduction to this branch of philosophy.)
I like Aquinas and what you have shared … “one must know the general moral principles” … “prudence involves not simply the subordination of particulars to appropriate universals, but the appraisal of concrete, contingent circumstances..” but don’t agree with this statement.
“we did favor and support Stalin over Hitler. And it’s a very good thing”
I am going to side with the millions he murdered (more than Hitler) not to mention the eastern block nations he cast his evil ideas over.
General moral principles accurately applied, at least by a Christian or natural law ethic do not allow for initiation of violence. Think in a situation as this, evil versus evil, that it would have been better to allow the two nations to beat themselves senseless like a 12 round boxing match and leave America free and prosperous as a peaceful example. Of course we did not do that and destroyed thousands of American families and loaded them with debt and set up the destruction of the USD. We also began a foreign policy of hegemony and imperialism which is utterly inconsistent with “general moral principles”. How can a nation which professes “all men are created equal” practice control of other nations?
If you had lived in the 1940 you could have offered your services to Stalin and paid your own way but you must have done so in the way Aquinas prescribed above. I don’t see how that could have happened let alone why one would do such a thing unless you had friends or family there. Certainly our “general moral principles” accurately applied would lead us to the conclusion that the theft of property from one neighbor to fund the initiation of violence against another is morally illegitimate. If you would not do so on your street as an individual why would you do so as part of a large group? Does the God of Aquinas have a separate set of ethics for groups greater than five? one hundred?
Those general moral principles are found in Scripture and are deduced from the teaching that all men are created equal. “Thou shall not steal” applies to the state as well as the individual.
I have made the statement that I am governed by general moral principles (Aquinas) and in the departure from such we find the origin of our dilemma – Donald Trump, the prospective GOP nominee. I have attempted to apply prudence in accurately evaluating the situation (Aquinas).
Since I believe that our Creator established laws by which his creation is governed (economic, physical, biological etc…) and attempt to uphold his general moral principles with something more than rhetoric, I will not be voting for Donald Trump.
I am trying to submit to His law not place myself above it (Divine Right of Kings) It is my understanding that my neighbor’s rights are unalienable and God given and until one can demonstrate from Scripture or Aquinas that I can compromise my neighbor’s rights I must hold that position.
You have shared “transcendent ideals are, of necessity, compromised every day and in every way” but you have not shared Biblically or via Aquinas where I am given the freedom to compromise them. How can I refer to myself as a conservative if I am not conserving general moral principles?
If I can arbitrarily apply general moral principles so can Trump and Pelosi.
Had you “sided with” the millions of Stalin’s victims, you would have been too late. The vast majority of them were killed before WWII.
Violence is permitted in self-defense; and, of course, between nations, this often involves action in anticipation of an attack.
Or maybe, to take a concrete example today, you think we should allow Iran to arm–hoping for the best in the meanwhile!–and wait for them to attack us first before responding.
Following Christ’s and saint Paul’s distinction between separate but complimentary civil and religious jurisdictions (Matthew 22:20-22 and Romans 13:4, respectively) Augustine developed his famous theory of the two cities, God’s and man’s, in the City of God. This distinction is, not surprisingly, assumed by Aquinas.
I won’t be voting for Trump, either. But not because I deny the rectitude of prudential reasoning–the adapting of ethical ideals to concrete situations–but because I see not qualitative difference between the candidates.
Craig, you remain a respected scholar that I listen to. Obviously agree with self-defense. Thank you for contributing regularly to Rostra.
With regard to more important issues, were you aware that the individual responsible for addressing the Whiskey Rebellion was our nation’s largest distiller at his death in 1799?
See George Washington.
Thank you, Eric, though, to tell the truth, I’m a dilettante at best.
But I certainly enjoying exchanging thoughts with people as well informed as you.
I was unaware of the distillery/rebellion connection.
Speaking of whiskey, I look forward to throwing back a few shots of good bourbon with you soon.
Author
A response to some of the points made by readers will be given over the air on my radio show this weekend, Sunday, June 5. Readers are always welcome to call in and “respond to my response.”
The Bob Siegel Show
KCBQ 1170 AM on the dial
6:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time
Call in toll free number: 1-888-344-1170