There is another prophesy which describes the situation: “…even the Elect (Christians) would be deceived, were it possible.” Somehow, a great many Christians have been duped into believing that the Republican party represents their interests – an indication of just how far from the “Truth” so-called Christians have strayed. Faith does not require one to give up thinking, instead it requires the faithful to “test everything – keeping what is good and rejecting all that is false.”

Perhaps the Truth is that these 4 leaders are not “horsemen” at all, but only the hind parts of the horses.

When I was writing my rant earlier, I tried to line up the new four with their Biblical counterparts, but I got stuck because none of the original four was whiny or stupid.

The best I could do was rule out Rush as “Famine”.

Remind us of anyone we know?

And TJT apparently has some anger issues.

I think I understand TJT’s concerns about your “four horsemen” analogy, but I think there’s a fundamental issue with the conclusion that he or she draws. The problem with the Republican party is not that these four men represent them, it’s that the Republican party, for some reason, is frightened that they DON’T represent them.

Although, something tells me that secretly most of the Republican rank-in-file would love for Sean Hannity to start describing himself as something OTHER than a Republican.

Bill O’Reilly does, indeed, call himself a Traditionalist. It is unclear as to which traditions he refers, as they tend to change wildly. As with most Traditionalists, O’Reilly pines for the history of a time that never actually existed, when everyone got along because we all carried guns, and the government only concerned itself with national defense and preventing gay marriage. Rush Limbaugh calls himself a conservative, which privately saddens most true conservatives. Glenn Beck calls himself human, which makes chimpanzees snicker amongst themselves.

All four of these men have one thing in common: they speak into a microphone and say things that increase ratings. They increase ratings so that their employers make more money, because when their employers make more money, they get paid more. They’re not journalists (although Hannity occasionally asserts otherwise), so they have absolutely no problem with ignoring facts when making their points. Glenn Beck’s even been known to disregard his own previous rantings when making a point. They make their points purely for effect, and they don’t care a bit about what anyone thinks about them (as long as they keep coming back for more).

Which is what everyone needs to somehow come to grips with: none of these people are preachers spreading the gospel of conservatism (or whatever O’Reilly calls it). They are all entertainers, saying outrageous things to make people want to tune in again next time to find out what they’ll say next. There are only two differences between Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern: target demographics and an Oxycontin addiction.

There will always be a Rush Limbaugh, and a Keith Olberman, and a Jon Stewart, and a Lenny Bruce, and a Mort Sahl. Their names will change, as will their messages. It’s a tradition of this country, dating back to Benjamin Franklin (who could be a lot nastier than Rush has ever been). It’s why freedom of speech comes before the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. They will continue to hold up a mirror to society and point out what’s wrong (or what’s silly). Some will entertain, some will annoy, some will just not know when to shut up. We should all listen to what they have to say, but always know that their goal, first and foremost, is to entertain, not to inform, and that it is OUR responsibility to draw proper conclusions from the actions of our elected officials based upon their actions, not what a personality has said to try to get ratings.

As an example, let’s look at TJT’s assertion. Tjt makes the case that conservatives disagree with the President’s description of the Constitution as a “seriously flawed document”. Now, here’s the funny part about that; Obama never said that. Rush Limbaugh said that he said that. Sean Hannity then quoted Rush as saying that he said that. O’Reilly was then deeply disturbed by it having been said, because it went against his traditional values. And then Glenn Beck made some sort of guttural sound that everyone assumed meant he was upset. Here’s what actually happened: Obama was giving an interview one day talking about racism in America, and told a reporter that the ORIGINAL version of the Constitution (as in the one that referred to Blacks as 3/5 of a person) as being a reflection of the flaws of society at the time it was being drafted. But he said the words “Constitution” and “flaw” in the same sentence, and that set everything in motion. To this day, people who have never taken the time to find out the truth continue to use the misquote as a means of defining a presidency.

The best thing that the Republican party could do for itself is replace Michael Steele as party chairman. Not because Michael Steele upsets Rush Limbaugh but because Michael Steele CARES that he upsets Rush Limbaugh, and every day that he continues to be more concerned about the opinions of a radio personality than the state of the union as a whole, the more damage he inflicts upon the Republican party. The party desperately needs to find a leader that can say to everyone that ultra-conservative loons have no more value in a society than radical-leftist loons, and that neither has the right to drown out rational discourse when it comes to running this country.