Last month marked five years since Rush Limbaugh’s death. Tributes still appear on schedule. Clips circulate. Familiar phrases — “talent on loan from God,” “doctor of democracy,” “half my brain tied behind my back” — resurface. Every so often his opening theme slides into a feed, and people pause longer than they expect.

That reaction says something.

Rush can’t be replaced because the habits that made him possible have largely disappeared.

When life felt unsteady, Rush stayed fixed.

For millions of Americans, his voice arrived at the same hour each afternoon as institutions shifted, headlines fractured, and the culture argued with itself. Agreement was never universal. But steadiness was.

The music still plays. Rush does not.

Five years later, the absence still feels different — in a way modern media can’t quite explain.

When talk show legend Johnny Carson retired in 1992, late-night TV didn’t disappear. It divided. Some viewers followed Jay Leno, who succeeded Carson at NBC. Others moved to CBS with David Letterman. Then the format split again, louder and more elaborate with each successor.

Late-night evolved. It never recovered the King of Late Night’s reach.

By today’s standards, Carson looks almost minimalist: a desk, a band, conversation allowed to breathe. Parents ended evenings there after the kids went to bed. The show closed the day not through spectacle but familiarity.

Rush occupied a different hour but understood his medium just as completely.

As broadcasting technology advanced and competitors added panels, simulcasts, and digital bells and whistles, Rush’s formula barely changed. Behind the golden EIB microphone sat one prepared voice, a “stack of stuff,” and three hours shaped not by focus groups but conviction.

Some days funny. Some days angry. Always patriotic. Sometimes wounded or reflective — even nostalgic.

Listeners heard it when Rush entered rehab in 2003. They heard it again when he announced his cancer diagnosis in 2020. They followed professional triumphs and personal failures, marriages that ended, and later the unexpected joy when he met Kathryn Rogers and married her in 2010. They heard the frustration and adaptation that followed the loss of his hearing.

The humanity never weakened the authority. It reinforced it.

Rush spoke from belief, and listeners found him.

He often said he never set out to build a network of hundreds of stations or reach millions of listeners. His goal was simpler: Be the best broadcaster he could be. Not an alternative. Not a counterpoint. The best at articulating what made America exceptional — and at exposing ideas that threatened it.

The audience followed.

For many people, the show unfolded alongside responsibilities that never paused for politics. For years — through hospital visits, surgical waiting rooms, doctor’s appointments, and pharmacy runs with my wife — Rush kept me company more hours than almost anyone outside my family.

He didn’t interrupt my life. He traveled alongside it.

That relationship is difficult to recreate because modern media now works in reverse. Voices don’t wait to be found; they chase attention. Commentary arrives instantly, tailored to preference and consumed in fragments measured in seconds.

Everyone now broadcasts. No one gathers.

Earlier media required commitment. If you missed Carson, you missed him. When “Seinfeld” was new, millions tuned in at the same hour because there wasn’t an alternative. The next morning’s conversations assumed a shared experience. Rush worked the same way. If you tuned away, the broadcast kept going.

Today almost nothing is truly missed. Everything can be replayed, clipped, streamed, or summarized. Convenience replaced anticipation. Access replaced commitment.

We gained availability and lost presence.

After Rush, commentary didn’t decline. It multiplied. Humor migrated here, outrage there, analysis somewhere else — across podcasts, streaming platforms, and social media personalities.

But coherence thinned.

Audiences scattered into niches large enough to sustain influence but too fragmented to create shared trust. Rush succeeded during one of the last eras when millions practiced the discipline of listening together long enough for familiarity to become confidence.

Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

For conservatives especially, that steadiness mattered. As cultural institutions treated them with ridicule or dismissal, Rush spoke directly to listeners who felt talked about rather than spoken to.

He didn’t echo what people wanted to hear. He anchored them in what needed to be said. He didn’t flatter them. He reasoned with them. He laughed with them. Sometimes he challenged them.

Recognition replaced alienation.

Five years later, the lingering absence shows what was actually lost.

We didn’t lose commentary, Lord knows. We lost a shared reference point.

Rush can’t be replaced because the habits that made him possible have largely disappeared. Shared listening gave way to individualized feeds. Discipline yielded to distraction. Voices rise quickly now, but few endure long enough to be tested.

The spinning never stopped. We just lost the fixed point.

The question five years later isn’t who replaces Rush Limbaugh. He’s irreplaceable. The question is whether a culture trained to scroll still possesses the discipline to listen long enough for trust to form again.

Because Rush was never simply something Americans heard. He was something they chose.

The great replacement, American style

Earlier this month, the Cato Institute — perhaps the most effective think tank advocating open borders — published a study claiming that since 1994, immigration has generated a whopping $14.5 trillion surplus in tax revenues over expenditures.

Critics quickly noted that Cato’s study uses a strange standard for judging immigration policy. For example, the study admits that immigration drives up housing prices by increasing demand, yet it still treats the resulting rise in property-tax payments from homeowners — citizens and noncitizens alike — as a benefit.

Who the ‘American people’ were in 1776 or 1787, or are in 2026, is a much-disputed question, but that does not exempt us from trying to answer it.

But perhaps more fundamental is the study’s idea of what should count as an expenditure on immigrants. It treats the educational and medical expenses of immigrants’ American-born children — all of whom Cato claims are “birthright citizens” — as expenditures on citizens rather than on immigrants. This is the same kind of sleight of hand we saw during COVID, when the rise in illness experienced after the first of two shots was counted as cases among the unvaccinated rather than the half-vaccinated.

Statistical games aside, such studies raise a far deeper question: To whose well-being, security, and liberty is the government of the United States directed? That is answered for us in the preamble to our fundamental law, the Constitution of 1787:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

When I cited the preamble recently, the libertarian economist Glen Whitman replied that it is not binding law. Perhaps, but it is something more fundamental than law — it tells us what our laws should be trying to achieve.

Who the “American people” were in 1776 or 1787, or are in 2026, is a much-disputed question, but that does not exempt us from trying to answer it.

When John Rawls — the late political philosopher and the most influential liberal theorist of my generation — tried to explain how rational people should design society’s basic institutions, he did not treat civilization as nothing more than a collection of isolated individuals. In his famous “original position,” he argued that we should imagine ourselves not only as individuals but also as representatives of “continuing persons” — family heads, or stewards of enduring family lines.

This concept of continuing persons was Rawls’ clunky but effective mid-20th-century version of Gouverneur Morris’ more eloquent “ourselves and our posterity.” It does not seem crazy or racist — Rawls would have said it was reasonable — to think that immigration policy should be assessed from the perspective of current citizens and their descendants. In fact, that was how the historical Rawls claimed we should think about immigration, much to the surprise and dismay of his students and epigones.

On social media, we find the repeated cry that the so-called great replacement — the notion that elites are exchanging native populations for more tractable revenue producers — is a demagogic lie. After all, the open-borders pundits argue, more immigration doesn’t mean anybody is forced to leave.

Cemile Bingol / Getty Images

But we are all forced to leave. Someday, each of us will be reunited with his or her fathers and mothers. Our descendants — the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren we leave behind in the country we made for them — are our posterity.

Another problem is that mass immigration not only increases the demand for housing, but it also suppresses the wage expectations of the native-born, particularly native-born men who are low-income workers. By increasing housing prices and reducing lifetime wages, mass immigration erodes the economic foundation required for family life, making fewer native-born men marriageable.

This decreases the fertility of the native-born. While an increasing share of children are born to unwed mothers, unwed parenting is sufficiently difficult that few such mothers have more than one child, and very few have more than two. Governments then trumpet studies like Cato’s to justify bringing in immigrants to support the aging natives who do not have enough of their own posterity to meet the fiscal need.

To paraphrase Charles de Gaulle, the graveyards are full of irreplaceable men. But if we want our graves to be tended and our memories to be revered by our posterity, we need to work now to ensure that immigration policy serves the welfare, security, and liberty of that posterity.

Those who continue the work of George Washington and the other founders by maintaining and passing on the union they built — stronger, more united, and free — may not be their blood relatives, but they can justly claim to be their spiritual progeny.

A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Liberal reporter frustrates American tennis stars by asking the same tired question

The Australian Open has become about politics instead of tennis, thanks to one reporter's questions.

As men and women have won matches at the tournament in Melbourne, Australia, a male reporter has consistently popped up to ask players about their feelings about current U.S. politics.

'We are very diverse, we are a home of immigrants.'

"I've been asking a lot of the American players just how it feels to play under the American flag right now. And I'm curious how you feel," the man asked No.4-ranked Amanda Anisimova on Wednesday, with noted vocal fry.

Anisimova was praised for shutting the questions down, but it turns out the same reporter has asked the same divisive question to at least four other American tennis players.

The Women's Tennis Association's No.6-ranked Jessica Pegula faced almost the same question on Wednesday, though more specifically about living in Florida.

Pegula's answer likely won't please nationalists as much as Anisimova's did.

"Personally Florida's been, I think, OK. I think Florida, there's a big melting pot of different people from all over, in Florida," the 31-year-old went on. "So I feel like especially me being in South Florida, near Miami, I mean, there's people of all over the country that come to move to Florida, and there's a lot of international people that are there. I don't know if that's maybe why you kind of get a lot of different cultural differences in a good way honestly."

The reporter, who is alleged by several outlets such as Breitbart and Yahoo to likely be the Athletic's Owen Lewis, has not publicly confirmed he has asked the questions despite sharing that he has been in Australia covering the event.

Next up was men's No.9-ranked Taylor Fritz from California, who on Thursday had just completed a second-round win. Fritz buried his head in his hands as he answered the question, albeit reluctantly.

"Not sure what we're, like, specifically talking about, but there is a lot going on in the U.S., and I don't know, I feel like whatever I say here is going to get put in a headline, and it's going to get taken out of context," he groaned. "So I'd really rather not do something that's going to cause a big distraction for me in the middle of the tournament."

On Thursday, No.9-ranked female Madison Keys from Illinois faced the reporter. Her reaction was much more progressive than her compatriots, saying, "I'm not a fan of divisiveness, and I think the beauty of the U.S. is we are a mixing pot."

"We are very diverse, we are a home of immigrants. And I hope that we can get back to those values," she added.

No.3-ranked woman and Florida native Coco Gauff took it a step further by bringing race politics into the mix with her response.

Gauff initially said she feels "a bit fatigued talking about it."

She then claimed, "It is hard, also I think, being a black woman in this country and having to experience things, even online."

She argued that "marginalized communities" are being affected, and the only thing she can do is "donate and speak out."

Gauff then cited the fact that she posted a Martin Luther King Jr. video online recently and said, "We must keep moving forward," as an example of her activism.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The one virtue America lost — and desperately needs back

Faith is everything to me. I believe in Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I’m not shy about saying so. Many Americans feel uncomfortable talking about faith, and many others insist religion should stay out of the public square. I disagree. As a Christian, I want more people to know Jesus, who loves them more than they can imagine.

But I also know that people walk different spiritual paths. Some pray differently. Some worship a different god. Others reject religion altogether. America now holds more faith traditions — and more people with no faith — than at any point in our history. That diversity can spark friction, and as politics fills the void left by declining religious belief, many have turned ideological loyalties into a kind of substitute religion.

America’s diversity guarantees disagreement. It always has. But even in conflict, we can find places to unite.

The risk is obvious: These differences can push us toward a breaking point. The warning signs already surround us. In a moment like this, we need grace.

What grace demands

In Christianity, grace is God’s love poured out freely. Eternal life is His gift — not because we earn it or because we are good, but because God is good.

On Earth, grace takes a more practical form. It means giving each other the benefit of the doubt. It means forgiving mistakes. It means choosing generosity instead of suspicion. And it means approaching someone else’s beliefs with curiosity rather than contempt.

For reasons I still struggle to understand, Americans have stopped trying to understand one another.

Last year, I hosted a meeting of community, business, and faith leaders in my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The agenda was full of topics that normally light a fuse: poverty, economic exclusion, racial tensions. Before we began, I admitted that some of the terms we would use carried heavy baggage and that I might say something imperfectly myself. I asked only one thing: a little grace.

That simple request set the tone for the whole day. People pushed through the hard conversations and started looking for solutions. We found common ground in places no one expected. The debate stayed calm because everyone extended grace before they demanded it.

I wish that spirit were more common today.

Why grace is hard — and necessary

Too many people explode at the first sign of disagreement. They judge others more harshly than they judge themselves. They dismiss someone with a different view as beyond redemption. The unspoken thought is always the same: Why bother? They won’t listen to me, so why should I listen to them?

Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images

It’s a natural impulse, but grace calls us to something higher. It reminds us that the person across from us carries the same human frailties we do.

Grace does not mean surrendering your convictions. It does not ask you to dilute what you believe or pretend serious disagreements don’t matter. It simply asks you to respect the strength of someone else’s convictions, even when you oppose them. It asks you to accept that everyone is imperfect — including you. And because each of us hopes for forgiveness when we stumble, grace asks that we extend that same forgiveness to others.

America’s diversity guarantees disagreement. It always has. But even in conflict, we can find places to unite. Recovering that unity starts with a simple choice: showing each other a little grace.

The ‘normie conquest’: Millions just joined the right overnight

My liberal friends are completely oblivious about how radicalizing the last week has been for tens of millions of normal Americans. Zero clue. So I am telling you, my liberal friends and leftists everywhere. This is what has happened.

I’m not talking about people who are “online.” I mean regular, everyday Americans. “Normies.” People who scroll through Facebook posts and Instagram reels from the Dutch Bros drive-thru line. Political moderates who have water cooler chats about Mahomes touchdowns and Bon Jovi concerts, not Twitter threads or Rachel Maddow monologues.

These normal, middle-of-the-road, nonpolitical citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics.

Millions of them. Tens of millions. They’re logging on, they’re engaging, and they’re furious. And I’ll be candid: They blame you guys. They blame the left. Regardless of whether you believe it to be justified, they think you’re the bad guys here. And they are reacting accordingly.

I can already hear some of you racing toward the comments to start screeching in moral indignation, so I’m going to be blunt: Shut up and listen to what I’m telling you. Your movement will lose any semblance of relevance if you don’t develop some small measure of self-awareness, and — absent someone force-feeding you bitter medicine — you guys collectively lack the humility to do this on your own.

Here are the facts.

1) Tens of millions of Americans started the week seeing a 23-year-old blonde woman — a young woman in whom virtually every parent watching pictured their own daughter — stabbed in the neck by a career criminal. These people then found out the murderer had been released from jail 14 times over.

2) Two days later, tens of millions of Americans saw on video Charlie Kirk get murdered speaking to college students. Millions of these people knew who Charlie was; millions of them didn’t. Upon seeing the video, however, these normal Americans from across the land and across the political spectrum agreed that he was the victim of a terrible, fundamentally unjustifiable crime, and their hearts broke in sympathy for his family.

Good people who had never even heard the name Charlie Kirk before wept.

3) Immediately after seeing the footage of a peaceful young man getting shot in the neck, these same people logged on to Facebook and Instagram (remember, we are talking about regular Americans, not perpetually online Twitter or Bluesky users) and saw some of their local nurses, teachers, college administrators, and retail workers celebrating this horrific crime. Not just defending it but cheering it.

These are all facts. You may not like the implications of these facts, and we can certainly debate the underlying causes thereof, but, indisputably, they are factual statements nevertheless.

Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images

Here’s what it means for Democrats reading this: These normal, middle-of-the-road, nonpolitical citizens just become politically active. They realized that politics cares about them, even if they don’t particularly care about politics.

After watching Iryna Zarutska and Charlie Kirk both bleed out from the neck, they think their lives and the physical safety of their families — the bedrock of human society, the foundation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs — depend on political activation, whether they desire it or not. These people are now sprinting — not jogging, not walking, but racing — to the right.

Because they blame you guys for everything that just happened.

When they see footage of Decarlos Brown stabbing a Ukrainian refugee to death, they don’t see just one demon-possessed man. They picture every university administrator, HR bureaucrat, and DEI apparatchik that ever lectured them about systemic racism, the “carceral state,” or the need to release violent crime suspects without bail in the name of social justice.

They then think back to conversations they’ve had with their cop friends — their buddy from high school who quit the force after getting tired of being called a racist, their friend at the local YMCA who vents about having to release career criminals because Soros-funded prosecutors aren’t willing to file charges — and they realize everything the left has told them over the last five years has been utter BS.

All BS. Not even smart BS, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ BS. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells.

And they blame you. Because even if you count yourself as a moderate Democrat, your party supported the district attorneys, city council members, and mayors that let fictitious concerns about mental health and racial justice supersede very real concerns for their families' safety.

When these Americans see blood erupt from the side of Charlie Kirk’s neck, they don’t see just a martyred political activist. They think of every extreme leftist they’ve ever met who calls anyone to the right of Hillary Clinton a fascist and constantly jokes — “jokes” — about punching Nazis and “bashing the fash.”

They realize that there really do exist people who wish to see them dead for their moderately conservative political beliefs, their Christian faith, and even the color of their skin.

They ask themselves if the violence visited upon Charlie might one day show up on their own doorstep.

And they blame you. Because even if you’re just a center-of-the-road liberal, you lacked the courage to police your own ranks. You let modern-day Maoist red guards run loose across every facet of society, and what started with social media struggle sessions has now turned to .30-06 bullet holes.

When these Americans log on to social media and see their neighbors justifying, celebrating, glorifying murder, they realize that some who walk among them are soulless ghouls at best, literally demon-possessed at worst.

These people — whether they faithfully attend church every Sunday or only attend with relatives once a year, on Christmas Eve — start talking about things like spiritual warfare. They implicitly understand that no normal human casually celebrates the mortal demise of a peaceful person.

And they blame you. Because even if you condemned Charlie Kirk’s murder, they probably haven’t seen you condemn those in your own movement who cheered it on. They view you as complicit in allowing heartless fellow travelers to celebrate death, and it repulses them.

Photo by Jeremy Hogan/Getty Images

For all of these situations, what has your response been? Nothing but BS.

In response to Iryna Zarutska bleeding out on the floor of a train, you post nonsensical statistics about reductions in reported crime. In reality, anyone who’s been to a major urban center in the last decade knows that actual crime has skyrocketed, and victims do not waste their time reporting it to cops who don’t have the manpower to respond and prosecutors who seek to downgrade as many felonies as possible to misdemeanors.

In response to a 31-year-old man taking a bullet to the neck in front of his family, you post nothing but nonsensical whataboutism. “What about January 6?” Honest answer: After you let Liz Cheney spend two years operating a star chamber in the House, combined with countless other failed attempts at “lawfare” against Trump, no one cares any more.

“What about Paul Pelosi?” That’s not comparable to Charlie Kirk getting shot, and we all know it. Also: Paul who?

“What about regulations on assault rifles?” That’s not going to get you very far when one of these killers used a knife and the other one used a common hunting rifle.

In response to teachers, health care workers, and thousands of other liberals cheering on Charlie’s murder, it’s nothing but more BS and misdirection.

“It’s not THAT many people celebrating!” Yes, it is. Everyone has seen it on their Facebook and Instagram feeds.

“I thought you guys didn’t support cancel culture.” We don’t cancel people over their opinions; we’re more than happy to see people lose their jobs — especially their taxpayer-funded jobs — for actively cheering on murder, though. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own shortcoming.

All BS. Not even smart BS, but stale, mid-grade, low-IQ BS. Ordinary Americans see right through it, and they don’t like how it smells. You probably don’t like hearing this. But you need to hear it. Because I’m right, and as you reflect on this, you know I’m right.

The ranks of my political movement gained millions of righteously angry new members last week. We have a mandate to ensure that these crimes never happen again, and that’s exactly what we are now going to do. If you want to keep a seat at the table as we do so, you’d better clean house and start policing your own.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared as a post on X (formerly Twitter).

The Left Would Rather Embrace Mass Immigration Than Help Struggling Americans

[rebelmouse-proxy-image https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-24-at-10.43.15 PM-1200x675.png crop_info="%7B%22image%22%3A%20%22https%3A//thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-24-at-10.43.15%5Cu202fPM-1200x675.png%22%7D" expand=1]The praise of immigrants over troubled native-born Americans demonstrates the Left’s tendency toward convenience and replaceability.

After Rush Limbaugh, conservatives stopped listening together

The great replacement, American style

Liberal reporter frustrates American tennis stars by asking the same tired question

Why Every Red-Blooded American Man Should Read ‘Pride And Prejudice’

The one virtue America lost — and desperately needs back

What grace demands

Why grace is hard — and necessary

The Left Would Rather Embrace Mass Immigration Than Help Struggling Americans

Florida teachers’ unions would rather play politics than do their jobs

First AI film hits theaters — viewers call for boycott: 'This is complete garbage dude'

Renee Good Is Just Dems’ Excuse To Oppose Law Enforcement And Maintain Mass Welfare Fraud

Nevada AG Aaron Ford Talked ‘Messaging and Narrative Strategy’ at Undisclosed Clinton Foundation Event, Public Records Show

Bomb Threats And Bad Ballots Mark Election Day In New Jersey

Meet The Pivotal Figure Who Helped Resurrect The American Right

Senate Confirms Emil Bove To 3rd Circuit Judgeship

WaPo’s Latest Emil Bove Hit Piece Is A Pathetic Excuse For Journalism

What grace demands

Why grace is hard — and necessary

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.