Shocking! Bill Clinton Secret Sex Search!!

Bill Clinton's foiled hunt for hot tarmac sex.   Read it here before you read it in the National Enquirer.

Guest Post Introduction by Peter Sage:   

Inquiring Minds Want to Know 

The story of Bill Clinton joining the plane of Attorney General Loretta Lynch to "put in the fix" is losing its steam.   The system is rigged, Trump said, as he suggested Bill and Loretta were probably there working out a sweet deal, where she would ignore the FBI insistence that Hillary be indicted.    The story is diminished by the fact that Lynch immediately pre-announced that she did not plan to exercise independent judgement and that she fully expected to accept the FBI recommendation.  

Worse for Trump, then the FBI announced its decision:  no indictment, because "no reasonable prosecutor' would indict, the Republican FBI director said.

Guest Post writer Thad Guyer is promoting a whole new approach in the form of a whole new motive for Bill Clinton.   Bill didn't go onto the plane so he could lobby for Hillary.   He went there to get into the pants of Loretta Lynch.  It was horny Bill on the prowl, looking for hot tarmac sex.

This is a way better and more lascivious motive.  Trump may find his way to it.   It is even more damaging to the Clintons than mere legal misconduct.   Besides, Bill trying to subvert justice  to help his wife--well, it almost seems sweet with Bill in his white haired dotage, trying to help his wife.    But Bill Clinton as womanizing creep, once again disloyal to Hillary?  This is far nastier, way more fun to email to friends.  It reaffirms the Clinton marriage disfunction and it humiliates Hillary.  Hillary must be  a man-hating bitch ifBill isn't just going after interns; he is so desperate--or so foggy in his old age--he going after mature professional women.

(Trump would love this, slut shaming them both, an old guy and a Lynch a mere 3 on a ten point scale.  What a loser, Bill is, chasing after a #3.    Compare Loretta Lynch to Melania Trump.  Melania is hotter.) 

Trump would love selling it.   Who would believe this suggestion?   Well, apparently over half of GOP voters tell pollsters that they believe Trump's "birther" assertion that the State of Hawaii, local newspapers, and multiple eyewitnesses were in on a conspiracy 50 years ago, so there clearly is a market.   And who better to advance it than the guy who said he thought Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK.

Don't reject out of hand the plausibility of Guyer's approach.   Guyer uses the same fact pattern that Bill Clinton  uses in his "cover story" of a mere social visit, and simply inserts a different motive.
Click here for the facts of the incident.

Thad Guyer Guest Post:

Guest Post by Thad Guyer

Bill Clinton Didn't Know Loretta Lynch's Husband-- Was on Her Plane.

As a trial lawyer, I take my facts as I get them. I supply the inference and innuendo for the jury. We call it circumstantial evidence.  Consider why Bill Clinton went to Loretta Lynch's plane, and consider these facts:

1. Bill said it was a chance meeting. Thus, he could not have know Lynch's husband was on the plane.

2.  His modus operandi is for younger women protoges. He appointed a young Lynch as US Attorney New York  near the end of his second term.

3.  Lynch is an attractive woman not dissimilar looking to Monica and others. 

4. Bill swears his sole agenda was personal-- to socialize with the attractive AG. This purely personal interaction motive is, therefore, irrevocably stipulated.

5.  Hillary was not around, and swears she had no idea the two were meeting.

6. Bill has an undeniable history of adultery with women who later claim he caught them unawares with no idea he could launch a quick predatory strike.

7. Bill cannot credibly defend himself. Besides his history, he is subject to the law's most severe credibility impeachment-- he is a disbarred Arkansas lawyer for moral terpitude.

Bill's new "type"

8. Few jurors could accept Lynch's claim that 30 minutes was spent on grandchildren and golf. That time interval is implausible, and she is unlikely to be able to explain it during cross examination on the stand. Even 30 seconds of verbiage per hole amounts to only 9 minutes. 

The circumstantial evidence, therefore, is compelling. The legal standard is mere preponderance of the evidence, a simple 51% probability.  Bill Clinton tried to have a sexual escapade with a pretty AG. He was thwarted in the most old fashion way-- the husband was home. 

Bill's only credible defense to adulterous motive (he himself lacks any credibility on such an issue unless the alternative is "statement against interest"), is this: He wanted to tell Lynch: "Hillary likes you. If she is elected, your lameduck Obama term could be resurrected into a full, historic Clinton AG term".

The jury of public opinion may decide.

Note to progressives. Wake up. Trump can win this.

Hillary has a self-inflicted wound.   Meanwhile, Trump is saying things people want to hear.   And his message and style seem to fit the situation.

From the Washington Post

What is undeniable, even for Hillary's supporters, is that the FBI said she was extremely careless with state secrets.  This weakens a central premise of the Hillary Clinton premise: that Hillary is the safe, competent one.   Hillary cannot say what a Sarah Palin might say--oops, she was new at this, but has learned--what is inescapable is that Hillary's handling of the emails reflect willfulness and high-handedness, not a simple "mistake."   And this helps document the "evil-Hillary" meme.

This is not good for Hillary.

Meanwhile, Trump has two messages going around.   Trump liked Saddam Hussain's way of stopping terrorists.   This one is being promoted by people hoping to hurt Trump, that Trump has said good things about Saddam Hussain.   Trump apparently praised Hussain for having a police state that killed terrorists "so good."   Trump opponents act like that gets Trump in trouble politically.  Quite the opposite. Trump opponents need to wake up and get out of their bubble.   A tyrant who squashes terrorists is exactly what Americans want, at least in the Middle East.  Open democracy is a disaster in the Middle East.  Open multicultural tolerant no-profile policing in the USA allows domestic terrorists to go unstopped here at home.  Trump's brand and central message is confirmed by this attack on him.   Trump defines the issue as blind, stupid political correctness versus common sense safety, and Trump is on the side of keeping Americans safe from Islamic terror.  Trump wins this argument.

The second message, presented forcefully by Trump,  is that Hillary is incompetent while Trump has answers.   Trump's speech in North Carolina is an improved, stronger iteration of that message.  It is done in the Trump style of short conversational sentences.   Here is a link to the whole rally:

Click Here: Trump starts at 4:00 mark

Click here for NC Rally

At 11:45 you can watch Trump deliver the part of the speech I typed out below.  Printed in transcript form shows how un-polished and conversational is the Trump presentation style: half sentences.  Run ons.  Contractions.  Very simple words.

'[Crowd:   TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP]

And we’ve got Hillary Clinton, she’s weak, she’s ineffective, she’ll never be able to do the job.  Her judgement is horrible.  Look at her judgement with the emails.  Who would do it? Look at her judgement.  Her judgement is horrible.  All right? 

Her judgement is horrible.  Now who said that about Hillary?  Bernie Sanders said, ‘her judgement is bad, she’s got bad judgement.’   OK?   

Now let me tell you, whether it’s ISIS, whether it’s trade, whether its borders, whether it’s jobs.   It’s gonna be four more years of the same thing.  The last thing we need is another Clinton, the last thing we need is another Obama-Clinton in the White House.  

We have got a mess in this country.  We owe nineteen trillion dollars, soon to be twenty one trillion.  The debt has doubled under Obama.  It’s doubled.  Wait till you see.  We are sitting on a mess, and it’s got to be taken care of.   And the way it is taken care of, at least that aspect of it, is jobs. We’re gonna bring jobs back to North Carolina.   We’re gonna bring jobs back to our country.  It’s going to be America first, not all these other countries that don’t give a damn about us.   It’s going to be America first.  America first.  America. America. America first.

[Crowd:  USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA, USA. . . .]"

Trump looks confident and decisive--which is standard for Trump.  What is different now is that his denunciations of Hillary seem less like hollow name-calling and more like blunt truth-telling.  It isn't just Trump saying "Crooked Hillary."  The FBI said it, too.

The election frame has changed.   Now the Hillary frame is less persuasive and self evident:  experience and competence versus dangerous incompetence.    Now the Trump frame seems more plausible: Now it is Crooked Hillary incompetence borne of high handed sense of privilege vs common sense strength.   

Hillary handed this to Trump and Trump has the skills to run with it.


{Peter Sage note to readers.   I am not a fan of Trump.   I am attempting to look at political craftsmanship and message with objectivity and clarity, not which candidate matches my political orientation.  Trump is having a good moment, so that is what I report.  When Hillary does something politically really savvy I will write about it. Meanwhile, look up there in the upper right of the screen where there is a box that says "Follow by email."  Put your email address there and you will get "home delivery" of my blog every day, sending you whatever new has been added.)

Republicans Chose Trump

Reminder:  Republican voters had lots of choices.  They chose Trump

Another reminder of what is in plain sight:  Republican voters chose Trump amid lots of other choices.

Voters rejected Christie

I was in New Hampshire on two long field trips and I joined Republican primary voters at "town hall" meetings for Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, and a bunch more candidates.   Kasich, Bush, and Christie each had over 100 meetings--in New Hampshire alone.   They drew groups of some 100 people, but they were open to the public and given lots of publicity.   Lindsey Graham drew much smaller audiences but I watched him go where the voters were so on Veterans Day he visited a group of 200 or so veterans and spoke to them.

The broadcast air was full of commercials for everyone--except Trump.  Many of the candidates essentially abandoned whatever else they might have been doing (like serve as New Jersey governor) in order to introduce themselves to the people.   The people had every opportunity to look them over.

Bottom line:  Voters had their chance and voters had options.  

Rubio rejected

They chose Donald Trump instead of sitting governors and senators whose ideology and platform were well vetted by previous candidates.   These governors and senators weren't "crazy outliers", people who were legally available but in fact not suitable.   No.  They were perfectly reasonable, suitable, experienced, qualified people to run for president.  They were politically conservative,  small government, anti-abortion, pro-Christian, lower taxes, Hillary-hating normal Republicans, whose faces were familiar on Fox News and talk radio.   They were competent, skilled candidates for president.   

Voters rejected them.  They chose Trump instead.   I repeat this obvious self-evident fact because I visit with lots of Republicans who act astonished that their party made the choice it did, as if Trump was imposed on them from the outside.   I see on the news talk of NeverTrump and the idea that some magic might happen at the convention.

Bush rejected

Voters seem to like the bluff, bluster, strength so they defined the other candidates as weak in comparison.  Voters seem to like the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim talk so they defined the other candidates as less able and vigorous at standing up for America.  Voters seem to like Trump's extemporaneous style so they watched him on TV and found him interesting while finding the other candidates less interesting, which is why the TV people did what they could have been expected to do: air Trump being interesting to bring in the audience they openly say they seek.

Trump had the key:  acceptable policy and excellent ratings.

Over the next four months we will hear complaints about how we got to this place but my observation of Republican crowds say it is pretty straightforward: it is what the GOP primary electorate voted for.  Republicans unhappy with their choice of Trump need to own and integrate the fact that Trump is who their fellow Republicans chose.

Does Taking Wall Street money damage Trump's brand?

Trumps Brand was "Self-Financed" independence of Wall Street's corrupting influence.  Now he takes their money.  Is he hurting his brand?   

Maybe not.

In October of last year, standing in line for 3 1/2 hours with Trump supporters in Nevada I had lots of time to hear what they said about Trump.   The centerpiece of the Trump brand was independence of the special interests due to his self-funding.   Trump didn't take money from the special interests on Wall Street or the oil companies or drug companies or the individual billionaires each with his own pet project.

Remember back to 2015?  Trump was criticizing "Little Marco" and Ted Cruz (not yet "Lyin 'Ted") and totally-sold-out low-energy Bush for being puppets on the string of the special interests whose money they chased.   As the campaign developed and they dropped out Trump focused on Hillary and it was a defining difference between their brands:  Hillary was buddies with Wall Street and therefore corrupted; Trump was not.

I wrote yesterday that this was an enduring brand and message problem for Hillary and it still is.  But Trump, too, has a problem.  He needs to raise money, and special interests including Wall Street is where the money is, so that is what he is doing.   I get daily emails asking me for money from Trump and meanwhile he has enlisted a controversial Wall Street wizard to gather up money million dollar hunks from the same places Hillary is getting money.

He might actually get away with it! It complicates his brand but it may not destroy it.

Consider his situation:  He condemned the corrupting effect of special interest money.  His brand is "I am self funded and therefore uncorrupted, but I know money corrupts because I used to give it."   

And now he is raising that very money.   It is an impossible position of hypocrisy and reversal, no??  Wouldn't it totally destroy the integrity of his brand?  

It is a risk and may play out that way, but Trump is in a unique position that would be impossible for another candidate,  but might work for him.

Trump's brand is not rectitude.   It is bluff and bravado and willingness to make wildly improbable assertions as he takes a negotiating position.  His brand is not freedom from bald faced hypocrisy.  Quite the opposite.  Bluffing it out in the face of the facts is consistent with his brand and it demonstrates his willingness openly to lie and cheat to win his point.  All is fair in negotiating to win.  Trump asserts things that are demonstrably untrue or hypocritical and if he is caught red handed and it does not matter: ties made in China, suits maid in Mexico, he's a close student of the Bible, Muslims cheered 9-11 in New Jersey, he opposed entry to the Iraq war, etc.   

In fact, oddly enough, it maybe net-net helps him.  It shows he is not deterred by mere facts and evidence.

Trump is demonstrating how he fights: he fights hard and dirty.  To win, win, win.  Even when faced with contradictory facts he sticks to his story.   He is showing to Americans how he would confront China and Mexico on trade, ISIS on terror, Russia and the rest of the world on foreign policy: he would not let facts or rules or fairness or reasonableness get in the way of asserting his--America's--interests.   If China or Mexico try to distract him by showing him evidence of some kind that shows he is incorrect, Trump will be resolute and firm.  When Trump asserts a position he would be perfectly content to ignore mere experts or globalists or lawyers. 

Hillary has an opportunity here, but it is not a sure thing.  She can argue: cheaters keep on cheating, people who lie keep on lying.   It will not be enough for Hillary to show that Trump is a hypocrite.  She needs to show that he is self serving and as soon as he gets a chance he will lie and cheat you.   Of course he will fight dirty, but Trump needs to be shown to be untrustworthy because his loyalty to your side is in doubt.

The lessons learned by Republicans during the primary--and now the testimony of some of them--may be more useful than anything Hillary can say.   Democrats complaining would only tend to document that Trump is on the other side.  But Republican complaints get to the issue of loyalty to a side.  Trump abandons positions and contradicts himself.  The moment he promises the NRA he is loyal he starts negotiating a new position.  Many Republicans say he is damaging the brand, and he doesn't care since he is only concerned about the Trump brand not the GOP brand.

Trump's complaints and purges of Republicans disloyal to him (Ryan, McConnell, Romney) are a red flag.  Trump University victims are a red flag.  Trump stiffing charities--if it can be documented and there is an appealing victim--is a red flag.  Trump paying little or no taxes is a red flag.   Trump's campaign's self-dealing is a red flag.  A Trump tax plan that cuts taxes on the wealthy is a red flag. 

Trump is losing some of the argument he might use to grab Sanders supporters.  Trump has lost credibility as the totally-clean-money candidate--the standard set by Sanders with his small-donor campaign.  But Trump will still unapologetically condemn Hillary for being corrupt and he will present himself as the no-special-interests candidate even as he gathers special interest donations.  He will be called on it but Trump will stick to his story.   It will be a muddled and confused set of back and forth.  

Trump has credibility saying he fights for American belligerence and American interests first.   It may inoculate him from Hillary's effort to turn the tables.   It depends on the skill and political craftsmanship of the Democrats and on him.

At stake is the definition of the Trump brand:   Of course Trump is a con man.  That is a given.  The issue is whose interests he can be trusted to con on behalf of.   

The Democrats' job will be to show Trump is in it for himself and the rich people he identifies with, and that he is as corrupted by the net of influence as the people he condemns, that he got rich by taking care of himself at the expense of others, and a leopard doesn't change it spots.    Trump will say he is full of unshakable confidence and loyalty to Americans since, after all, he is already really, really rich and therefore incorruptible.

Different Generations, Different Experiences

Young people experienced a different world.

A repeated theme of this blog is that the most important things happening in the world of politics relating to the 2016 election are sometimes laughably obvious, right in plain sight.  That makes them harder to recognize.

Example, right here.   The reader is looking at a computer screen.   What is now so obvious as to be unnoticed is that the screen is flat, not convex, the way that Cathode Ray Tube screens were for 60 years.  It was too obvious to notice.  More significant is that the reader is looking at the screen surrounded by transparent gas, a mixture of Nitrogen and Oxygen mostly, and the reader's diaphragm is cycling in and out forcing some of that into his or her lungs, keeping the reader alive.   We didn't give the air a second's thought until I mentioned it, but without it we would die in agony in two minutes.  It was of vital importance and utterly obvious, but ignored. 

There are some lessons here for this election for understanding the Sanders vote.   The first is that other people--intelligent, honorable, reasonable people--disagree with each other in large part because of their age.  A meme is bouncing around the internet and I have seen a flurry of emails and blog posts about it involving "Lifecourse" and "The Four Turning.  Here's their website http://www.fourthturning.com   The essential idea is that generations encounter events in very different ways depending on where they are in their own life cycle: youth, young adulthood, maturity, senior.  It attempts to explain attitude toward family, work, politics, consumption, everything.  Including voting.

Young people like Bernie Sanders.  Whats up?    They experienced different things than a boomer experienced.

  

The insight about generations has value and it helps to explain this election.  What is different about young people?    Why are young people not connecting with Hillary?   The final segment of Jessica Winters on The Daily Show was a long interview with Sanders voters on this very subject.  Click here for the funny 5 minute segment

Young people in America discovered Sanders.  Sanders was new and cool.  Sanders wore rumpled clothes and had shaggy hair--heck with old-school convention.  Sanders is, to young people the age of my younger generation--20s and 30s--what Levis and long hair were to me: a mark of independence from my parents.   

Young Crowd in New Hampshire

Young people experienced Hillary as old-hat.   Young people in America did not have my generation's experience of Bill and Hillary Clinton earn their progressive bone fides by being criticized from the intransigent right or doing progressive things.  Young people witnessed with their own eyes the frustration of political gridlock and disfunction in the congress  in the past decade.  Politics did not work.  By contrast,  in my youth I witnessed the power of a transformational election in 1964 and again in post-Watergate 1974 where big majorities in the congress allowed progressive change to happen.   It makes sense that voters my age would think that incremental change can happen and it makes sense that young voters would believe that only breaking up the system can make change.   We witnessed different things.

You say you want a revolution

Timing matters.  Hillary's is terrible.  I watched Bill and Hillary Clinton get rich in the world of political celebrity.   A lot of voters consider it unattractive at best and corrupt at worst, and it's a problem for Hillary.   Hillary's timing was terrible.   After the financial crisis of 2007-09 there was a "turn in the market" which Hillary missed.   Up until 2008 it was acceptable to have cashed in.  Reagan did it.  Sports celebrities do it.  Media starts do it.  People get paid to show up and speak.  Gerald Ford, the sweet dottering 90 year old, was on the board of Citibank and showed up at a conference for Financial Advisors to shake hands and congratulate me back in about 2003. ("Congratulations on your success, Peter."  "Thank you, sir.")  

Hillary needed to have recognized that Wall Street was toxic, but did not.

Wrong side of history

The financial crisis changed the meaning of Wall Street wealth. It was no longer a marker of ability and success; those rich experts were risky fools, not wise men.  Worse, they survived because of privilege, not talent, privilege they paid for by corrupting the political system and getting political favors. They took America hostage and held us up for ransom.  Save the banks or we will crash the economy.  

Hillary missed the cue that the world had changed.  Trump presents himself as a former participant in the corrupt game he now condemns, so he caught the turn.   Sanders has been saying this same message of Wall Street corruption for years and now the wave has caught up with him.    Young people who have come to political consciousness only in the past 8 years have only seen Hillary on the wrong side of history.

Insight into the Oppression of the Majority

The powerful feel picked on and dissed.   And they resent it.

The Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party is leading a movement of identity politics, gathering up the resentments of women, blacks, Hispanics, and gays against the laws traditionally enforced against their interests.   Each group has faced formal and informal legal discrimination or moral disapproval by the traditional majority.    Attitudes are in uneasy transition.   Now only a  few Americans openly defend white legal privilege (segregated drinking fountains or colleges) or prohibitions on the full integration of women in the workforce or public life (it is the Saudis who are condemned for this).  But the integration of immigrants from outside northern Europe, especially Spanish speakers from Latin America or Muslims from the Middle East, remain controversial.   And a great many people feel disgust and moral disapproval of homosexuality, believing it to be proscribed by holy texts.

Hillary Clinton is the public symbol for the continued effort to empower those groups.   It has created a backlash.   The traditional majority feels pressured by the mainstream culture, backed by judicially created law, to accept cultural norms they do not share.   The mismatch between the Roe vs. Wade constitutional protection for a woman's reproductive autonomy and the military's integration of gay and lesbian service members are examples of where the formal institutional power is in conflict with the attitudes of many people in the traditional majority.

The majority resents it.   The majority feels that it is the oppressed group, forced to accept the unacceptable in the form of abortions, homosexuality, multicultural acceptance, and race mixing.

I asked one of the readers of this blog, a white male heterosexual married Christian, a prosperous attorney from Florida to express his own view of the political landscape.  Progressive readers would profit by a close reading.   It helps explain the power of Trump's criticism of "political correctness".   Robert Guyer does not feel like an oppressor; he feels oppressed.  He does not consider his moral disapproval of homosexuality to be a form of self serving racism; he considers it sanctioned and required by his Christian faith.   He does not consider Christianity to be celebrating triumphant oppression; he considers Christianity to be oppressed.

He does not pussyfoot around in his language.  He refers to "moral mutants", the murder of babies in the womb, and cultural annihilation.    I consider his comment to me to be a primary source, so hear it from him directly.     

Robert Guyer is an attorney in Florida with a practice involving teaching people how better to influence policy at the state and local level.  He runs seminars and has a popular how-to book:              Here's his website: http://www.learn-to-lobby.com

Robert Guyer

Robert Guyer:  Some thoughts from a Bible-based southerner.

When evangelicals are “talking Jesus” to each other, you find considerable agreement among them without regard to race, class, income, state, political party, education level etc. It becomes “God said, I believe it, that settles it.” That commonality of view can explain how both white and black evangelicals can be 95% per cent in agreement on a few topics especially on issues of morality such as homosexuality and abortion. If you can show them a strong Biblical reason to go along with something they probably will. 

And if you show them that something is wrong from a Biblical view they will oppose it. Gay marriage is a good example. Black, white, rural, urban, PhD or barely literate, they will object to it. On the other hand if you show them it’s something they ought to do, like run soup kitchens, give to the poor via “benevolent funds”, etc. they will do that too. I think that the church last time I read remains by far the number one benevolent group in America. If evangelicals are giving 10% of their money to the church there is a lot of cash helping others. Here in Palm Beach County Christ Fellowship distributes 10,000 complete Thanksgiving dinners to anyone in need. Salvation Army boxes are everywhere.

Christianity brings consensus among seemingly disparate populations. However, the judiciary has pretty well been the vanguard for destroying of cultural consensus by not only substituting a destructive morality but by attacking those who oppose them, especially the evangelical church. Judges can rightly take credit for their atomization of society.

Judicial zealotry for homosexuals, abortionists, capital child molesters, pornographers, adult entertainment, fleeing felons, and miscreants of every kind is only matched by its hostility to Christianity. The courts have shattered cultural consensus and sow lawlessness. I see the country inundated with lawlessness because few know what is good/bad right wrong. Right and wrong are more than moral sensibilities, morality determines whether or not a society will work optimally, as for example how corruption is such a problem in China.  When a police department becomes corrupt public safety is diminished.

And of course as a Christian I am absolutely convinced that New Testament Christianity establishes the tone that makes people free. 

John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution.”[1] Samuel Adams also noted, “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man. . . . We must not conclude merely upon a man’s haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country.”[2]

[1] From a letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (October 11, 1798), John Adams Quotes. See  Click here ; 2 From an essay published in The Advertiser (1748). See https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/samuel-adams/samuel-adams-he-is-the-truest-friend-to-the-liberty-who-tries-most-to-promote-virtue Click here

I graduated from the University of Florida which on its seal states, “The welfare of the state rests upon the character of its people.” The Florida seal itself reads, “In God We Trust.” The major achievement of the Federal Government, specifically the courts, has to been to shatter the underpinning of American cultural consensus, that is Christianity. 

 

It’s not only the tens of million babies killed in their mothers’ wombs of which the court can boast. They can boast that they have supplanted morality itself and reduced opposition to themselves by creating a society of moral mutants. Romania’s Nicolae Ceaușescuused the orphanages, where there was no moral training, to produce moral mutants who without a sense or right or wrong became his Securitate. He produced an efficient police state to carry out his wishes. Click here This is happening in America especially if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake.  Or a state legislature thinks as a matter of public decency that sexually confused men should not be watching little girls pee. 

Judicial lawlessness which it sows in society is founded not upon law or morality but upon raw power. 

Justice Rehnquist said Roe v. Wade was an exercise in “raw judicial power.” In Roe the Supreme Court held a “penumbra” of rights flows from the Constitution. A penumbra is the haze around a street light on a foggy night. By fabricating a “penumbra” constitutional standard, the judiciary awarded itself unlimited power based upon literally hazy constitutional thinking. Yale’s John Hart Ely said Roe was “a very bad decision…. [B]ad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” 

Justice Scalia said the Court’s Windsor v US gay marriage decision made supporters of traditional marriage “enemies of humanity.”  The Court in Lawrence v. Texas struck down states’ sodomy laws  it upheld 17 years earlier in Bowers v. Hardwick. Their reversal was based on “evolving standards of decency”. Whose decency? Do judges’ new decency trump the people’s old decency? Have judges become America’s new moral teachers? In Kennedy v. Louisiana the court saved child rapists by creating a “best interests” constitutional standard. Justice Alito said the Eighth Amendment “does not authorize this court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society.”

In  Obergefell v. Hodges the striking down of the laws of 40 (?) states affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman CJ Roberts wrote: “The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.” 

We lawyers, as the now priests of society, preach beliefs that sow the seeds of our own illegitimacy. Current case law is a blank check for judicial imaginations, judges’ favored groups du jour, and imaginative word use. One can support judicial results while decrying a momentary five-judge majority dreaming up self-justifying constitutional standards -  a majority that may change with the next President. Maybe the Kentucky clerk isn’t the one who’s wrong, at least legally. That is, unless the law is only what a court says it is.

The court’s lawlessness increasingly permeates society. And because Biblically based religion is at odds with judicial dictators, judges at all levels are hostile to religion generally and Christianity specifically.  Christianity has a pretty clear set of things one should do and not do. But courts dictate anomie and many embrace lawlessness modeled by the courts. This permeates society whether it’s President Obama, Secretary Clinton, embrace judicial fiats despite there being no history or legal precedent for   and have seemingly no better arguments than to say opponents – Christians - who oppose her are mentally ill or filled with hate? “Hillary Clinton: Trump Supporters Energized By Xenophobia, Misogyny, Homophobia, and Islamophobia”   Click here  Can she be opposed because her view of a healthy society is morally mutant? 

She reflects the Democratic party, a party whose anti-Christian values are largely repudiated in the Red States. It’s Christianity that colors much of the country red. It’s not that red states are filled with good people. Country music attests to how screwed up people can be as do drugs, divorce, and maybe even obesity (a la gluttony). It’s that the people have a sense of how “it ought to be” even if they aren’t living that way themselves. People are corrupt. 

Christianity doesn’t make people good. It just makes them much better than they would otherwise be. 

“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” “Society is endangered not by the great profligacy of a few, but by the laxity of morals amongst all.” Alexis De Tocqueville 

And so the courts and those who hate Christianity – as so pronounced in the Democratic party -  those who value inclusivity more highly than that which is being included, lead the county to moral and consequential cultural annihilation.

Warnings to Progressives

Warning to Progressives:   Trump has Changed.   And it makes him more credible and electable.

Trump will still be Trump: extemporaneous, telegenic, undisciplined, a spokesman for American self interest above all.   That stays the same.

What is added is that he has voiced a specific plan on trade to achieve the general results he has predicted.   It is not just "I will get us really, really good trade deals."  Now he voices a multi-point plan.   It gives him some credibility beyond issues of immigration.  It makes him a candidate for national office and more than an expression of frustration.

Here he is, speaking in Maine.   It is a powerful message, one that would not sound strange coming from a Democrat, including from Bernie Sanders.   It is a defense of working class Americans:    Trump: Action Plan on Trade

Note that the national Chamber of Commerce denounced the speech.  Trump said that the Chamber of Commerce is a collection of special interests representing the powerful and screwing the average American.   If a Democrat said this he or she would be called a communist.   The Chamber hears the message and Trump's condemnation of them and they continue their public and financial support of his campaign.   In some areas a Republican can do what a Democrat cannot.  Trump wins this round.

Another Warning to Progressives:  It backfires when Trump is attacked for being an unpredictable bully.

In the normal course of things it would be disastrous to be known as an unpredictable, undisciplined, and dangerous bully, especially when running for an office where one has the nuclear codes.   But in Trump's case it helps him on balance.

Notice the polls:   voters agree he is unpredictable and undisciplined, and they simultaneously say Hillary has a far better temperament for fighting terror than does Trump--50% to 25%-- but the numbers are much closer on whom they generally trust to combat terror--50%-39% favoring Hillary,  See poll-- in one poll,  but showing Trump ahead in another poll 50% to 45%  Check this poll.


But on the issue of trade and the economy Trump is consistently preferred, as in the poll immediately above, 52% to 45%, or this one 51%-43% favoring Trump:  A CNN poll

Trump's unpredictability and projection of bullying strength and dismissal of the rules is not a bug.   It is a feature.

Trump has credibility as a change agent because he is seen a a bully who doesn't care about normal conventions, be the a NAFTA agreement, an Iran deal, or the polite way to refer to Muslims.   A majority of people might be uncomfortable when he makes fun of the disabled or Carly Fiorina's face, but since Trump mixes that up with open distrust for Muslims (an idea many people share) and open willingness to expand torture (which many people feel is only fair in a fight against an enemy who tortures)  he gets away with it.  Indeed, he thrives with it.

Trump's meta message is settling in:  Hillary is a rule bound agent of same-old, same-old, hemmed in by a vocabulary of political correctness and a tool bag that cannot really change anything because she is part of the system.    Trump presents himself as an out of the box agent of change freed of the constraints of the politically correct but corrupt system.

This is the headline Hillary needs to spread her message

Trump wins in that frame.  Is there a Hillary counter-attack on this?   Yes.  It is to acknowledge that Trump is a strong bully--grant him that--but then say that his motives are bad, that he isn't an out of the box bully for America, but a con man bully who puts himself first.   Yes, he is un-trustworthy, but not because he would carelessly change things but because his motives are proven to be bad and he might serve a master other than people like oneself.

Campaign attacks that call Trump wild and unconstrained and impolitic help him.  Hillary's campaign has the tools to make the change but she needs to refocus the direction: on to Trump University, onto Trump bankruptcies and their victims, onto Trump profiting from the crash, onto Trump sourcing his suits and ties overseas, over Trump paying little or no taxes.   


If the issue remains continuity vs. change, then Trump wins, and at this moment the campaign is shaping up in that direction.   If that does not change soon progressives need to adjust their expectations. The Trump frame combined with the Sanders-Stein definition of the corrupt status quo is a winning hand for Trump.  President Trump.