Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Told you so: No more sexual allegation stories about Judge Roy Moore

The slander and smear campaign did its work well enough to stop the controversial firebrand from winning US Senate office

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

6,537 Views

In an earlier article, dated December 14th, 2007, this author made four predictions regarding the fate of Judge Roy Moore’s candidacy:

In short, here are those predictions:

(1) The “allegations” against Judge Roy Moore will seem to vanish.

(2) NEW allegations with much greater ferocity will be brought against President Trump and selected GOP individuals, all of whom show greatly conservative leanings.

(3) The Democrats will get very bold about 2018, and the Dems will act like they are completely in control.

(4) This will lead to some very interesting public drama, but it will also cloud the picture.

So, how are we scoring?

Prediction #1 has shown to be absolutely true.

As of January 2, 2018, the status of Judge Moore’s campaign is that it is over.

Doug Jones was certified as the winner of the US Senate race.  Moore challenged the election results, alleging voter fraud, but as we know, usually voter fraud does not play a measurable role in elections, and there was none to be found in this race. Moore has still not conceded the race, and this plus other behavior only operates to his own discredit at this time.

This post-election drama has not been very widely covered, but there has not been one peep in the MSM or anywhere about sexual allegations.  Nor are there now.

This proves one or both of two things:

(1) – that the allegations are not true – because if they were this would be something that should still be in the news, dogging the Judge’s heels.  After all, he is a noted controversial figure and a Christian conservative, so taking him down with real history would be an unholy grail achievement for liberals eager to prove the Judge’s personal hypocrisy.

(2) The allegations were never important except as political fodder. – For some reason, despite all the media and commercial narrative promoting sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone, it is still easy to play on the “moral code” of Americans when it comes to leaders or candidates for leadership.

Why is this? While we can still repeat the idea that our candidates and leaders ought to be “a bit above the rest” in terms of character, it seems that if we really cared about this in the first place we would have already vetted our candidates from the very beginning of the process. Either we do not really care about morality or we are slow to express it for other reasons.

Prediction #2 has not coalesced – yet.

One possible reason is that the media cannot mount an effective attack against the Donald, because he does not run scared before them.

This is a skill Roy Moore faltered at during his campaign, which actually lent enough credence to the allegations that loyal supporter Sean Hannity had to stop midstream and demand straight answers from Moore.

However, Trump handles himself very differently.  For one, he tells the truth and addresses his errors directly.

This gives the press nowhere to go. For when a false allegation arises, Trump hits back and digs in.  He is aware that he controls the press when he refuses to play by their rules.  And so are they.

All this being said, the Atlantic ran a piece before the special election detailing allegations of 19 women against Donald Trump, and one can still expect to see this activity as soon as the Left and MSM think they have something.

However of these 19, only one has filed suit at all, nine have not said anything since the election and one – Ivana Trump – retracted her claim as without merit and expressed her admiration for her ex-husband and the conviction that he “would make an incredible president.

Chances are that they will act in a superfluous, flawed manner though, and that they will be further shot down.  This is based on past and near-present behavior in the MSM now.

Prediction #3 has shown to be absolutely true.

The Democrats took Alabama and called it an “Anti-Trump” groundswell in the making.  They also used the Gubernatorial election in Virginia, and Al Franken’s resignation to bolster their narrative.

However, the Democrats have also done very little to form any kind of coherent platform of ideas for their party aside from calling Donald Trump a reprobate.

As the President sealed his first major legislative victory with a substantial tax reform package signed into law, the Democrats found themselves in the same position they themselves said the GOP was in 2009: of being obstructionists with no actual new ideas.

The only difference is that the MSM is on the Democrat side of this argument and the DNC still cannot be shown as the party with ideas.

The GOP had plenty of ideas and great ones during the years of Obama.  But they were squelched successfully since the vast majority of MSM is anti-GOP.

Further, it does not seem likely that the DNC can create a party line for itself based solely on identity politics. The tax cuts will give almost everyone in the USA a paycheck that is a bit larger, and in some cases, they will get quite a payout, because the repatriation of monies by companies from their overseas entities back to the USA will facilitate this.

Identity politics do not pay bills.  The DNC is going to have to work hard to find an effective answer to Trump, and it is not going to be about simply upholding the rights of minority groups.

Prediction #4 has not shown itself.

We have not said “yet” here, and this prediction may in fact be wrong.

Again, the issue here is not about Roy Moore.  In fact, it never really was.  The goose gunned for was Donald Trump and as noted above, he has scored in a BIG way.

The drama now has withdrawn back to the careworn dossier-instigated Mueller investigation.  And that also is not going as many people hoped for.

The liberals and never-Trumpers were hoping for a connection to be dredged up out of fantasy or for public opinion to get so poisonous against Trump that impeachment proceedings would then become something desired by the American populace.  But in what has to be one of the most amazing miscalculations of modern political history, the investigation is pinging the Democrats, and most notably, our Gal Pal, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the force that created this mess.

Donald Trump has specifically stated that he has no plans to fire Robert Mueller.  And, why should he?  Mueller is actually doing a great job proving Trump to be correct – that there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia, and that if there was any such activity, it came from the Clinton camp.

The longer this thing goes, the more likely it is to destroy power players that actually did abuse their power and privilege, and this will serve to exonerate Trump and make the news media look more and more petty and biased.

So, at this point, it appears we are two out of four, with a third one yet to be manifest.

Something remarkable has been taking place in American politics, must like it has in the nation overall.

The departure of President Obama and his administration was like the departure of a miserable fog over the nation, and really of the world.

While the US has YUGE problems to solve, (in foreign policy, in this author’s opinion), it has begun to solve some of its internal difficulties, and this is a very important first step.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Why Joe May be Courting Stacey

Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:


Of 895 slots in the freshman class of Stuyvesant High in New York City, seven were offered this year to black students, down from 10 last year and 13 the year before.

In the freshman class of 803 at The Bronx High School of Science, 12 students are black, down from last year’s 25.

Of 303 students admitted to Staten Island Technical High School, one is African-American.

According to The New York Times, similar patterns of admission apply at the other five most elite high schools in the city.

Whites and Asians are 30 percent of middle school students, but 83 percent of the freshman at Bronx High School of Science, 88 percent at Staten Island Technical and 90 percent at Stuyvesant.

What do these numbers tell us?

They reveal the racial composition of the cohort of scientists and technicians who will lead America in the 21st century. And they tell us which races will not be well represented in that vanguard.

They identify a fault line that runs through the Democratic Party, separating leftists who believe in equality of results for all races and ethnic groups, and those who believe in a meritocracy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed anger and frustration at the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics in the elite schools. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have ignored his pleas to change the way students are admitted.

Currently, the same test, of English and math, is given to middle school applicants. And admission to the elite eight is offered to those who get the highest scores.

Moreover, Asians, not whites, are predominant.

Though 15 percent of all middle school students, Asians make up two-thirds of the student body at Stuyvesant, with 80 times as many slots as their African-American classmates.

The egalitarian wing of the Democratic Party sees this as inherently unjust. And what gives this issue national import are these factors:

First, the recent scandal where rich parents paid huge bribes to criminal consultants to get their kids into elite colleges, by falsifying records of athletic achievement and cheating on Scholastic Aptitude Tests, has caused a wave of populist resentment.

Second, Harvard is being sued for systemic reverse racism, as black and Hispanic students are admitted with test scores hundreds of points below those that would disqualify Asians and whites.

Third, Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Here are Biden’s quotes, unearthed by The Washington Post, that reflect his beliefs about forced busing for racial balance in public schools:

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with.

“What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!

“Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

“I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”

That was 44 years ago. While those views were the thinking of many Democrats, and perhaps of most Americans, in the mid-’70s, they will be problematic in the 2020 primaries, where African-Americans could be decisive in the contests that follow Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden knows that just as Bernie Sanders, another white male, fell short in crucial South Carolina because of a lack of support among black voters, he, too, has a problem with that most loyal element in the Democratic coalition.

In 1991, Biden failed to rise to the defense of Anita Hill when she charged future Justice Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a law-and-order champion responsible for tough anti-crime legislation that is now regarded as discriminatory.

And he has a record on busing for racial balance that made him a de facto ally of Louise Day Hicks of the Boston busing case fame.

How, with a record like this, does Biden inoculate himself against attacks by rival candidates, especially candidates of color, in his run for the nomination?

One way would be to signal to his party that he has grown, he has changed, and his 2020 running mate will be a person of color. Perhaps he’ll run with a woman of color such as Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia.

An ancillary benefit would be that Abrams on the ticket would help him carry Georgia, a state Donald Trump probably cannot lose and win re-election.

Wrote Axios this morning:

“Close advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden are debating the idea of packaging his presidential campaign announcement with a pledge to choose Stacey Abrams as his vice president.”


Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending