Why ignoring David French is a fine way to spend an afternoon

David French, former 'conservative' turned leftwing activist, invokes the old 'it's only censorship if the government does it' canard.  This uses deflection to help him avoid confronting the implications of Musk's release of docs pertaining to Twitter's collusion with progressives, and perhaps even Democrats, and suppression of dissenting posts. 

When it comes to French's claim, anyone who went through college in the 1980s knows that's bunk.  At least according to liberals of the day.  Much was the time that my liberal teachers and professors spent declaring Big Brother fascist censorship whenever anyone - private interest or otherwise - tried to hinder liberal free speech.  

I recall an old textbook from a Sociology class I took.  In the section on freedoms and rights and free speech, it bent over backwards to say it's not just government that defines censorship.  Censorship, as they stay, starts in the home.  The minute you try to punish or oppress someone's attempt to express himself, that's censorship.  It even had a handy sidebar article about the old Fantastic Beatles Boycott as an example. No government there, but as much naked censorship as anything Nazi Germany ever tried to do.  

Of course like all things liberal, that's simply one more 'here today, gone later today' approach to principles and truth claims.  As soon as liberals get caught doing something they condemn, they simply change the rules.  Remember what my sons said about debating liberalism being like a game of Monopoly with someone who keeps throwing pots and pans at you?

What they mean is, liberalism understands Monopoly rules this way:

• If liberalism owns a hotel on Boardwalk and you land on Boardwalk, then you owe liberalism $2000.
• If, however, you own a hotel on Boardwalk and liberalism lands on Boardwalk, then you owe liberalism $2000.   

And if you protest the obvious cheating, in come the pots and pans.  It's how the Left plays the game.  I'm fast becoming convinced that liberalism appeals to the amoral, the one with no core values, beliefs, or principles.  The one who says yes when convenient, no when not convenient. Juror #7.  Guilty.  Not guilty.  Who cares, just get me to the game.  

Some say they're disappointed in French.  For me, a person who can embrace such naked mendacity as has been the food and oxygen of post-war liberalism is likely someone whose values and principles were never deeply rooted in the first place.  Which is something we're confronting every day as more and more who once waved the values of the Christian West like a war banner now trample that banner underfoot and happily toss it in the can. 

Why the GOP is seldom more than the bare minimum lesser of two evils

Amazon has thrown its support behind a GOP sponsored bill - get that, GOP sponsored - that would legalize marijuana on a federal level. 

Pardon me as one who dealt with families ravaged by drugs in my ministry days, as well as encountering it far too close in my own family's lines.  That's why I don't take drugs flippantly.  Along with AIDS, the global death count for the sex and drugs revolution has nearly surpassed WWII. We won't even get into the abortion rates that are needed as a safety net for this era of decadence. 

Speaking of Authentically Pro-Life, you have a better chance of baking Kosher ham than claiming the title while giving a nod to the Sex, Drugs and Rock n' Roll revolution that has claimed and ruined so many tens of millions of lives, especially among our youngest. 

So naturally the GOP is going to rush forth and open the doors for making drugs legal from coast to coast!  Hurray!  And I say drugs because I'm not stupid enough to think it will stop here.  For those who say, "But Dave, they've had legal drugs in Europe for decades!', uh huh.  Let's look at Europe, c. 21st Century to see how that has gone:  A civilization more than happy to let let future generations suffer its death as long as they have sex and drugs at their disposable now.  

Have I said ours is not the generation that will inspire future epic songs and poems?  

Most conservative Catholics I know do not believe Scott Hahn is the fourth member of the Holy Trinity

I needed to point that out since this blog post, by Scott Eric Alt, defends a fellow who makes the claim that, for conservative American Catholics, the line between Scott Hahn and the real pope is a fine one.  For the record, that sort of thing, a title proclaiming that 'Conservatives think it's good to rape teddy bears' followed by a book on why conservatives are wrong about the environment and school vouchers, has never impressed me. 

I have no doubt the actual book will be more nuanced than the click bait title suggests, or that Alt's click bait defense suggests.  Alt, who considers himself  a conservative Catholic, defends the inflammatory title with 'gee, isn't anyone allowed to disagree with Scott Hahn?'  Sure, but when a book begins with a calumnious accusation, one can react and probably should react. 

I find that sort of duplicity and slick rhetorical sleight of hand to be of the Devil.  The 'let your yes by maybe, just in case' approach to discourse is antithetical to what we should be as Christians. He knows darn well why people would object to a title like that.  He knows that sort of title is an attack.  I know this because he doesn't come off as the level of idiot needed to miss the obvious. Just say you don't like Hahn or American  conservative Catholic anymore, and be done with it.  Stop with the adolescent rhetorical parlor games that boys in middle  school lockers rooms think are so awesome.  

For the record, am I surprised that Hahn, like EWTN, once beloved shining lights for orthodox Catholics and Catholic converts, would now have a crosshairs on his back?  No. Discarding and attacking that which you once cherished is as sure of a sign of loyalty to the modern Left as any leftwing pledge pin on your uniform could ever be.  But that's for another post. 

Could John Stossel please stand over there?

Way, way, way, way over there?  I mean, over somewhere east of Madagascar.  Here's why.  Stossel shot to prominence in the 90s when he produced a news special that outraged feminists by insisting men and women are different. That was good.  News specials that point out common sense and reality in an age that values neither have their place and are good. 

Over the years he became a sort of libertarian spokesman, appearing on Fox News and espousing a libertarian spin on things, often to a fault.  Now if libertarianism is anything, it isn't easy to pin down.  I think if I asked twenty libertarians to define libertarianism, I would get nineteen definitions, since there's always that one person who will jump in with someone else. 

That has been used to devastating effect by those opposed to liberty libertarianism.  It's always easy to pick the worst apples to condemn a whole barrel.  That tactic is made easier, however, when each apple insists its way is the true way of the barrel.   So people against liberty libertarianism have often found the worst representatives of that particular way of thinking and made quite a lot of noise about that being what libertarianism is all about. 

Like anything, libertarianism has its bad actors, its radicals, extremists, and those you wish would never be within a hundred miles of anything you're advocating.  Stossel has emerged as one of those bad actors.  Embracing an almost caricature of what people criticize libertarianism for, he often spends his time smacking down any and all criticisms of anything done the way it's done because, well, liberty?  

Let people imagine that legalizing drugs may not help our drug problem, and it' just crazy old wives tales. Let people suggest that maybe STEM has had a few bumps in the road, and he preaches the sacred doctrine of progressive infallibility louder than a progressive.  Imagine someone thinking that maybe there should be some level of accountability for people to use guns beyond just the standard hunting/home defense instruments, and you'd think you just proclaimed worship of Big Brother.

Beyond that, he also embraces that Darwinian Capitalism idea of survival of the best.  This world is for the strong, the smart, the best.  Those who aren't up to that level of made-to-win, who aren't willing to invest themselves solely in the acquisition of things to the exclusion of any other priority?  Well suck on it buster brown.  

Some years ago, when I still had cable, I was sometimes guilty of channel surfing.  Always with the volume muted of course.  Contrary to some common accusations, I didn't watch much cable news, and that included Fox News.  One night I was clicking down the list and I passed Fox.  Stossel was interviewing someone, and the little ticker underneath said something to the effect of 'Teaching children that sharing is wrong.'  I thought 'Oh brother, one of those news segments that finds some crazy person out there and makes a national crisis out of it.  Some bonehead teacher said sharing is bad, and Fox is going to whip up the hysterics like the Daytime Talk Shows of old.'  

But no.  Just because of morbid curiosity, I unmuted the show and to my astonishment, they were saying no such thing.  The guest interviewed by Stossel was saying that isn't right to teach kids to share.  Screw sharing.  You teach those kids to extract that last drop of blood from anyone nearby. You have two chocolate bars and a friend asks to share?  Screw them.  You give it to them at top market value.  You have a couple toys and a buddy wants to share, you demand payback first.  Someone asks you for a cloak?  Why, you squeeze every penny out of them, that's what you do.  I couldn't tell from the part I watched if Stossel was in agreement, but if he was offended, he didn't make much noise about it with the part I watched. 

Which is why this piece, as troubling as it is, doesn't shock me.  Apparently Stosssel has joined the movement to use STEM the way nature intended, and that's to build the better baby.  That would be the 'aren't we entirely better than ever before' strain of his libertarianism coming out in him.  After all, we can do it and that means we should do it.  Yes kiddies, as this piece suggests, that could be categorized under eugenics without much difficulty.  And yet it is in no way inconsistent with the brand of libertarian thinking he, and others, espouse. 

Warning for libertarians and especially conservatives.  You can't stop everyone who may agree with you sometimes from embracing evil, but you can check who you associate with.  Many who aligned with, and even identified as, conservatives over the decades espoused things hell and gone from basic conservative decency and virtue, let along Christian morals.  Work is important.  Responsibility is important.  Earning your way and taking care of yourself and your loved ones are important.  

But saying the world belongs to the wealthy and strong and sorry about your luck if you/'re not one of them is closer to Mammon than the Messiah.  It's also a good way to turn off the masses, most of whom will not chair Microsoft, found Amazon.com, contemplate the Theory of Relativity, or form a world changing music group with four lads from Liverpool.  If you act as if the world belongs only to those who do such things, you're saying a microscopic sampling of humanity is ultimately in your corner.  Leaving the masses to look for someone who at least pretends to care about them. 

One thing that cost Hillary Clinton the election in 2016, beyond just running a embarrassingly bad and smug campaign, was her being linked to the Left's new 'the wrong industries will just have to suffer' ideals.  That led people in those industries, many who never voted Red in their lives, to support the man - Donald Trump - who at least said he cared.  Many accused Trump of lying and not caring.  Possibly.  But for many in those industries, they took their chances with a potential liar who may not care over someone telling the truth about how much they didn't care. 

Same with conservatives. Most probably don't want socialism, and wouldn't take it if they thought about it.  But if all they're told is they deserve what they get and deserve even less unless they can make it to the top of the hill, they'll at least try their hand with the socialists who insist they're there to help, no matter how false such a claim happens to be.   And if your solution is to use STEM to start building the better babies so everyone can be the next best and brightest, you're not learning a thing from history you insist is so important to study. 

When will John Kasich make it official?

And join the Democrats.  Like many RINOs, he wears the robes of the GOP, but dines, parties, sleeps, baths, weeps and laughs in the home that the Donkey built.  

I've noticed when this clear and obvious point has been brought up, many point to the only clear reason for such a shift: TRUMP!  The same reason is given when others who have cleaved unto the modern/progressive way while still holding a conservative name tag are explained.  In religious circles, you might think of Southern Baptist ethics guru Russell Moore.

Here's the thing.  In many cases, their swings to the left began long before Donald Trump even threw his hat in the ring.  Moore had dumped the conservative way when the winds swung against Bush and the Conservative Coalition all but disintegrated in the disastrous 00s.  Already, by 2010, he was mocking those tired old culture warriors and their obsession with Christmas scenes.  At the same time, he was an honored guest at the Obama White House and had every reason to believe that invitation would extend to the inevitable Clinton Administration as well.

The same is true for John Kasich.  Kasich was, in fairness, known for his ability to reach across the aisle.  Plus, he's from Ohio.  Despite our zeal for the now canceled sport of football, Ohioans are generally a moderate lot.  We don't like too much fanaticism.  Kasich fit that mold well.  A conservative, he was one who helped forge that budget plan so often handed to Bill Clinton in terms of credit. 

But his swing to embrace the political left, while obvious and visible from Pluto, has nothing to do with Trump.  It has to do with his failed attempt to be a mini-me version of Scott Walker.  I think we can remember when Scott Walker stood up to the Unions back in the day, and incurred - and survived - the collective wrath of the nation's Leftist juggernaut.  

Seeing that and being a good old conservative, John Kasich tried to do the same thing here in the Buckeye State.  And it didn't work.  I don't know why and can't comment about the reasons, but when the dust settled, Kasich had a loss in his column, and was sent scurrying home with tail tucked firmly between his legs. 

Again, I don't know why he failed.  I don't know why it didn't work out with him emerging as Walker did as the great Conservative Hero.  But he didn't.  And it was shortly after that he began to swing ever so gingerly to the left of center.  From softening up and eventually supporting Gay Marriage, to beginning to critique Conservative approaches to government spending, to reaching out with a greater sympathy for a centralized welfare state as the solution to our problems, and the occasional dig at those hardcore right wing types and their obvious nastiness, Kasich was sounding more like a mini-me McCain before Trump ever went down the escalator.

Like many 'get me out of here and off to the liberal parties' brand of Never-Trumpers, I've often had the hunch Trump was merely his excuse.  But then, again, he had already begun the shift before Trump.  Trump just allowed him to make it official and wear on all sleeves his disdain for the Right, Conservatives, and all they value while cheering and celebrating almost everything left of center.  Therefore, his honored position at the DNC is about as shocking as OSU throwing football under the bus in the days of Covid-19. 

The Handmaid's Revenge does Evangelicalism

So Beth Moore chimed in - in support of the victims in this rather vague development in the already vague #MeToo movement.  She insists she's not siding against Kavanaugh.  Yet her endorsement of the victims sounds more and more like the radical feminism of old that equated all sex with rape.  The same radical feminism that is able to declare Kavanaugh guilty as pointed at, his life to be ruined presently.

Of course being a good old Bible believing Christian, she can't go so far as saying all sex is rape.  But she can insist that all of her sexual experiences that she regrets, consensual though they were, could have been the result of sexual assault, bullying, or sexist men:

Countless women and girls (and boys) consent to sexual advances they do not welcome or want and that scar them for a lifetime. Or sometimes they consent to one thing and get something completely and disturbingly different(*). They do so for the same reason I did. They feel enormously pressured, extremely unprotected, overpowered and, at times, utterly powerless. I well remember feeling something akin to paralysis. The word “no” was not even in my vocabulary. The boundaries around my life were bulldozed early and by a bully, I might add, because, while not all bullies are sexual predators, all sexual predators are, in one way or another, bullies. There was no manual within my reach about how to rebuild those crumbled boundaries. (emphasis mine)

(*) Explanation needed. 

In other words, it wasn't her fault if she said yes. Even though she said yes to the boys (and we'll, for the moment, assume any sexual experience was always and in every way initiated by the boys), it was still sexual assault.  And she was the victim.

Again, this was the wild dream of radical feminism back in the day.  All sex was rape they were reported to have said.  Moore might not be saying that.  She does at least include boys as victims in theory.  But she and a growing number of women - including Christians - are saying any sex they regret is nothing other than sexual assault by the always vile and bullying attacker, and therefore not their fault.

It's also worth noting that when Ms. Moore was called out for appearing to support execution by accusation, she fired back.  She insisted she has no desire to see anyone innocent falsely accused:

"Let me assure you, sir, I have not one whit of desire for anyone to be falsely accused. That is highly counterproductive and would only end up making it harder for victims. I'm advocating for women to be heard, taken seriously and not placed in harm's way for coming forward."

Personally, I would think the reason she doesn't want someone to be falsely accused is that she doesn't want to see an innocent person falsely accused.  Instead, she says she wouldn't want that because it would be highly counterproductive and would only end up making it harder for victims.  Again, call me an old codger, but I think false accusations are bad because they destroy the reputation of an innocent person.  But thus is the #MeToo era, even within Christianity.

BTW, some might say I'm being harsh with this.  That I don't know the details.  No, I don't.  Because women can accuse men in general based on no details or facts.  Moore doesn't name names, or give facts or details.  She isn't giving me the down and dirty about what happened.  All she is saying is that she did things she regretted, until she realized it wasn't her fault; that she was the victim.

If these boys threw her down and assaulted her, or raped her, or in some way physically attacked her against her wishes, then I'm all behind her.  She is certainly a victim of sexual assault.  But she uses words like consent, and agree, and that isn't rape.  That's not sexual assault. Again, even assuming it was only and always the boys initiating the encounter (not always my experiences), she still said yes.

And this idea born of radical feminism that all reality, including consensual sex, is the result of sexist, rapist men is antithetical to not only the Gospel, but also common sense.  Heck, back in the day, mainstream feminists tried to distance themselves from such bilge.  If Christians are now embracing it, we can understand why Christians throughout the ages embraced the things they did.

This also counts, I should add, if she was somehow assaulted when young.  Even if she was a victim when she was young, it does not stand to reason that any further sexual relationships she had were the result of male sexual predators.  That if she said yes, it was only because of her past trauma, and therefore the boys she said 'yes' to should be considered to have sexually intimidated her, and therefore she was devoid of all responsibility for her actions.  Time doesn't permit for how such an approach is antithetical to Christian and common sense thinking.

If anything is to roll back the decades of debauchery and decadence of the sex and drugs generation, it won't be going radical feminist.   I have no doubt that the trail of abuse and assault runs large in the wake of the sexual revolution, as does so many trails of human suffering, death and loss.  I also have no doubt that both men and women have played their own parts in exploiting what they could get out of it.  The fact that some men committed horrid crimes against women does not present a Get Out of Jail Card for personal responsibility for women.  Nor does it wipe away the notion that women are capable of sin.  All this will do is open up new problems without ultimately solving the old ones.

Good for them

It seems like people are upset because FOX News made some not to subtle digs at a former Cosby Show star for working at Trader Joe's.  Good.  Go get them.  That's the part of FOX that has always been the most nauseating (apart from its pseudo-porn approach to news stories).  Its 'Darwinian Capitalism/No God but Mammon/If you don't wake up every day lusting for the acquisition of financial gain to the exclusion of all other conceivable priorities then sorry about your luck' attitudes are a far cry from traditional, Christian and even American ideals.

That 'you come first, now get money' is only the shadowy reflection of the Left's 'you come first, now go get laid' attitude.  And it's not new.  I remember  when Megyn Kelly mocked a young couple who said they would use 7,000.00 they got from auctioning something signed by President Obama for a down payment on a house.  When the camera came back to Kelly, she mockingly said that 'it must not be much of a house.'  I'm sure for well-to-do national level news hosts, it isn't.  But for some people, it's all the money in the world.

Mammon is the flip side partner of Moloch.  Flee them both.

Why Trump wins

Sigh.  How does someone like Donald Trump continue to defy all odds and win?  Easy.  First, we have the Clear Opposition:

Yep.  That's actually a Mothers Day ad by a liberal Super-Pac.  It's real.  It is not a parody concocted by right wingers to make the Left look bad.  It's actually supposed to scare you mothers out there, lest yours sons become one of ... one of ... them.  I mean, this is so blind to how actual people think, it's beyond imagining:

On the other hand, you have the Never Trumpers.  These folks increasingly sound like the very people who pushed many conservatives and Republicans into the arms of Trump in the first place.

Basically, the GOP had become filled with pols and pundits who appeared to view conservatism on, shall we say, unique lines.  They held to big business issues that helped the top earners and money makers.  They were just conservative enough, but not so much that they wouldn't be invited to all the best liberal parties in Manhattan and Washington D.C..  Every couple years, they would flimflam the yokels between the coasts, convincing them that they cared about such stupid things as abortion or sexual deviance or encroachment on basic liberties or the erosion of traditional Judeo-Christian foundations of our society.   Once the elections were over, it was back to champagne and caviar with the beautiful people at the latest party, to hell with the yokels.

And so they continue.  The latest has been to marginalize Kanye West and Candace Owens.  Granted, I know little of Ms. Owens, other than she forcefully calls out some of the most sacred cows of modern, liberal race theory and narratives.  I know even less about Kanye West.  I just know he's known to provoke with goofy opinions, as many rappers do, and that I probably wouldn't hang too much on his opinion, other than acknowledge he is allowed to have an opinion.

I certainly note the Left's hysterics and its need to keep the minority herds in the pen.  I likewise caution conservatives about chasing after the latest cultural icon who happens to say something remotely positive about Trump, the GOP, or anything not leftist.  I'm thinking Rosanne here.

Nonetheless, they're free to speak, and should represent at least an alternative to the very tight narrative controlled by the Left with its monopoly in the press, educational institutions and popular culture.  They should be heard, if not taken too seriously.  Just as anyone should be heard (and that includes those who represent majority opinions).  Perhaps the truth will end up being somewhere in between.

But not so for the Never Trumper!  Ross Douthat demonstrates.  Like George Will, I've become somewhat disappointed in Mr. Douthat. Mr. Douthat, like Will, has become more Never Trumper than conservative, finding any way to tear down, to marginalize, or deflect from a net positive that could somehow find its way back the the Trump White House.  As one who didn't vote for Donald Trump, I can say that's no different than being a liberal Democrat.

Here he demonstrates this in flying colors.  His entire piece can be summed up this way.  Basically, while the Kanye kerfuffle is worth a giggle, on the whole he and Ms. Owns are race bating hacks and likely frauds.  Only by accepting 95% of the leftist, Multi-Cultural, PC, Identity Politics narrative can conservatives have a chance.  Only by assuming America as nothing but a racist nation defined by racism, filled with racists doing nothing on a daily basis than being racist, and the unparalleled daily suffering of African Americans in this most racist of all nations, can conservative hope to appeal to a multi-ethnic voting base.

I doubt it.  What he doesn't know about America, race and identity politics appears to be what he does know about the Catholic Church.  That is, you can't take almost everything from forces diametrically opposed to you, declare them true, and then slap one little modicum of dissension on it and call it a compromise.  If you throw a clean washcloth in a mud puddle, chances are the mud puddle won't get cleaner.  He rightly points out that every time a Western monotheistic faith has attempted to compromise with liberalism, it has failed, withered, and died.  Why he can't figure that the same goes for compromising politically on fundamental premises, I don't know.

But like too many NTs, he appears to see accepting the premises, narratives, priorities, templates and assumptions of the modern Left regarding issues like racism and America's identity as the only real way to help the GOP.  We even accept some of the Left's basic solutions.  It's just that somewhere along the line, we don't just go all Leftist and we ought to do something different somewhere, and that will make all the difference.   That the issue of racism, while real, historical, and a problem to be overcome is hardly a thing to be denied, simply taking the Left's entire book on the subject at face value, while changing one tiny part of the cover, is hardly the solution.  It will likely continue to result, not in greater racial harmony, but as we've seen in the last decade or so, far less.  And I don't think we'll see waves of ethnic minorities storming the GOP Convention as a result.

Congratulation Mr. Douthat, you've just joined Tom Steyer in helping to make sure that Donald Trump will never go away.

Losing the war

By winning a skirmish.  Here, we have pro-life Obama supporter Michael Wear explain why he voted for radically pro-choice Doug Jones.  Because Roy Moore is a sexual pervert child rapist.  Sure, there are other reasons, but let's face it, that was the albatross around Moore's neck that did him in.  Do we know that he is guilty?  Well, no.  But since obviously women never lie, and since it's also impossible to make credible false accusations, what other possibility is there?  That he wasn't proven guilty is almost proudly admitted by those who stamped the sexual pervert symbol on his forehead.

Thankfully, Christians, Catholics, religious leaders and pundits all agreed that presumption of innocence only exists in our courtrooms - for now.  Outside the courts, your butt belongs to, well, whoever thinks you're a freak and a sideshow to begin with.

With little effort, the progressive establishment convinced a respectable number of non-liberal leaders and voices to forgo the notion that proof, evidence or facts are needed before destroying a person's life.  We must accept a nation where if the press and the liberal establishment want a person destroyed, then destroyed he must be.  This whole presumption of innocence has got to go.  Outside of the courtrooms for now of course.  The courts will take care of themselves down the road.

This is what is called winning a diversionary skirmish while losing the war.  Personally, at this point, I hope Moore is guilty.  I hope he did assault a sixteen year old and try to have sexual relations with an underage girl.  Because if he didn't, the blood of  his ruined reputation is on the hands of every conservative, Republican, religious leader, pundit, apologist, and activist who rushed to build the scaffolding and tie the knot around his neck without all that pesky evidence and proof.

That is why, in contrast, I hear what Mary Franson is saying.

"A man's life was destroyed in AL. 40 years ago he met with minors alone and they recently accused him of horrendous actions. In the world of we must believe every sexual harassment claim, I would think my approach is beyond reasonable. All it takes is one perceived action and my life is destroyed. The life of my family is destroyed. That is a risk I will not take. I have spoken to numerous adults about this situation. They all agree that me meeting alone with minors is not appropriate."

She is backing out of a meeting with students.  And why not?  An accusation now, or fifty years from now, might be good enough to ruin her.  I've told my sons that, if I were them, I would draw a circle of protection around myself in the workplace, or any place, and not let women within five feet of me.  I certainly wouldn't be around anyone under age at this point.  After all, Moore was destroyed based only on accusations from events 40 years old.  No credible physical evidence was produced.  Testimony by friends of the accusers was used.  Evidence that they might have known Moore was all that was needed to make the accusations 'credible'.  Think on that.  All they had to do was show they might have known Moore, and it was enough to destroy him.

Many of the calls for Moore to step down came within 24 hours of the accusations being published, so his subsequent stumbling and bumbling had nothing to do with it.  Those who called for him to step down before he had a chance to respond wanted him to step down, and were fine with a nation where lives are ruined without proof or evidence.  Because for all the rhetoric and attempts to move it back to Moore's policy positions (for those even trying to justify what happened), it was nothing but saying we'll take anything to stop him, even if it means wrongful sentencing based on false accusations.

This is what happens when punditry replaces principle.  When McCarthy ran amok, it was enough that he was smacked down in the name of decency.  When you no longer have a nation with a concept of decency, no concept of common good or unity, no idea of morality or principles, then you no longer care if right or wrong is occurring, or justice is done. I echo the wonderfully delivered question by the late, great Raul Julia in the 1990 film Presumed Innocent.  Roy Moore's reputation is dead.  His career ruined.  He has been hung with a label as deadly as Communist or homosexual was in the 1950s.  But in the end, was justice done?

Or more to the point, in the end, do we even care?  Do the conservatives, Republicans, religious leaders, pundits, apologists and activists even care?  I fear we've seen individuals with no stomach to resist the coming storm take a larger step forward in sealing our society's fate than anything a Democrat, Republican, politician or president could hope to do in pushing us down a path toward the end of liberty and freedom.  Only if Moore is shown to be guilty can we hope for a different end.  And that's a disturbing thing to have to hope for.