“A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the ‘latent spark’… If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?” —John Adams (1775)

Now that the Democrat’s Russia collusion delusion is backfiring, they have formulated an alternate strategy to take Trump down.

By way of update on the Trump/Putin strategy, in October, The Washington Post reluctantly revealed that it was Hillary Clinton and her corrupt Democrat Party cronies who funded the fake Trump/Putin collusion dossier.

Now, there is substantial evidence that the resulting investigation into this political charade was orchestrated by some of Clinton’s deep state operatives within the Justice Department.

That evidence includes discovery that the key DoJ investigator, Bruce Ohr, who was instrumental in launching the anti-Trump investigation, secretly met with the fake dossier producers, who also employed his wife. Another key FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, was the same agent who watered down the investigation into Clinton’s email subterfuge while he was sending anti-Trump messages to his mistress.

This on top of the fact that we now know six of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s lawyers currently investigating Donald Trump were donors to Clinton’s campaign.

Strzok has been fired from Mueller’s team of Trump investigators, and Ohr has been “demoted,” but this deep state corruption should cause concern across the political spectrum.

Given that the “Russian collusion” was, apparently, between Clinton and Putin operatives, Mueller has pivoted his fishing expedition from collusion to obstruction, proof of which is a necessary long shot in order to obtain the prize the Democrat Party seeks — presidential impeachment.

In early December, priming the pump for that impeachment, Tom Steyer and his club of billionaire leftists sponsored a test impeachment vote in the House — which went down in flames, 364-58, including 126 Democrats rejecting articles of impeachment against Trump. But the effort succeeded, at a cost of $350,000 per “yes” vote, to expose the lines of dissent in the House.

With the prospects of Mueller finding any impeachable Trump offense waning, the Democrats have pivoted to a new strategy to rid themselves of Trump and his increasingly successful conservative agenda: They are now seeking his impeachment or resignation on “moral grounds.”

Yes, as laughable as it sounds, the Democrats, with the support of their MSM propaganda machine, have finally found a reason to focus on “sexual morality.”

For the record, congressional Democrats have spent the last three decades walking in lock-step defense of their favorite serial sexual assailant, Bill Clinton, and in 2016 they unanimously renewed their unqualified support for his primary enabler, Hillary, who excelled at smearing Bill’s accusers.

Now, however, the Demos’ tune and tone has flipped.

To paraphrase Captain Louis Renault in the classic 1942 film “Casablanca,” Democrats are now “shocked, SHOCKED, to find that [sexual harassment] is going on here!”

Even Hillary Clinton, in a remarkable display of unmitigated hypocrisy, is now protesting, “We have someone admitting to being a sexual assaulter in the Oval Office.” Actually, Trump has made no such admission, but Hillary’s husband’s credible accusers are still waiting to be called by CNN or any other Leftmedia network to tell their stories.

To set Trump and Republicans up for a 2018 and 2020 takedown, the Democrats crafted the “Roy Moore Strategy” — a calculated ruse to promote their newfound indignation over sexual improprieties perpetrated by politicians.

That strategy was based on the assumption that Moore would win his Senate bid in Alabama. Then Democrats could incite female voter outrage, portraying themselves as taking the high ground on this issue with the resignations of John Conyers and Al Franken (pending) as proof, hanging Moore around Republican necks.

Moore narrowly lost his bid, but proved that fomenting female voter furry is a formidable political strategy.

As I have noted before, female majorities have elected every Democrat president since 1960 and have been a major force in midterm elections. Democrats are counting on their perennial political calculus that a majority of Demo female voters are emotionally incontinent dupes, lacking the discernment to avoid being co-opted by emotive appeals. Thus, they’re going to make the #MeToo “epidemic of sexual assault” the centerpiece of the 2018 and 2020 elections, inciting female voter outrage to overturn Republican majorities in the House and Senate in the 2018 midterm election, and then to defeat Trump in 2020. They’ll float candidates like Oprah Winfrey to make their case.

This week, in keeping with the Moore Strategy script ahead of Tuesday’s election, Democrats replayed the accusations of a few women who had proffered sexual impropriety allegations against Trump prior to the 2016 election. After their complaints aired again, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) declared, “President Trump should resign. … Congress should have hearings, they should do their investigation, they should have appropriate investigations of his behavior, and hold him accountable.”

And those hearings will provide the next Demo-goguery distraction into 2018, regardless of what Mueller’s investigation delivers.

Notably, during the 2016 presidential primaries and campaign, there were a handful of other sexual harassment allegations leveled against Donald Trump. But frankly, given his too often crude and brash communication and behavior, combined with the fact that he has employed tens-of-thousands of women during his many decades in business, it would seem that the Democrats could’ve produced an endless loop of allegations. But they didn’t.

That notwithstanding, I agree with Trump’s UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, who said this week that she was “incredibly proud of the women” who had come forward to make public their allegations against members of Congress, and that, “They should be heard.” Haley added, “I think any woman who has felt violated or felt mistreated in any way, they have every right to speak up.”

What I don’t agree with, and what I’m certain Haley doesn’t agree with, is that anyone accused of impropriety should be tried and convicted by the Leftmedia.

I make no defense of the long and ever-expanding list of celebrities and politicians accused of sexual misconduct in the wake of Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein meltdown. Nor would I ever condemn their accusers — as Hillary Clinton did so infamously before her recent political transformation into a defender of such accusers.

But both the accuser and the accused deserve to have their claims adjudicated by way of due process rather than be judged by MSM kangaroo-court talkingheads.

Case in point — Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson.

When Carlson was still hosting a show with CNN prior to 2003, he was accused of raping a woman in a restaurant in Louisville, Kentucky — an accusation that, had it become public, would have completely destroyed him personally and professionally, regardless of the facts.

According to Carlson, his accuser, Kimberly Carter, “was a certified public accountant in Indiana, upstanding member of her community, and also, apparently delusional. Her claims were grotesque, but they were highly specific. The assault she said took place in the back room of a restaurant in Louisville on a specific day at around 10:30 p.m. She included loads of graphic and horrifying detail. It was stomach-turning. And yet none of it — none of it — was true. I spent the next two months trying to stay out of jail.”

“I couldn’t tell my children,” said Carlson, “because I knew they would be ashamed. I couldn’t tell my employer because I knew I would be fired immediately. I spoke only to lawyers and I paid them a fortune. I took a polygraph exam from the former head polygrapher at the FBI. I never stopped worrying that the charges would become public and destroy my life.”

As it turns out, Carlson had never been to the restaurant in question, or even Louisville, and was on the air the night of the alleged rape.

His accuser would later disclose that she “was delusional” and suffered from schizoaffective disorder and wrote him a letter of apology. But had the charges been made public, what page do you think the retraction of those charges would have appeared on afterward?

The fact is, some people do make false accusations for a wide variety of reasons. (See the high-profile MSM frenzied rape allegations against the Duke lacrosse team and a UVA fraternity, among other cases.) There are also serious questions that should be raised concerning the credibility of allegations stemming from decades-old recollections or recovered memory cases.

Of course, the price can be very high when even suggesting some allegations are not accurate.

Charles P. McDowell, Ph.D., a colleague whom I first met almost 30 years ago when we were part of an official delegation to the USSR, had one of the most incredible minds I’ve ever encountered. He was savant-level brilliant, spoke numerous languages, and his commanding knowledge of a broad spectrum of the social sciences was amazing. He was best known as a federal investigator for his ability to solve very challenging murder cases — a closed-case record unmatched to this day.

A few years after we met, McDowell published an academic paper on markers that might indicate false rape allegations. That research was well known by the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit and law enforcement investigators nationwide as one of many tools for evaluating criminal allegations, specifically to help investigators resolve unexplained or inconsistent aspects of allegations.

Unfortunately for McDowell, then-Colorado Democrat Pat Schroeder, the state’s first female House member, in collaboration with her adoring media, skewered him for daring to suggest that any woman would ever make an inaccurate sexual assault allegation — and they purged his research and ended his career.

The consequences of challenging such orthodoxy notwithstanding, the Democrats’ current sexual allegation strategy ahead of 2018 may gain traction with the support of angry female voters. But Demos face an uphill battle against an improving economy under the Trump administration and Republican Congress.

In the meantime, I have a couple of additional observations about the current politicization of sexual allegations — regarding both alleged victims and alleged perpetrators.

First, I believe that for every victim of sexual assault by a high-profile celebrity there are countless others who, for many reasons, will never come forward.

And second, dare I suggest that the Left’s now-generational promotion of sexual promiscuity has destroyed many of our nation’s social and cultural barriers against sexual predation?

The rate of sexual assault is staggering. There are millions of Americans who, when young, were assaulted by heterosexual and homosexual predators. Department of Justice statistics estimate that more than 20 million adult women have been raped in their lifetime. And the number of young women in their late teens and early 20s who have been assaulted by predatory males when their judgment was impaired by alcohol is epidemic.

If you find those numbers difficult to comprehend, there are now almost 750,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. — and those are just the offenders who got caught…

For additional insights, there are two interesting articles related to current behavior norms worth reading: “Can We Be Honest About Men?” from National Review’s David French and “Can We Be Honest About Women?” from journalist Denise McAllister.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776