The Patriot Post® · The Politics of Destruction

Yesterday I referred to the “Anita Hills” coming out and making accusations against Donald Trump. Some readers replied that while they knew who she was, their children and grandchildren may not know. So, I think it is worth taking the time to remind you that what is happening now is not new.

On July 1, 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Immediately the left-wing complex declared war against him. They could not allow a conservative, pro-life black man on the highest court no matter what had to be done to destroy him.

The battle went on for weeks, but Thomas finally appeared to be on the path to confirmation. Then on October 6th, National Public Radio broke a story that a former aide to Thomas, Anita Hill, was going public with charges of sexual harassment.

I was chairman of the Citizens Committee to Confirm Clarence Thomas, and I was in the hearing room when Anita Hill, left-wing senators and the media tried to destroy him.

What followed was hell for Thomas and his family. There were days of hearings during which Hill, in great detail, accused Thomas of disgusting actions.

Before it was over there was testimony about porn, various body parts and sizes, and pubic hairs. Christian pastors began to waver in their support for Thomas. Republican senators wobbled. There were rumors that the White House was considering withdrawing his name.

But Thomas fought back, and I and other conservatives closed ranks behind him. Clarence Thomas was his own best defender. He berated senators, telling them:

“This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American … it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

"No job is worth what I’ve been through — no job. No horror in my life has been so debilitating. Confirm me if you want. Don’t confirm me if you are so led… I will not provide the rope for my own lynching. These are the most intimate parts of my privacy, and they will remain just that, private.”

Thomas was eventually confirmed, and for 25 years he has faithfully defended the Constitution, the sanctity of life, normal marriage and religious liberty. That is why the left tried to destroy him ahead of time.

Justice Thomas is one of the finest men I have ever met. I do not know Donald Trump well enough to vouch for his history simply because I have not worked with him as extensively as I had with Thomas. I am not comparing their characters, but only pointing out the left — which has driven the cultural changes that have broken down values and sexualized our culture — has used this tactic before.

The left has a long history of raising charges of sexual harassment and mistreatment of women in order to radicalize female voters and suppress Christian support for the person they are attacking. That is what they tried to do with Clarence Thomas and they are doing it now with Donald Trump.

“Should Christians Vote For Trump”

Eric Metaxas is an acclaimed Christian author who produced definitive biographies of William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He also worked closely Chuck Colson. Metaxas is highly respected by young Christians and evangelical intellectuals.

He wrote an excellent op-ed in [Thursday’s] Wall Street Journal imploring Christians to vote for Donald Trump. I urge you to read it and to share it with friends and family. Here are a few excerpts:

“It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution … is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever. Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? …

"If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things? How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? …

"We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith — and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken… God will not hold us guiltless.”

Catholic Leaders Blast Clinton

We have reported to you about the email exchanges in which top Clinton aides, including campaign chairman John Podesta, mock Christians and plotted to subvert the teachings of the Catholic Church. Catholic leaders are publicly condemning their remarks as threats to religious liberty.

In a statement [Thursday], Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president to the Conference of Catholic Bishops, said:

“There have been recent reports that some may have sought to interfere in the internal life of the Church for short-term political gain. If true, this is troubling both for the well-being of faith communities and the good of our country… As Catholics, we hold onto our beliefs because they come to us from Jesus, not a consensus forged by contemporary norms… We also expect public officials to respect the rights of people to live their faith without interference from the state. When faith communities lose this right, the very idea of what it means to be an American is lost.”

Clinton Lied — Again

Okay, not exactly news, but I think it is worth pointing out that Hillary Clinton has lied repeatedly about her mishandling of national security secrets stored on her private server. That alone should disqualify her from the presidency.

[Thursday] she turned over to a court answers to a series of questions posed to her by Judicial Watch. She claimed to “not recall” her actions on most of them. But one response jumped out.

Hillary has repeatedly claimed that her use of a private server was “allowed” by the State Department. It was not.

In fact, the State Department sent a memo to all employees under her signature warning against the use of private email accounts for official government business.

Judicial Watch asked Mrs. Clinton who “allowed” the use of her private server or advised her that is was okay. According to The Washington Times, Hillary “admitted under oath this week that she doesn’t recall asking anyone for permission.”

Of course, she didn’t. She knew it wasn’t allowed, but the Clintons don’t believe the laws and rules apply to them!