Down with Vichy Republican Collaborators – Part I of IV

Introduction: History informs us that scoundrels abound.  Current events inform us that scoundrels currently control the GOP.  What follows is the second installment of an abridged version of  a “communiqué” from the book Communiqués From the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. This particular communiqué was first written circa 2012, and then updated in 2015.  Thus, it predates – and so is a precursor to – the current endeavor of Breitbart’s Stephen K. Bannon to effect what would amount to “regime change” within the GOP – the goal of which is to electorally expel “Establishment ‘Republicans'” and elect genuinely Conservative ones.  This is stated not to gloat, but to highlight that this is not a problem of recent origin, nor one that is diminishing.  Quite the opposite.  Mitch McConnell’s and Paul Ryan’s sabotage by inaction of the Trump agenda; and recent revelations that one former President Bush voted for Hillary Clinton, and the other withheld his vote from Donald Trump, should dispel any lingering doubts concerning “Establishment ‘Republicans'” being in-bed and under the covers with the Progressive Democrats – and so Establishment Republicans – SWAMP REPUBLICANS – are actual enemies, not weak allies. Those who knowingly and willingly collaborate with evil are …

Down with Vichy Republican Collaborators!

Vive la Republican Résistance!

And what is Progressivism? It is but a branch, a division of Collectivism; and Collectivism in all its forms is evil. If we who love America and what it stands for are to successfully defend against, and ultimately defeat this aggression by the radical Left, we can afford no less within the GOP than the same cohesion and uniformity that the radicalized Democrat Party now enjoys. The Republican Party must be a cohesive, determined and unapologetic force for what is right. We did not start this war; we did not ask for it. But we must confront this evil. Not accept it. Not appease it. Not collaborate with it. But DEFEAT it – totally and unconditionally.

The moderates’ “pragmatism” is retreat in the face of anti-Americanism. Their “bipartisanship” is “appeasement” of the forces of anti-Americanism. While occasional “tactical retreat” may be necessary, theirs is preemptive, unilateral and perpetual retreat. In this battle, we are deploying “Republican” politicians who approach everything as a political matter (i.e., “how do we market the GOP to get enough votes to stay in office?”). They face-off against committed ideologues that are out to “fundamentally transform” the United States, performing a revolution against the Constitution of the United States in all senses except a public declaration of their intentions (which they shrewdly withhold). Such imbalance inexorably leads to defeat for the cause of liberty.

The “moderates” and “big-tenters” would have us unilaterally and preemptively surrender the field without a fight. For example, a majority of Americans want secured borders and traditional marriage. So the Left’s agenda is in opposition to most voters. Yet the “moderates” want us to avoid those issues, lest we offend certain demographics, even as the Left continues its march to impose its minority positions – in which it will succeed if unopposed. At the same time, regarding issues in which polling indicates that we might currently be “in the minority,” the “moderate Republicans” will cite this as why we must “soften” and “broaden” our approach. So when the majority agrees with us we should shut up and concede anyway, and when it doesn’t we should climb aboard the Leftist train. Huh? What’s wrong with this picture?

In 2016, the three Democrats on the FEC voted to punish filmmaker Joel Gilbert for distributing a film critical of President Barack Obama during the 2012 campaign. That film was titled, “Dreams from My Real Father.” In that film, Gilbert cited evidence that Obama’s mentor, Communist Party operative Frank Marshall Davis, was his biological father, and that the media conspired with Obama to conceal the truth. For his efforts, Gilbert’s personal financial affairs were investigated by a George Soros-linked journalist and he was targeted by the IRS. Joel’s research has uncovered evidence that Obama was “likely” a member of the May 19th Communist Organization, an above ground support group for the terrorist Weather Underground that was based in New York City from 1978-1985, during Obama’s time at Columbia University in the early 1980’s.

Many women have now come forward with allegations that Roy Moore harassed, fondled, or otherwise solicited them, the two most serious coming from women who claimed they were 14 and 16 at the time. Moore has consistently denied wrongdoing. His claims have been supported by other Alabamans who have known him for years.

So where does the truth lie?

Well, considering the mountains of defense, denials, misdirection, flat-out lies, and when that fails, stony silence, about serial sexual predators like Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank and others, the media seems to be hysterically out of character to be spending so much ink on the Moore story. Then again, all those others were left-wingers.

But since they have gone after Moore with a vengeance, let’s look at the most important allegation to surface yet – that of Beverly Young Nelson. Represented by left-wing feminist lawyer and commentator Gloria Allred, she claims that Moore attempted to force a sexual act on her when she was only 16 in 1977. To bolster her story, she claims that Moore signed her yearbook “To a sweeter, more beautiful girl I could not say ‘Merry Christmas.’”

Here’s the evidence:

Phillip L. Jauregui, Moore’s attorney, fired back against these allegations. He and others point out the difference between the sevens in “Christmas 1977” and “12-22-77.” I would add that switching writing styles from cursive to block print seems incongruous.

While Gloria Allred claims the “D.A.” following Moore’s signature is an abbreviation of “District Attorney,” Jauregui says that Moore was assistant district attorney at the time. He explained that “D.A.” are the initials of Moore’s assistant, Debra Adams, who added her initials when she stamped Moore’s signature on documents.

Thomas Wictor, a noted journalist and author who also analyzed the signature, says it looks like a fraud. Moore and his lawyer have called it a forgery and the Moore team sent a letter to Allred demanding that the document be made available within 48 hours.

Of course, the media has lunged to discredit Moore’s explanation of the yearbook entry. CNN’s Chris Cillizza calls it “Moore’s appalling ‘yearbook’ defense.” Cillizza has not made even a peep about the latest allegations against sitting Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), but never mind, he’s a liberal so it doesn’t count.

Now evidence has been produced, however, that points toward forgery. While Moore denies knowing the young Nelson, as a circuit judge he did sign her divorce decree in 1999. Here is the signature from that document:

Once again, we see the “D.A.” following Moore’s signature. Clearly, it is not an abbreviation for “district attorney.” If, as Jauregui says, these are the initials of Moore’s assistant, then we have to believe either that it was his assistant who signed the yearbook note, which makes no sense at all, or it is a forgery, copied from a genuine document like the divorce decree. The Washington Examiner further points out that Moore includes his middle initial “S” in many signed documents, but not the yearbook.

Handwriting experts say it is essential to examine the actual yearbook. Inks can be analyzed and dated, the imprint left by the pen can be measured for consistency and other factors can be evaluated to allow for a more conclusive determination regarding the signature’s veracity. Judge Moore would likely not have demanded to see the document if he were worried about that.

For her part meanwhile, Gloria Allred has stalled and maneuvered in an effort to withhold the yearbook from the Moore team. She said she would be willing to have the document examined only in a Senate hearing, “within the next two weeks,” something unlikely to occur. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Allred repeatedly refused to deny the signature was a forgery. When Blitzer asked if she would make the yearbook available if the Senate did not agree to a hearing, she said, “We think that this should be done in a professional setting, and this is what we have proposed, and we are not going to be distracted…”

In other words, no.

While there may be other questions about some of the allegations, it has always seemed suspicious that, given Moore’s controversial character and the Left’s repeated efforts to destroy him over the years, these allegations would have surfaced long ago if they had any validity.

Instead, we have an October – or in this case November – surprise, exploding in headlines mere weeks before this critical election, when the Left and establishment Republicans both want to see Moore go down in flames and called for him to drop out of the race almost as soon as the allegations hit the airwaves. Rush Limbaugh has called it “a multi-faceted search and destroy mission,” a coded message to Steve Bannon from the establishment that he is not going to have his way without a fight.