Ensuring Trump’s Defeat Will Not Guarantee Republican Party’s Resurgence in 2020


As Chris Stirewalt reminded on Fox News last night, there are a handful of influential Republicans who believe having Trump “getting a kick in the pants” would destroy the populist arm of the party and lead to a Republican comeback.  He said they are most likely using the example of 1964 when Goldwater’s defeat led to a power reorganization within the party culminated with Nixon’s victory four years later.


The U.S. and the world of 1964 are not similar to 2016. Back then, the no-win Viet Nam situation virtually assured the Presidential winner of ’64 would not repeat in ’68 — Or why did Johnson shock the world when he announced he would not run in March of ’68?

Secondly, the future of the Supreme Court was not hanging on a precipice as it is now.  Few appointments were expected of the Presidential winner of ’64.  (Thurgood Marshall became Johnson’s only confirmed appointment.)  The Court was already liberal.  However, 1968’s presidential winner, Nixon, eventually made four Court appointments.  They changed its composition from two conservative, five liberal and two moderate to five conservative and four liberal (with the help of one justice, Byron White going from slightly liberal to slightly conservative according to the study). This ratio has remained intact ever since, even with a change in some of the Court’s members and Justice Kennedy’s increasing tendency to be more liberal since this study was done.


1 – Source data from Michael A. Bailey, Georgetown University, June 2012 as posted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices

Looking  at  2016  Plus  Four  Years

Several appointments will likely be required of this election’s winner. The Court’s current 4-4 ratio with one vacancy will definitely change in the next presidential term.  Once the new Court’s personality is established, it will remain unchanged for many years as it will be an even younger Court.

So, if some Republicans get their wish of a Trump defeat, the nation will not benefit EVEN IF they are able to limit a Hillary Administration to a single term. (Only two incumbents running for re-election have been defeated since Herbert Hoover.  Gerald Ford is not included as he was not elected to the position of Vice President, but was appointed and confirmed.)  The damage to the Supreme Court and the nation will already be entrenched before the 2020 election.  Recapturing the White House in that election will mean much less than winning this year’s as far as the safety of our Constitution is concerned.

To the Republican Establishment:  is it REALLY worth being led by pride to derail Donald Trump’s campaign?  Granted, Trump is not the most stellar Republican candidate in many years.  He is still more qualified than Hillary Clinton and her baggage of deceit.  If the Congress remains in Republican control and he chooses a wise Cabinet, things will work out for the civilization we need to protect.  If not, imagine what damage will occur in what will be essentially a  third and possible fourth Obama terms.




Supreme Court’s Logical Decision to Uphold Women’s “Right” to Murder in Texas

In a 5-3 decision released today, the Supreme Court ruled against a Texas law which had two provisions governing abortions in that state.  As much as those of us in the pro-life crowd are understandably disappointed, the ruling makes sense in our self-centered society.

The easy part of the law first.  It required the physician to have hospital admitting rights within thirty miles of his death office.  Texas is a big state with a lot of rural territory.  It’s especially difficult in the western half of the state to be within thirty miles of a hospital.  It would put a very real burden on those wishing to kill an unborn child.  This provision is more appropriate in densely populated areas like New Jersey, Connecticut, Chicago and southern California.

The other section of the Texas law requires abortion “clinics” to be held to the same standards as surgical centers are.  How ridiculous!  These are locations where it’s guaranteed that at least 50% of those entering will die.  Mandating that these places of death have antiseptic  conditions would be like forcing gang members to use only sterile knives and bullets.

Murdering the unborn is nasty business.  Nothing can be done to make it civilized.

Senate Republicans Concede To A “Pro-Choice” Fallacy

The Senate approved a defense bill unanimously on December 4 “with an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., that provides medical coverage for military personnel to obtain abortions at military facilities in the case of rape or incest.” 1  Therefore, are we to conclude that the way to deal with a heinous crime is to kill the innocent?  This was UNANIMOUSLY accepted?  Then it follows that the rapist should be executed, too?  Logic would demand this.

Before I expose one of the obvious errors of the “pro-choice” camp, let me be clear about my pro-life position because it must extend to capital punishment as well.  Killing, except as an unintended outcome of self-defense, is a very serious wrong.  I continue to hope for widespread agreement on this.  A pro-life position must oppose nearly all executions for capital crimes.  Only if an incarcerated criminal is still able to devise and have capital crimes implemented outside of the prison may society even consider execution.  If incarceration prevents new crimes, then it is no longer a self-defense situation, merely revenge.

As Pope John Paul II expressed more fully in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.”   In addition, he wrote, “The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end.” 1


Here’s what the Senate amendment does:  A reprehensible crime has been committed, involving three human beings directly.  We attempt to fix the situation by killing one of the innocents with taxpayer money.  The only possible “crime” attributed to the baby is for simply existing.

By doing so, we are reviving the philosophy which justified lynching in some people’s minds.  For years, white supremacists who took uncontrollable offense because people of color had the audacity to breathe the same air.  At least such killings were illegal back then.  Now, we’re going back to those days by rationalizing that this is different and that the presence of the innocent baby is just too much for us to deal with.  So, we blindly accept the Supreme Court’s Great Mistake of 1973 which declared this form of murder to be legal and make it worse by using money from people of conscience to implement the executions!


True, the lasting emotional pain and disturbances associated with many crimes often go underappreciated.  The effects of the crimes of rape or incest are not confined to the time of the act itself.  While the physical harm may be overcome in a relatively short time, the tormenting memories and fears remain – usually for a lifetime.  (The same long-term anguish is also true for a woman who submits to an abortion, contrary to what Planned Parenthood and other “pro-choice” groups will admit.)

Back to the victim who becomes pregnant.  In a society which does not truly value human life, the woman faces much more than nine months of emotional trauma.  The rejection by an uncaring society adds to her understandable feelings of resentment, unless she has the strong will from great spiritual formation in her life.

If killing the totally innocent baby is still an option to the “pro-choice” individual, please consider this parallel.  Someone commits a robbery and, in addition to the theft, the victim is seriously disabled.  This affects not only the victim, but also close relatives and friends.  This is not a short-term affliction easy to dismiss.  The mental anguish and stress will impact all concerned, possibly for the remainder of the victim’s life.  Who would have the audacity to suggest that everyone’s deep emotional pain (or perhaps inconvenience?) would be taken care of if the disabled victim’s life were ended?

I sincerely hope none of us would want to live in that place.

1 – Steve Weatherbe, National Catholic Register web site, 12/27/2012