Why the Historical Perspective Gives Some Credence to Defense of Judge Roy Moore

By Alan W. Cohen

November 15, 2017

As commentators like Sean Hannity demand explanations for so called inconsistencies in the statements of Judge Roy Moore in defense of recent allegations, it would serve them best to understand that they are making the same mistake as those that wish to destroy Civil War monuments or to disregard George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as slave holders. I am an amatuer historian, author and former attorney who, in my research and writings, had to force myself to look back at the past, especially in my area of family law, with the proper perspective, and see the world from their point of view.

It’s called Zeitgeist. It is the common mistake in looking at a situation in today’s perspective rather than in the context of the times it occurred. Let me begin by saying that I am no fan of Judge Roy Moore. I would have preferred Mo Brooks, but I live in Missouri, and not Alabama, and I have no say. The first time I heard Judge Moore speak was on the Mark Levin program before the primary. Like many of his listeners, and I think Mark himself, Judge Moore came off as an inarticulate boob, married to a past that I cannot relate. The first time I ever heard of Judge Roy Moore was when he challenged the federal authority to demand he remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse. At the time, I accepted the meme that he was just a crazy old man. Looking back now, in his challenge of federal authority over local rule, we could almost say that he was a man ahead of his time as federal overreach has, shall we say, reached epidemic levels.

Zeitgeist has also reached epidemic levels in America today. So let’s look at what appears to be inconsistent statements and put them into the appropriate context. This was the 1970s in a rural state. It was a time not far removed from Elvis Presley picking out his bride at the tender age of 14 or even Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 14-year-old cousin.  But that is hardly the point. This was a time when parents could not wait to marry off their daughters to the most eligible bachelor, for their marriage meant wealth and comfort, not just for her, but for the entire family. Roy Moore was the Beatles in Alabama. He was a veteran. He was a Christian. He was smart, successful and had a bright future. Parents of young girls were probably throwing them at him and begging him to choose them as their wives. Think Tzeitel in Fiddler on the Roof. In most of America, up until and perhaps through the 1960s, it was common for girls to marry straight out of high school. Their entire future was bent on their choice of husband. And they had only one shot, as divorce was social suicide and widowhood might have been even worse. For those want to bes, wealth and power was, and, has always been, quite alluring, and Mrs. Roy Moore would have all of those trappings.

Roy Moore graduated from high school in the tiny town of Attalia, Alabama, in 1965, apparently unencumbered and unattached. He attended West Point and, upon graduation, was a company commander to a military police unit in Vietnam. After his service, in 1974, he be began law school at the University of Alabama. Still apparently without a steady girlfriend, he started his career as an assistant prosecutor in 1977. If he were then looking for a wife, the commodities would have been picked over and his best chance for a quality spouse would have come from those that were of soon to be marrying age, or just turned marrying age. Remember Bye Bye Birdie for a moment. In an era when most girls married out of high school, it was their goal to, in the word of the song, pick out a boy and train him. That picking out would be done before the age of 16 and the training would have been in full force. Roy Moore escaped this fate, but also missed his best chance of finding a life mate.

Thus, after graduating from law school, Roy Moore would have had a hard time finding a suitable mate, especially if was looking for a woman who could match his intellect. When he completed law school, less than 20 percent of women graduated from college nationwide, probably fewer that came from Alabama. Seven years after his graduation from law school, in 1985, Roy Moore married then 24-year-old old Kayla Kisor. He was 38. Although the length of their courtship is unknown, Kayla was a former model and runner up to both Miss Alabama and Miss Alabama World. A college graduate herself, she come from a politically powerful Alabama family. This match illustrates his star status, as well as his value as a mate. All of proper Alabama would have approved. And, if history is any guide, Kayla would have been the driving force in his political career, and would remain so today. Seven years after their marriage, Roy Moore became Judge Roy Moore of the 16th Judicial Circuit Court. The rest is, they say, is history.

So let’s look at this from in the context of Roy Moore’s explanation. From today’s perspective, especially given his inarticulate nature, it seems inconsistent and even confusing. But when he said it was not common practice of him to date a girl of 17, it would have depended on the situation with her parents. Three of the women that came out early last week told the Washington Post reporter that Roy Moore was perfect gentleman, and he said that he would not date them without the permission of their parents. This statement is consistent with the times, as opposed to some commentators who describe the behavior as disgusting. For those, it is important to remember the times. This is not Bill Clinton exposing himself to Paula Jones. This is a man who is the most eligible bachelor around, a man who didn’t need to find girls. He was inundated with them.

This brings me to the two accusers of assault. If a vulture like Gloria Allred is involved, we immediately doubt its veracity. But let’s also look at the circumstances of then assistant prosecuting attorney Roy Moore. If he was indeed the most eligible bachelor, why would he have any interest in a 14-year-old when so many adult women were more than willing to attach themselves to him? Despite his pretentious nature, he was in the service and was certainly no virgin. This was a time when it was acceptable for public officials to engage with those in the oldest profession. And it’s not like Moore was a rock star and was so stoned he couldn’t tell the difference in the age of his groupie. But the strange thing is that this first accuser found herself with Roy Moore not once, but twice. Was there more context to that story? Seeing your life 40 years back is hardly a clear event, and easily subject to suggestion.  Was she really 14? Did her parents hold her out as older than she was just to make him interested? It’s altogether possible. This would not excuse the context of the sexual touching, but that, in itself, makes little self. If he were a pervert, would it really have stopped with clothes on? If he was a pervert, wouldn’t there be scores of women coming out ala Harvey Weinstein?

The second accuser appears to be high school student, and her allegations just don’t seem credible given the timing and her choice of counsel. She makes these claims at a time that people are more than willing to believe the statements of any accuser, especially when the target is so hot for the taking. Yet, as Mark Levin had said, if any man had touched my daughter in that way, given the age differences, and even if I had lived in that era, he would either suffer my personal wrath or that of the law. In rural Alabama, perhaps a shotgun might have been that tool. Either way, it would not have been silent, even if were just the quiet whispers of polite society. Roy Moore was not Ted Kennedy, or even Bill Clinton. Everyone in Democrat politics knew of their antics and measured them against what they could gain for the party. Judge Roy Moore has been public life almost 40 years and has been one of America’s most controversial figures. Yet, up until last week, there was never a small town rumor of these claims. I agree with Mark Levin that the timing of the story is suspicious and certainly came from opposition research, and not good investigative reporting. It certainly is not as clear as Mitch McConnell and the Swamp want it to be, especially when you eliminate the Zeitgeist and give it historical perspective.

It is up to the people of Alabama to measure his past and forthrightness against these recent accusations and to judge for themselves. That was Sean Hannity’s opinion up until yesterday. The people of Alabama know him best. Again, he would not be my choice, but it is high time that we just stopped regurgitating and started listening to the only opinions that count. They will make their decision on election day.

Alan W. Cohen is a blogger, retired family law attorney, and author. His most recent books, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce (2017) and America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century (2015) are available on Amazon.

Some Previous blogs:

Memo to Mark Levin: Article V Convention of States Has One Big Caveat

Simple Health Care Solution Pits Capitalism Against Socialism

Memo to Elite Media from Mid-America: We Don’t Care! So, Shut Up Already!

America at a Crossroads: Embrace Freedom, or Accept Totalitarianism

Can Millennials Save Marriage in America? Studies Say Yes.

Why Libertorian?

Comments:

alan@privatevows.com

 

Austin Peterson’s Narrow Path to Becoming Missouri’s Next Senator

By Alan W. Cohen

Three days after Josh Hawley announced his bid for the Republican nomination for senator to oppose Claire McCaskill in the Trumpland known as Missouri, mainstream news organizations were already measuring his chances for victory in the general election. For more than a month after Austin Peterson announced his bid, those same news organizations claimed no one had emerged on the Republican side to challenge McCaskill. It was if he were never there, that he did not exist. And that is exactly where Mitch McConnell and the mainstream media want him.

Yet, Judge Roy Moore’s victory in Alabama gives Peterson hope. McConnell and his cohorts in the Establishment outspent Moore in their primary by more than ten to one, attempting to whitewash him as anti-Trump, while at the same time claiming their establishment clone, Luther Strange, was a Trump supporter. They didn’t fool the voters, and Moore won handily thanks to help of Mark Levin and his fellow conservatives. Alabama is much like Missouri in one respect. Donald Trump won the state by double digits. And, in its Republican primary, Alabamans continued a two-year wave of anti-establishment fervor in voting against Strange as much as they voted in favor of Moore. Of course, Moore, a highly controversial figure in his willingness to take a stand in federal government overreach, was a well-known public figure.

That is Austin Peterson’s first big problem. Name recognition. Yet, being known is not enough. It is what he is known for. Peterson not only needs to be viewed as a valid candidate, but as the anti-establishment candidate. Historically, Peterson is facing the same dilemma as the Founding Fathers. He is up against steep odds, facing a vastly organized and heavily financed machine bell bent on keeping him irrelevant.. Heck, a St. Louis County millionaire kingmaker selected Hawley as the establishment candidate in the public square at least a month before Hawley even formed a committee.

Peterson must draw on true Conservatives like Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and especially Steve Bannon. Yet, they have limited resources and are not going to waste their time and money on someone who cannot win. He must have develop a winning strategy. So here is my proposed gameplan for Austin Peterson:

  1. Go on the offensive against Hawley immediately. Unlike Strange, who was already a Senator, Hawley is not that well known himself, having won only one statewide election. Poll the Republican electorate and get a pulse on how the electorate feels about Hawley. I am willing to be that there is no opinion at all. Thus, the time will be ripe to paste him with the reputation of being the insider. Two years ago, former Democrat pollster Pat Caddell saw the anger of the electorate, and predicted Trump’s victory on Fox News on a weekly Sunday evening show on a regular basis. McConnell and the establishment still don’t get it. They are beholden to their donors and disdain their voters. Bob Corker spoke for all of them. They hate Donald Trump. When Josh Hawley took up the mantle of the establishment candidate, he could very well have doomed his candidacy. It is up to Peterson to attack this weakness, and, in doing so, create his own name recognition as the candidate willing to slay the lion.
  2. Be the Conservative. Peterson needs to paint himself as a combination of Missouri’s favorite Senators, Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Paul is the smart one, the tactician that was the architect of President Trump’s new Obamacare cutbacks. Peterson is a brilliant scholar, but being brilliant is not enough. Missouri Republicans must view him as the savior, a Swamp drainer, a person they can truly trust to keep their promises. Missourians are very aware of pretenders like Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse and Bob Corker. Be Mike Lee. Be Ted Cruz. Be Rand Paul.
  3. Avoid the Libertarian Label. Even though Conservatives like Sean Hannity proclaim themselves as Libertarians, voters see it as a negative when it comes to politics. Two years ago, I attended the Libertarian Party statewide event in Columbia expecting to find hundreds of fellow thinkers, only to find a dozen attendees, most focusing on the legalization of marijuana.  That’s how Missourians see the Libertarian party. Peterson has already begun the process in establishing himself as anti-abortion. But that is not enough. Missourians are common sense Conservatives who care most about their pocketbook and their personal freedom.
  4. Be a Common Man. Missourians feel much like those Jews in Anatevka in Fiddler on the Roof.  When asked about a prayer for the Tsar, the rabbi thought and said: “God bless and keep the Tsar …. far away from us!” So, for Peterson, my advice is keep it simple. You are anti-government, especially anti-federal government. Be that person, not the esoteric thinker who wrote policy papers. We all know that you would best Josh Hawley in an IQ test. But Hawley is a great pretender, a man who was able to reach enough voters to obtain the Republican nomination for Attorney General in the last election. And, again while few people even know Josh Hawley, fewer know you. Thus, while Hawley has already donned the label of the establishment, you have time to go out among the people and be that common man. Sean Hannity likes to say that the last election was about the forgotten man. Be the savior. Listen to farmers and ranchers as well as city folk. Talk the talk. Listen and learn.
  5. Avoid Roy Blunt. Talk about your insiders. I met Roy Blunt’s father more than 35 years ago when I was a journalism student at Mizzou and he was campaigning in a highly Democrat district that was my beat. I followed his career closely, and then of his son. Greene County Republicans protect that name regardless of insider status. No doubt that he will endorse Josh Hawley and support his nomination. But Roy Blunt is not that popular outside of Greene County, and his coattails are highly suspect. Nevertheless, crossing him is a very bad idea. So the best choice is to ignore his existence.
  6. Take Advantage of the McCaskill plan. In 2006, Claire McCaskill rode the wave of Obama supporters to a narrow victory. In 2012, she was supposed to be done, a supporter of Obama, a left-wing extremist in a right leaning state. The Republican field was full of possible contenders and was Nixonest in her thinking, taking out all but the one that she wanted to run against, Todd Akin, an uncouth redneck who was susceptible to the attacks from her friends in the left-wing media. His comments on abortion and rape ended his bid, and he became the butt of jokes nationwide. As soon as  the donors chose Hawley, she went on the offensive against him. She will ignore you because she thinks, as the establishment does, that you have no chance. And there is little to gain by attacking her directly. Just focus on Congress and the establishment and how they don’t care about the common man, how Hawley will only be another crony. Missourian’s know that McCaskill and how her clan got rich on the taxpayer’s dime, how she is corrupt. Save that for the general.

So good luck Austin Peterson. I look forward to meeting you at the Student’s for Liberty conference on October 14.

Alan W. Cohen is a retired attorney and author. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University (St. Louis) School of Law.  His books include (2017) Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce and (2015) America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century.

Previous blogs:

How the Conservative/Libertarian Media Revolution Can Save America from McConnell and his Washington Cartel

Health Care Compromise: Exempt States with 6 or Fewer Insurers

Three Important Lessons I Learned From Mark Levin’s Rediscovering Americanism

Memo to Mark Levin: Article V Convention of States Has One Big Caveat

 

Memo to Mark Levin: Article V Convention of States Has One Big Caveat

By Alan W. Cohen

Watch out Mark Levin. It has all happened before. The author and conservative radio host has begun a movement under Article V of the Constitution to create a convention of states to amend the constitution to strip the federal government of much of its ill-gotten gains, gains that have diluted freedom from the individual and authority from the states. On his radio show of October 10, 2017, a caller warned him that the federal courts are lurking in the shadows, waiting to override any sweeping changes the convention might pass. In response, Levin was confident that the states would prevail.

Yet, that is exactly what happened with the Fourteenth Amendment, and we still have not recovered almost 150 years later. As I explain in much greater detail in my latest book, Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, the Civil War ended with a great Republican majority passing a series of Amendments, each with their own purpose. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery. The Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote. But the Fourteenth Amendment had another, more profound, purpose.

As Mr. Levin explains in great detail in his most recent book, Rediscovering Americanism (please see the link to my review at the end of this blog), the Founders of our nation believed, and declared it in 1776, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. And, with all due respect to those morons on MSNBC and CNN, those rights predated, and are the basis for, the Constitution. That is because we are all individuals, individuals that banded together to protect the rights of other individuals. Yet, somewhere along the line, our nation changed from being a republic to being a democracy. Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett explains that when the Founders created the Constitution, it was based on the Declaration of Independence, and that the preamble said it all. We the People means we the people as a collection of individuals, not of the majority. Unfortunately, a movement began, less than 25 years later, to justify slavery, a movement that became the Jacksonian Democracy. Levin calls it mobocracy. Barnett calls it the Democratic Constitution. A key illustration is this phenomenon is the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, an act that empowered the citizens of those states to vote on whether to enslave a minority of their peers.

The Supreme Court signed onto the Jacksonian Democracy in 1833, the year after Jackson’s landslide victory over Henry Clay for his second term. Here I will invoke the name of a person that Mr. Levin detests as a bigot, a racist and an anti-Semite: Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. Despite his serious flaws, Justice Black proposed in a dissenting opinion in 1948 that we lost our republic in 1833 with the case of Baron ex rel. Tierman v. Mayor of Baltimore, where the Supreme Court declared that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, but only to actions of the federal government. Black suggests that Chief Justice John Marshall was just a bit dishonest in his four-page opinion, a sparse writing of what was one the most important decisions of the century. In fact, as I explain in Private Vows, Marshall was scared, and had good reason to be. President Jackson was a scoundrel, and had recently refused to abide by a Supreme Court opinion protecting the Cherokee leading to the infamous Trail of Tears. Until Jackson came onto the scene, Marshall had carefully fostered the Supreme Court’s authority to override legislation and executive actions through the power of judicial review. Marshall anxiously wanted to preserve his gains, and knew to tread carefully to avoid Jackson’s wrath.

The real question in Baron was whether the federal courts had the authority to enforce the inalienable rights recognized in the Declaration, the rights of the individual against the authority of the state or local government that was violating those rights. That same question is with us today. In a dissenting opinion in 2000, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed with fellow Justice Clarence Thomas that the Constitution preserves those inalienable rights within the Ninth Amendment, but refused to enforce them because the Constitution did not specifically provide for a remedy. The question for Justice Scalia then, as with Chief Justice Marshall in 1833, is this: What good are rights if there is no place to enforce them? According to Justice Black, Marshall adeptly sidestepped the issue, and for good reason. As I explain in Private Vows, if the federal courts had the authority to enforce inalienable rights against state or local governments in 1833, slaves would have been coming in droves to seek redress and there would have been a civil war. Since Marshall sidestepped the issue, the Court could not enforce Dred Scott’s claims for freedom only a few years later, an event that ironically led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans that Marshall had so greatly sought to avoid. After the Civil War, according to Justice Black, it fell on Congress to right the wrong of Baron and restore the Republic, and individual liberty, with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, making it clear that individuals did indeed have a right to redress of state and local violations of their individual rights in the federal courts (as well as in the state courts).

There was one big problem. The Supreme Court was filled with Jacksonians who refused to comply with Congress’ mandate even if it was the will of the required number of states. In the infamous Slaughter-House Cases in 1873, the Court all but nullified the Fourteenth Amendment by calling it just an anti-slavery amendment:

The constitutional provision there alluded to did not create those rights, which it called privileges and immunities of citizens of the States. It threw around them in that clause no security for the citizen of the State in which they were claimed or exercised. Nor did it profess to control the power of the State governments over the rights of its own citizens

Thus began more than a century of state control over the individual so vast that individual freedom was all but lost, freedom that the Founders intended, freedom that we still don’t have today. Soon after The Slaughter-House Cases, the Supreme Court affirmed state policies based on eugenics, justifying discriminatory laws and, as a means of enforcing them, created out of thin air, as I explain in Private Vows, a justification for state regulation of marriage and divorce. As Levin explains in Rediscovering Americanism, this statist thinking became the fodder for the socialists, the so called Progressives as a means for controlling the masses. It inspired the ever Progressive Woodrow Wilson to re-segregate the entire federal government during his first term of office. It empowered the KKK to rule with a violence, ending black lives on the spot just for the crime of not being white.

Thus, the lesson for Mark Levin and his followers is that that an Amendment to the Constitution is not enough. We have to fill the Supreme Court with those willing to enforce it. While, as with the Trump travel ban, we cry over the illegal nature of the Ninth Circuit and other federal courts, those actions pale in comparison to the 19th Century and a Supreme Court that was hell bent to undo the Union victory, to preserve and restore the Jacksonian Democracy. and to preserve racial and religious discrimination.

Alan W. Cohen practiced law for more than 25 years before retiring. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism and the Washington University School of Law.  Besides Private Vows, he is also the author of America Solved: A New Family for the 21st Century, as well as several other books on family law.

Recent Blogs:

Three Important Lessons I Learned From Mark Levin’s Rediscovering Americanism

How the Conservative/Libertarian Media Revolution Can Save America from McConnell and his Washington Cartel

Time to End Slavery-like NFL Draft According to Odell Beckham, Jr.

Celebrate America’s Birthday With A True Civics Lesson From Mark Levin

Simple Health Care Solution Pits Capitalism Against Socialism

 

How the Conservative/Libertarian Media Revolution Can Save America from McConnell and his Washington Cartel

By Alan W. Cohen

It would be John McCain’s biggest nightmare. It would be an equivalent blow to the mainstream media, and particularly Mitch McConnell. What if Republicans only nominate those who meet the approval of Conservative and Libertarian media? Each candidate must meet a basic litmus test. If elected, they will be under constant scrutiny of those that supported them. That would mean, gasp, honesty in politics.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz tells us he was shocked to find out that 95 percent of what his colleagues did in the Swamp was to work for their re-election, and their morbid fear of destruction in the mainstream media, particularly the Washington Post, the New York Times and the major networks. Yet, Mark Levin’s CRTV and other social media sites have stepped in to fill a void that Fox News has failed to do, to teach Americanism. Now,   perhaps for the first time in more than a century, Americans want to know how the Founders would have seen this issue or that, whether their view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence might apply to a particular issue.  We tune in to Rush or Levin or even Hannity,  who collectively take a machete to the D.C. jungle to clear a path for us to see right and wrong.

Yet, it’s not enough just to complain about it. Rush, who has worked for decades to establish a Republican majority, can barely believe his ears (no offense intended) as he hears about their refusal to tow the capitalist line and adopt Progressivism (a/k/a Socialism).  Hannity screeches his despondence on a daily basis. His show so depressing that its hard to listen without wanting to throw yourself off the nearest highrise in utter despair. Levin gives us perspective. All agree that the Republican Party is a joke. We cannot trust the label. Politicians are addicts, but instead of cocaine or heroin or opium, they are addicted to power. And with any other addict, you know when they are lying don’t you? When they open their mouths. They will say anything and do anything to maintain their addiction. And, as long as cronies like Mitch McConnell are the pushers, we have no prayer. Imagine the Senate as a huge opium den, filled with stoners sucking from the public teat.  The temptation is overwhelming for most, and going straight might result in utter destruction, if not their political death. McConnell runs the D.C. cartel and has the keys to the Senate stash that bankrolls Senate campaigns, and to maintain his power, a power he uses to attack anyone that might be a threat, particularly Freedom Caucus associate member Mo Brooks who is running for the Senate in Alabama, and anyone who might dare to support him.  Why? Because Brooks would join true believers Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee, three men who have refused to indulge in McConnell’s treason.  Mark Levin openly endorses Brooks on his radio show, and is urging Alabamans to reject McConnell and his arrogance and audacity to tell them who they should select as their Senator.

Yet, McConnell’s fears are real, and his destruction might be at hand. Last week, John McCain went on the mainstream to instruct his fellow Republicans to stop listening to “the bombastic loudmouths” on talk radio or other Conservative media. I don’t know if McCain is just that stupid, swamp infested, or is so addicted to power that he doesn’t get the fact that we don’t watch or listen to the mainstream media who have moved so far left that they actually walk in circles. Doesn’t he read the polls? Republican voters trust politicians more than they do the mainstream media, that is about 2 percent of the time. God knows, the networks even skew the weather forecast to spin their craziness on so called climate change. So, the only way that we even know that John McCain said what he did about talk radio is from … da da da da … Conservative media. What a dipshit. Sorry for that language, but there is no other word to describe McCain. I would say brain damaged, but that would be cutting it too close to the heart considering his present health condition. So, I’ll stick with dipshit. Sorry.

So, how do we keep these elected officials on the straight and narrow? How do we keep them out of McConnell’s opium den, and eventually close it down.  Two ways. First, taking from Bernie Sanders, we select only candidates that refuse financing from large corporations or super PACs. They must rely exclusively on private donations from a website. Second, these candidates must achieve a good review from Levin, who, above all, can grill them on the wisdom of the Founders and instruct them on the evils of Progressivism (a/k/a/ Marxism). A perfect candidate is Austin Peterson of Missouri, whose background is solidly in Freedomworks and is truly libertarian in his beliefs. If he survives a primary fight against the RINO candidate (likely Josh Hawley the state AG), Peterson would be the perfect foil for left of left #FireClaire McCaskill who, after due consideration, might not even run considering Donald Trump won the state by double digits.

But I digress. Political action groups give number or letter grades to candidates. Conservative and Libertarian media should do the same. We need a ten issue litmus test that they must promise to abide, or else. And, if, once elected, they might stumble into the opium den, well, then we call them out. It will take time, but sooner or later we will end up with legislators who are dedicated public servants, dedicated to the Constitution and their constituents, not to their pocketbooks ala Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders and, of course, the Clintons. But most of all, we will end up with legislators who are faithful to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in a way that the Founders intended, a world of right reason and the Golden Rule, where our only ruler is Natural Law, not a select group of elitists in the never never land that is Washington, D.C. Eventually, if we hold are course, our selected representatives will attain leadership status, where they, like McConnell, would hold the financial key to the D.C. washroom. Only then would we be able to drain the swamp.

Thirty years ago to the day, Rush Limbaugh plowed through the liberal muck and emerged as a national voice. In 1994, he was credited as a motivating force in the Contract for America. And, while that success was short lived, he is now one of many voices that outshine the now quickly dissolving mainstream media’s control of the daily message. With the election of Donald Trump, they have lost both their collective minds and their credibility. They are no longer the gatekeepers to power. Now the Conservative/Libertarian media’s turn at the wheel.

Alan W. Cohen retired after more than 25 years as a family law attorney. Besides this blog, he is also the author of seven books, all available on Amazon.  His latest book is Private Vows: The Case for Ending State Regulation of Marriage and Divorce, a deep dive into unconstitutional state and federal control of the family and its contribution to the destruction of marriage.

Comments:

Email him at: alan@privatevows.com