Republican Civil War Part 1 Revised

I haven’t posted in a while, and re-reading the original Republican Civil War Part 1 was rather confusing therefore requires a revisions to make it better structured and easier to understand.

As I highlighted previously, the Republican Party isn’t of one mind and body. This dynamic is summarily examined here.

To summarize

Today’s Republicans’ leadership are made up of Bush Republicanism, Neocons, and Social Conservative proponents who makeup the Progressive Republican wing of the Republican Party. To attempt unifying the Republican Party’s base support factions, they broaden their appeal through bracketing Republican Party’s support into three primary brackets being conservatives (fiscal conservatives), social conservatives (Bible Belt), and moderate conservatives.

Their political goals

What Progressive Republicans advocate by policy structure-catalyst:
-Governmental fiefdoms, public-private partnerships, and public-private mergers.
-Guilty Until Proven Innocent-Guilty By Association Justice System that is only compatible with civil privileges not civil rights.
-Expansionist Foreign Policy predominantly promoted by Hawkish rather than Dovish justifications.

How they promote their image and brand as the Republican Party

Presently, Republicans’ leadership are seeking to double-down on attempting to unite their rank and file support factions for:
-Promote globalization to justify military adventurism and seek to militarily enforce maintaining the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency status.
-Promote guilty until proven guilty-guilty by association under “security-public safety”.
-Butter up the entire affair as a Bible Belt prerogative.

As the W. Bush administration legally argued for justifying the Patriot Act and other Post-9/11 measures, ‘these policies are necessary to ensure the national security and public safety to sustain open borders”. Open Borders are historically catalyzed by guilty until proven innocent Justice System such as demographic profiling through criminal statistics of demographics to profile suspects based. What this does is treat associations including genetic associations as “probable cause”.

Now, what is guilty by association? It is the accusation of knowing someone who conducts “unacceptable” or “non-sanctioned” attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors marks one’s self as an conducting one’s self in an unacceptable manner. This is also known as profiling.

1. The use of data compiled about people who have committed criminal offenses in the effort to describe or identify the most likely suspects in a particular crime: criminal profiling; psychological profiling.
2. The use of racial, economic, ethnic, or other characteristics by law enforcement as the basis of determining whom to search or investigate on suspicion of criminal activity.

Such as the Moore V Jones election cycle was predominated by sexual misconduct allegations in which proponents focused on the credibility or “believable” claims of the accusations resulting in Moore being condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Here are articles from the original Part 1

“I would say unless he can prove his innocence, the burden is now on him within the next day or so, I believe he has to step down. He owes it to himself, he owes it to the state and and he owes it to the U.S. Senate,” King said on MSNBC.

There’s no getting around it. A great number of conservatives and populists feel tempted to support Roy Moore in his Senate bid, despite the increasingly credible accusations of his acting like a total creep with teenage girls.


1. Capable of being believed; believable or plausible: a credible witness; a credible explanation. See Synonyms at plausible.
2. Considered capable of achieving a goal: The party must nominate a credible candidate for governor.
3. Being of sufficient military capability to deter an attack or carry out an operation successfully: credible military force.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

A statute of limitations (SOL) sets the amount of time a victim or prosecutor has to file a lawsuit. Typically, if you file a lawsuit after the SOL expires, your case will be dismissed. Alabama has very different criminal and civil sexual abuse statutes of limitations.

Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Abuse

Unfortunately, Alabama has some of the shortest sexual abuse statutes of limitations in the United States. A civil sexual abuse case must be filed within:

  • In childhood sexual abuse cases, two years from the victim’s 19th birthday, or
  • Two years from the event in adult sexual abuse cases.

Here’s additional information from that link

Criminal Cases for Sexual Abuse

Criminal cases are filed by the State of Alabama on behalf of a victim. In order to file criminal charges, you must notify law enforcement of the sexual abuse. The authorities will investigate your claims and a prosecutor may file charges against your abuser.

Although the civil SOL is very short, Alabama gives prosecutors a lot of time to file violent or childhood sexual abuse charges. The criminal statutes of limitations vary depending on the severity of the offense. The criminal statutes of limitations include:

  • No statute of limitations: rape, violent sexual abuse, sexual abuse with the threat of violence, and any sexual abuse of a victim under the age of 16,
  • Other felony sexual abuse: three years, and
  • Misdemeanor abuse: one year.

Now, here is a legality examination

As it was in 1979, the legal age of consent in Alabama is 16. Alabama law says a person commits the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree if he is older than 19 and subjects another person between the ages of 12 and 16 to sexual conduct. The first offense is a Class A misdemeanor, subject to up to a year in jail and a $6,000 fine; subsequent offenses committed within a year are Class C felonies, with sentences ranging from a year to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $15,000.

Leigh Corfman claims Moore had sexual contact with her when she was 14 and he was 32. Beverly Young Nelson alleges the then-Assistant District Attorney assaulted her in 1977 when she was 16.

At the time, the statute of limitations for bringing felony charges involving sexual abuse of a minor would have expired three years after the alleged incidents, or sometime between 1980 and 1983. Neither Corfman nor Jones filed a police report after the alleged incidents and no charges were ever brought against Moore.

Alabama law was later changed to remove the statute of limitations for “any sex offense involving a victim under 16 years of age.” However, the change only applied to crimes committed before Jan. 7, 1985 -years after the alleged Moore incidents- for which there were no existing statute of limitations law, meaning Moore couldn’t be brought up on criminal charges now in connection to sexual abuse charges from 1977 to 1979.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

Now, what does this mean? It means “credible” meaning believable or plausible accusations such as criminal statistics of demographics that includes age, race/ethnic background, class, and environment/location are sufficient plausible suspicion of guilt and guilt by association requiring intervention or preventive action such as Moore should step down or Senate Ethics Investigation for conduct not of a sitting Senator but rather Senate-Elect should have Moore won the Special Election.

Now consider Baltimore Police accused a Baltimore Neighborhood under suspicion over an officer shooting in the neighborhood through the association of “location”

“They’ve been to my house three times asking, ‘Did you hear anything? Do you know anything,’” said Edward Stanley, showing a yellow slip of paper that he is required to present to police in order to get into his partner’s Franklin Street rowhouse.

“The other murders – like that little girl killed two months ago right up the block – you didn’t see anything like this,” Stanley fumed.

Two women walking down Franklin Street to get to their cars, parked blocks away because of the lockdown, complained that they had been harassed by officers.

… “They know I live here. They’ve seen me come and go. But this one had to pat me down. He [the officer] went like this to my jacket, grabbing it,” said Shelly, 25, who asked that her last name not be used.

“They wanted to know where I had been. Why do I have to tell him that? It’s just me in my flip-flops trying to go to my own home.”

“We haven’t been able to get our mail for four days,” said the woman with her, Samantha, 50, who also asked not be identified. “Is the city going to pay the late fees on my bills?”

“It’s so sad what happened to the officer and I hope they catch whoever did it,” another woman said. “But this is really overboard. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Police initially said they needed to cordon off the area to try to capture the shooter. Police have said Suiter was in the 900 block of Bennett Place, investigating a previous homicide, when he was shot on Wednesday. So far, no arrests have been announced in the case.

This morning, homicide detective Mike Newton told The Brew that the lockdown was necessary to collect evidence.

“It’s basically still an active crime scene,” said Newton, who carried a stack of informational fliers advertising a $215,000 reward for information leading to an arrest.

Baltimore Police announced today that they “will be releasing the crime scene and breaking down its perimeter in the Harlem Park community tomorrow morning.”

… “While the search for a killer is, of course, a high priority for the police, the limits on lawful police behavior do not disappear even when engaged in that pursuit,” Rocah added.

the practice of categorizing people and predicting their behaviour according to particular characteristics such as race or age: racial profiling.

the use of specific characteristics, as race or age, to make generalizations about a person, as whether he or she may be engaged in illegal activity.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

Now, what is predicting their behavior? It means making an accusation in which profiling using criminal statistics of demographics as age, gender, race/ethnic background, class, and location are deemed both credible suspicion for probable cause.

This is probably the most ironic arguments of the Moore V Jones election cycle given allegedly Sharpio and other contributors to National Review argued in relation to the accusations that first and foremost cannot be tried in the court of law by statute of limitations, and utilized to threaten a Senate Ethics Investigation whose investigation jurisdiction of the accused of misconduct as a Senator.

The first argument: Moore hasn’t been convicted of anything, and due process requires us to consider him innocent until proven guilty. This argument is empty, because our decision to vote for or against a particular candidate doesn’t require due process — Hillary Clinton wasn’t convicted of anything, either, except in the minds of the public. Due process determines whether you go to jail. The public determines whether it thinks politicians ought to be handed power.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

Sharpio is specifically stating under the basis no one in the Baltimore PD’s implementation went to jail would fall under the narrowed argument designed to bypass that the Moore accusations cannot be tried in court by statute of limitations. From an alleged Limited Government Conservative, this constitutes a major pivot or flipflop of position.

Due Process is where accusations are proven beyond all reasonable doubt in both civil cases and criminal cases; the difference is in civil cases another individual or compliments of Corporations are people Corporations must prove the defendant’s guilt. This is what makes Corporations hard to file suit against; it’s a long shot to financially keep pace with the Court system to prove the Corporation guilty.

Ultimately, Sharpio and others advocated the legal arguments within the political realm that the officers made in which the arrest renders resisting arrest or otherwise what’s termed civil disobedience can be now met by potentially lethal force by law enforcement resulting in Garner’s, Gray’s, Brown’s, and etc’s deaths while being placed under arrest under “probable cause” utilized by suspicion or accusation of a crime in progress, committed, or about to be committed. This is a Big Government argument.

The second argument is supposedly pragmatic: Democrats routinely pooh-pooh the crimes and misdeeds of their own candidates, so Republicans would be at a systemic disadvantage if they were to clean their own slate. But this, again, supports the notion that the people can’t be trusted — that the people will overlook crimes in order to get what they want. More commonly, scandal-ridden candidates end up on the outs with voters. Just ask Hillary.

Finally, there’s the third argument, which is the most honest and also the most morally horrifying: David Horowitz’s argument that Democrats are so disgusting that even if Moore did it, he wouldn’t care, because the Democrats must be stopped. This binary thinking would justify a vote for anyone who votes the right way on legislation; President Trump could have literally shot someone on Fifth Avenue, and Horowitz would have supported him. In this view, character doesn’t matter at all and we aren’t destroying the social fabric of the country when we prize policy outcomes over basic decency. In fact, the Horowitz angle holds that basic decency can be ensured only by desired policy outcomes: All that matters is politics.

In Sharpio’s zeal to condemn Moore for statutory rape some States in lieu thereof use child molestation or corruption of a minor respectively omits the second argument was Republicans being accused of racism, sexism that through the war on women includes sexual misconduct, and etc would require largely Republicans to provide “papers” proving their innocence, yet it’s pretty plain had it been such as HW Bush accused of sexual conduct of 8 years or younger during the Reagan era or the sexual misconduct accusations against W. Bush; neither Bush have been demanded to keep their mouths shut in politics or otherwise gave any sign sexual misconduct accusations would be handled the same way as per say Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush were accused. As a result, Sharpio repeated the same argument to grant the appearance of three points. Horowitz’s argument rests in Democrats would circle the wagons to defend their candidate regardless of the accusations except apparently Wiener and Franken thus far.

One would think that an alleged Limited Government Conservative would acknowledge or recognize that statutory rape accusations some States in lieu thereof codifies as child molestation or corruption of a minor respectively would research the Criminal History of Moore to determine if Moore’s accusations had been tried in court rather than utilized to form public opinion to conduct governmental overreach as the Baltimore PD shutting down a neighborhood that an officer was shot to investigate or compel an Senate Ethics Investigation whose jurisdiction is misconduct of a Senator. Apparently, this isn’t the case; therefore, Sharpio’s claim as a Limited Government Conservative by action/conduct is only lip service.

If the Senate Ethics Investigation baseline is needed, here are some references that were in the original Part 1

I personally care more for evaluating history of policy structures and catalysts than rhetoric including the back and forth attacks and counterattacks:

1). Research both candidate’s policy histories.
2). Research both candidate’s policy proposals.
3). Determine which is more likely to occur in office if the history and proposals or financial interests do not match up of both candidates.
4). Both candidates criminal histories.
5). If you’re still on the fence, take accusations into account.

This is Sharpio’s article after Moore’s loss to Jones

The president did something incredible, but his tactics don’t work against candidates who aren’t Hillary Clinton.

But Trump truly won not because he was a stellar candidate — far from it — but because Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate. And this means not only that his dragonslaying isn’t duplicable, but also that other candidates with similarly shady backgrounds who attempt to imitate him will end up failing dramatically.

(Bold Emphasis Mine)

Perhaps, the truest statement in the entire affair given even 2016 Primary Exit Polls favored Sanders over even Trump among those who stated that they voted Trump in the primary. It just means Sanders running against Trump in 2016 general election would have made Sanders President if the exit polls of the primary are any indication. It also means several Sanders’ supporters and PACs wouldn’t have crossed the aisle.

We learned that last night in Alabama, where Roy Moore lost an unlosable Senate race in a state that just three years ago went 97 percent for an unopposed Senator Jeff Sessions, who gave up his seat to become Trump’s much-maligned attorney general. Moore ran the worst campaign in recent memory, and he lost because of it. Republicans weren’t going to show up in droves to vote for a man credibly accused of child molestation, a fellow who deployed his campaign spokespeople to explain that Muslims can’t sit in Congress and that homosexuals ought to wind up in prison.

Alabama is a Red-State by its popular vote; it does not mean that its seat is guaranteed to be Republican. Moore was out-maneuvered by Jones and the RNC who didn’t want the Republican Party’s brand and image associated with Moore; despite, Moore running on the Republican ticket.

Clearly, Democrats hate Republicans and Republicans hate Democrats is not sufficient to hold an alleged “impregnable Republican seat”, which is pretty much what Sharpio and others are stating.

In order to win an election at the State level, the candidate must win their Party’s voters, Independents, and cross over votes from the opposing Party or Parties. Moore pretty much attacked in all directions that is in fact an attack in no direction, so it’s no real surprise that he lost.

Republicans can learn their lesson now or they can take their lumps later.

Republican Leadership and their intellectual “fluffers” continue to believe that they can use Trump’s Presidency to pass Republican leadership’s GOP agenda to sell as Trump’s agenda while also utilizing Trump’s faults to promote their preferred candidates. I guess that it’s better in their view celebrate how poorly a candidate Clinton was for Trump to win the 2016 election cycle that heavily favored Sanders given it was the cross overs that pushed Michigan and Ohio popular votes to elect Trump over Clinton continues to fail to take into consideration in compare/contrast to Cruz, Kasich, Bush, and Rubio Republican Leadership would not have swayed Sanders supporters who crossed the aisle for them to win the States as Michigan and Ohio for a Cruz, Kasich, Bush, or Rubio Presidency.

As usual Republican leadership wants “rules for thee but not for me”.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s