Early in the second debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump mentioned the in–the–audience presence of Kathleen Shelton, who in 1975 was raped at aged 12.
Ms. Shelton’s rapists, Thomas Alred Taylor, had Hillary as his defense attorney. In a recently excavated on–the–record interview, an interview which took place in the early 1980’s, Mrs. Clinton laughed at the reduced sentence she was able to procure for Mr. Taylor. Trump made note of this inhumane laughter early in the second debate.
Hillary Clinton knew her defendant, Taylor, was guilty of rape. She reveals this when she tells the reporter, Roy Reed, “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”
The only way that Hillary’s faith in polygraphs could be “forever destroyed” was for Hillary to know the rapist Taylor to be guilty and yet “pass” the polygraph.
First, in defending a rapist she knew was guilty, Hillary did something inconsistent with her ostensible mission to advocate for women and children. It cannot be moral for a private attorney—who claims to be a tireless advocate for women and children—to intentionally defend a rapist of a 12 year old girl when one knows that the rapist is guilty.
Second, Hillary accomplished her defense of Taylor in such a full–throated attack on Kathleen that Hillary essentially prosecuted the victim, Kathleen Shelton.
Third, sometime in the early 1980’s when this interview with Taylor was held, Clinton managed to laugh at the result of the cruel courtroom attack she leveled on the 12 year old victim. Surely Hillary’s assault felt like a legal rape to young Kathleen Shelton. One would have hoped that over the decade or so of interleaving years between the trial and the interview that Mrs. Clinton would have felt pangs of conscience for her above two immoral behaviors against Kathleen and would have developed heartfelt compassion for Kathleen. But Hillary’s laugh suggests otherwise.
Conscience–Resistance and Political Organization
In previous articles describing the theological bent of Democrats and LGBT Islamophiles, we saw the organization of political collectives to be predominately structured around the religious theme of mutual conscience–resistance:
You support me in my conscience–resistance, and I’ll support you in your conscience–resistance. Then we’ll align with other resistors to support a whole bunch of conscience–resistance like elective abortion, income taxation and the incentivizing of fatherlessness.
Indeed, if God does exist, and if the conscience which He gives to all instructs us all similarly, we might have expected political collectives to align according to this profound theme of conscience. The bad guys would align on the conscience–resistance side of things, and the good guys on the conscience–respecting side of things.
Thus it is no coincidence that pro-life people are pro-free market and pro–Second Amendment whereas LGBT people tend to be
- against the right of self defense or,
- even to the point of violence, against the right to vote their conscience
- against the right of ex–homosexuals even to exist
- for elective abortion
- for legal plunder.
Even states like California and Massachusetts have made psychological therapies intending to restore heterosexuality to broken youth illegal.
Moreover if society were sufficiently debased and only had two dominant political parties, then one might expect one party to boldly embody conscience–resistance while the other party merely tepidly resists some of the more dehumanizing conscience–resistance doctrines.
Conscience–Resistance and Career Occupations
Because of the exigencies involved, perhaps some people can justify defending someone he suspects is guilty. But to intentionally defend someone whom one knows is guilty, as Hillary did, is another matter.
In her defense of Taylor, Hillary was not serving as a public defender. Because Hillary took the case in private practice, she was under no public defender compulsion to take the case.
This theme of conscience violation is widely—and correctly—associated with lawyers. Although lawyers are allowed to defend someone they suspect is guilty, they do so at a cost to conscience.
Indeed there are reasons for lawyer jokes and abortionist jokes. And there is good reason not to have too many lawyers in politics and not to have any abortionists in society.
This reminds me of a joke. What do you get when you cross a lawyer with an abortionist? Ans. A Democrat activist. But “a Communist Party activist” also works.
Actually even most criminal defense lawyers are uncomfortable with a full throated defense of a client one knows is guilty. A legal philosophy advocated by Monroe Freedman, called a strong adversarial approach, begins with the lawyer stating to his client, “tell me the whole truth, because I won’t use the information against you in any form.” While this legal philosophy is “rejected … by all ethical codes,” it appears to be the code that soulless Hillary, Alinsky, Obama, Bill Clinton, Tim Kaine, Jon Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Margaret Sanger, Cecile Richards… subscribed to throughout their careers.
Conscience–Resistance and History
The natural outworking of Humanism is rebellion toward God and, in particular, toward His only begotten Son. Jesus came to save us from ourselves. In total contradiction to Humanism, the truth is that we were the problem. Just so, the solution was to get rid of the problem, which was a body of Adamic flesh and its associated dark soul.
Although most Christians do not understand it, Christians themselves have been crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20) and raised with Christ in a new life (Eph. 2:5,6). Although it may not look that way, Christians are no longer in the flesh (Rom. 7:5; 8:9). But indeed we are told to “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).
Political collectives organizing around conscience–resistance is central to the lesson of human history. But I don’t expect our Humanistic federal government to teach or tolerate real history.
While Humanism is very pernicious and lethal, it is also very pervasive. Nearly all institutional Christian churches are actually Humanistic–Christian churches. A contradiction in terms.
Because Humanism is an anti–Christ religion, we have the name of the beautiful Savior of lost humanity made out to be a swear word.
One sees the irony of recent history: Under the doctrine of Humanism, 20th century despots (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin…) caused the death of over 100 million of their own citizens. Humanism brings forth the death of humans.
Having learned incorrect lessons of history and not learned the paramount lessons of history, Hillary is determined to repeated these ghastly mistakes of history and become a 21st century Humanistic despot.
The Psychology of Soulless Conscience–Resistors like Hillary
Reviewing the three points in the introduction, not only did Hillary commit the immorality of defending one she knew to be guilty of rape, but Hillary laughed about the effect of her work in trampling justice for a raped 12 year old girl.
How could Hillary be so callous, so insouciant with her laughing about the trampling of justice—a trampling for which she is responsible—in this on–the–record interview?
While a recent article at the Daily Beast, asks this question, it does not even attempt to deliver an answer. But the author does list numerous reasons for why Hillary’s laughter was so inappropriate. It is by answering such questions that one finds something profound about both human nature and the lessons of history.
Hillary could be so callous, two–faced and inhumane because inhumanity and conscience–resistance has been at the heart of the Humanistic or Left–Wing political religion in which Hillary had become a High Priestess. Hillary was baptized by Saul Alinski, a miscreant community organizer from Chicago who dedicated his widely cited book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer himself.
Our ostensible President, another Humanistic community organizer from Chicago, for decades attended a “God–damn America” church. Although lying Barack claimed to have authored his memoir by himself, he actually had his memoir written by unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
The problem is not merely with Hillary. Humanism has become the religious doctrine of the entire leadership of the Democrat Party. Democrats tolerate nominal Christians and use such Christians as moral cover. But the Party demands that whatever religion is used for campaigning purposes, the functional religion for governing purposes must be Humanism.
In her on–the–record interview with reporter Roy Reed, Hillary Clinton’s inhumane laughter at her own legal rape of the then 12 year old Kathleen Shelton came so naturally to Hillary that she thought nothing of it at the time. This suggests that Hillary’s and Bill’s consciences are so seared, so given “over to a depraved mind” (Rom. 1:28), that Hillary has lost the conscious awareness of her own humanity.
Untethered by conscience, it is only by polls and focus groups that a lost soul like Hillary can come to mouth conscience–respecting principles.
Just so, Hillary’s ice cold denial of rights for a child minutes before her birth came out in her interview with The View earlier this Spring. Hillary speaks about her support for the legality of the federal court’s Roe v. Wade decision and cloaks the immorality of elective abortion with a semantic fig leaf religious appeal to “consultation by whom [sic] she chooses, her doctor, her faith….”
Yes, Hillary, we see that your subconscious tells us that you have chosen your Humanistic elective–abortion faith. Hillary is all in with her hedonistic and soulless sex–for–someone–else–to–die–for constituency. And it has cost you, dear Hillary, your soul.
Gone from Hillary’s abortion calculus is the American notion of the unalienable right to life. In Hillary’s conscious political philosophy, there is no rooting in God to endow individuals with rights. Yet Hillary’s deeper subconscious heart dictated that her eyes close as she speaks this evil. Her eyes don’t want to see the truth of abortion and so she closes them for us, on The View, when she speaks the evil of elective abortion. Hillary un–compassionately and inhumanely closes her eyes to the plight of the weakest and most vulnerable members in society.
Spontaneous remarks are often very revealing. Hillary’s cackling at her trampling of justice and of healing on 12 year old rape victim Kathleen Shelton reveals the soullessness of a power–hungry woman whose deeply held Humanistic faith is predicated on waring against God. Democrats are unfit for office. Hillary doubly so.
Trump was right. Hillary’s laughter troubles the soul.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.