Laura Ingraham's Smart Strategy for Trump Winning by Minimizing the Influence of Immoral Trump Defectors
"If you call yourself a conservative and a Republican, itís actually immoral not to vote for Donald Trump."
One would not expect to find a path to victory for 2016 Republican presidential nominee in a Mediaite article, but there it is in John Ziegler's absurdly titled "Sean Hannity is Melting Down Already Because He Knows Heíll be to Blame For Hillary Winning" (www.mediaite.com/online/sean-hannity-is-melting-down-already-because-he-knows-hell-be-to-blame-for-hillary-winning/).
Unsurprisingly, Ziegler charged that Hannity and Ingraham should be blamed if Hillary Clinton is elected and dismissed Trump's path to victory as strongly as he could.
That's a sure sign that Ziegler realizes that Team Clinton still has something to fear, notwithstanding the efforts of the liberal media and disgruntled establishment Republicans who expected Trump to honor his pledge to support the 2016 Republican presidential nominee if it had been Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio and now laud Bush, John Kasich, Lindsay Graham and George Pataki as men of high principle for refusing to honor their pledges instead of identifying themselves as untrustworthy politicians.
Ziegler railed that "Hannity deserves special mention here for going off the rails last night and bringing fellow Trump sycophant Laura Ingraham along to ride shotgun."
It was Ingraham who identified Trump's best path to victory during Hannity's show.
Ingraham commented: "If you call yourself a conservative and a Republican, itís actually immoral not to vote for Donald Trump."
Ingraham's right: they are immoral and should be treated as such.
Ingraham agrees with the late William F. Buckley, Jr. that a voter should vote for the most electable conservative and realizes that either Trump or Hillary Clinton can win, so she pointed the way for Trump to overcome the defections of hypocrites and liars suddenly being portrayed as pillars of virtue by Team Clinton and the liberal media: identify them as immoral and move on.
We are talking about people self-identified as conservative and/or Republican and therefore expected to vote for the Republican presidential nominee instead of Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
If such a person says that he or she won't vote for either Trump or Clinton, that's a good news story for Clinton.
If such a person declares support for Clinton too, it's even better news for Clinton.
Susan Collins, the little-noticed Republican Senator from Maine, gained national attention, simply by announcing that she would not vote for Trump, and the stories neglected to mention that she had voted to confirm President Obama's two Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, so having judges nominated by Clinton instead of Trump apparently is not a big deal to Collins.
To true conservatives and Second Amendment supporters, it is...HUGE!
Ziegler dismissed Ingrahm's comment as "the most asinine thing a (once) respected conservative has said about Trump."
Donning the conservative mantle that fits Ingrahm and Hannity (but not Ziegler) very nicely, Ziegler savaged them, perhaps in a desperate attempt to strangle Ingraham's smart strategy in the crib.
"We conservatives are now being lectured that if we donít vote for a guy who has at one time held nearly every liberal position there is, is professionally and temperamentally unqualified for the job, gave Hillary lots of money and praised her even after Benghazi, and consulted with Bill Clinton just before he entered the race, we are IMMORAL? We have officially left the gravitational pull of the rational earth. This reminds me of a black leader claiming that blacks had a moral obligation support O.J. Simpson in his murder trial (when O.J. wasnít really even 'black' and he certainly didnít deserve to win).
"Of course what is really happening is that Hannity and Ingraham know that they picked the wrong guy in the primaries (those ratings Trump provided rendered them intoxicated) and that it is they who are going to be responsible for whatever Hillary does in office. They are just getting a huge jump on trying to dupe the very same naÔve customers they fooled into supporting Trump in the primaries, into believing it wasnít really the fault of Trump, or his surrogates, that he lost.
"Fortunately for them, based on what we have so far learned about Trump supporters, I like their chances of at least partly pulling this scam off."
Ziegler is the scammer, not Ingraham or Hannity. They are determined to stop the Clintons from returning to reside in the White House and continuing the Obama Administration.
There's some room for argument as to whether Trump was the most electable conservative seeking the Republican presidential nomination, but there's no doubt that (1)Trump's more conservative than Clinton, (2) Trump won the Republican presidential nomination by winning a substantial majority of the delegates in primaries and caucuses and (3) either Trump or Clinton will be the winner of the upcoming presidential election.
If Trump doesn't win the Presidency, it won't be because he isn't the most electable conservative.
It will be because immoral, hypocritical liars and their allies put their personal agendas first.
In a superb speech to the Republican National Convention that brought down the house, Ingraham warned the "boys" who had lost to Trump to get over it.
It's not Ingraham's (or Hannity's) fault that the word of neither Cruz nor Kasich is good.
Ingraham is a Catholic convert, hardly asinine or sycophantic, Mr. Ziegler.
Pope John Paul II. in Veritatis Splendor, teaches that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances:
"If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain 'irremediably' evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. 'As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?'. Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice. (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)"
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.