By DEXTER DUGGAN
The batter slides safely into first base then looks up expectantly at the scoreboard to see his “home run” added to his team’s total before he can return to the dugout to high-five with fellow players.
The homer doesn’t appear up in the lights and the batter starts complaining. The exasperated first-base umpire reminds him that he has three more spots to go around the infield before he can score a run.
The press box starts to buzz with complaints that the batter is having to battle umpire bias because of race or nationality or gender, and that he certainly scored a run by reaching the first bag safely.
Both the batter’s manager and a delegation of sportswriters stride onto the field to demand that the umpire expand his understanding and definition of the rules so that the “run” can be recorded and play can proceed.
Oops, a stray breeze blows aside the batter’s collar and we see a St. Christopher medal hanging around his neck. A Catholic’s in this game! “You’re out! You’re out!” the sportswriters scream, dragging him off the field into the locker room before they hustle back to the press box to file their reports about how they personally had to save baseball dignity from religious superstition.
It seems the rules of play change here based on pressure, prejudice, and supposition.
Do you feel you’re at a currently politicized sporting match of kneelers and standers, or maybe even a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump?
Left-wing CNN posted a commentary by its senior political analyst Ronald Brownstein on September 11 foreseeing conflict if Kavanaugh is confirmed and becomes the fifth Republican-appointed justice, which “could control the Supreme Court for the next 15 years or more,” he said.
“Over that period, demographers project, the nation inexorably will grow more diverse in virtually every measurable way, from religious preference to sexual orientation and racial and ethnic composition,” Brownstein immediately added. “That looks like a surefire formula for heightening conflict.”
His opinion piece was headlined, “How Brett Kavanaugh will collide with a changing America.”
Actually, the duty of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws based on their fidelity to the Constitution, regardless of shifting, inadmissible considerations of, for instance, prejudice, racialism, and ideology. This has been the traditional understanding, and now is regarded as the “conservative” one.
The traditional understanding, of course, hasn’t always prevailed. When it was thrown aside, inadmissible leftist ideology often had been the controlling force, such as with the invention in 1973 of the nonexistent constitutional right to permissive abortion.
Leftists, on the other hand, consider that the Constitution is outdated and an impediment. They think the true role of the justices, as Brownstein indicated, is to sway here and there based on whatever their fancies and clubby handshakes of the moment are. And the reporters in the press box will dash right down onto the playing field to call the balls and strikes.
The High Court once had authorized eugenics when that was considered properly progressive, but is less willing to do so openly now, although deference to eugenicist Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood butchery remains an unbutchered sacred cow.
The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote on Kavanaugh for September 13, the day this hardcopy issue of The Wanderer went to press, but Dems were expected to delay the vote until the following week. Still, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) reportedly said he expected a successful vote by the full Senate will put Kavanaugh on the High Court before it begins its term in October.
On September 11 the Washington Examiner posted an article by its commentary editor, Timothy P. Carney, headlined, “Want to know why conservatives distrust the media? Check out the smear of Kavanaugh on contraception.”
Likening the carefully done deception against Kavanaugh to a rigged baseball game, Carney commented, “It’s not that conservatives never can win and liberals never can get called out. It’s that debating issues and even clear facts in the media, for conservatives, is always an away game, and they start out a few runs behind.”
Carney recounted that at his hearings, Kavanaugh was asked about Priests for Life v. HHS, and the judge accurately explained what the plaintiffs said they objected to. However, Planned Parenthood said Kavanaugh himself is a believer that all contraceptives induce abortions, then radical pro-abortion Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) jumped on the same bandwagon.
Before you knew it, CNN tweeted out Harris’ party line on September 7, as did New York magazine, followed by the lying New York Times saying that “scientific evidence” doesn’t support claims that contraceptives induce abortions — “thus addressing,” Carney said, “a claim that neither Kavanaugh nor the plaintiffs he was citing ever made — that all contraceptives induce abortions.”
Carney commented: “This is how the political media works in America, and it’s been this way for years. This dynamic, far more than any negative campaign by Fox News or Donald Trump, is central to why conservatives distrust and dislike the major media, and have since even before Trump or Fox News was a thing.”
National Review posted that even after some major-media fact checkers caught up and called Harris’ assertion false, Hillary Clinton still went right ahead and tweeted on September 12, “When Kavanaugh called birth control ‘abortion-inducing drugs,’ he made it clear that safe and legal abortion isn’t the only fundamental reproductive right at grave risk if he is confirmed. Access to birth control is, too.”
Then there was Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D., Calif.) lunatic claim at the Dems’ Kavanaugh Inquisition on September 5 that in the 1950s and 1960s, between 200,000 and 1.2 million women died yearly from illegal abortions in the U.S., and she didn’t want to go back to those days of illegality.
If those many died yearly when abortion was generally illegal and less accessible, how many total annual abortions does Feinstein think occurred? Five million or ten million a year? When the entire U.S. population was around 100 million? The mortuaries would have been bursting with mystery deaths, and the birthrate would have collapsed.
The Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams commented on September 5, “Feinstein wasn’t even close to being accurate. And it wasn’t like she slipped up once, jumbling the figures by mistake! She stressed her point repeatedly: If the court reverses its Roe decision, more than a million women will die each year from unsafe abortion. The only problem with her point is that it’s based on total fiction.”
Feinstein couldn’t have sounded more crazy if she’d said the surface of the moon is only two miles away from the Earth, and that anyone can fly there in a private plane.
But Dem abortion extremism knows no limits, nor does their wild love of massive permissive death for the preborn.
Both California’s Harris and another Planned Parenthood hand puppet, Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.), suggested they had damaging secret information on Kavanaugh, but they laughably exposed themselves as full of putrid hot air.
Conservative Republican political consultant Constantin Querard told The Wanderer on September 11:
“The Democrat obsession with abortion rights is twofold. First, a commitment to the most extreme liberal positions possible (partial-birth abortion, late-term abortion, etc.). Second, complete capture by identity politics, and the two issues they use to try to wedge the votes of women is education (‘Republicans hate kids’) and abortion (‘Male Republicans are going to tell you what to do with your body.’). . . .
“If you were tracking LGBTQ rights you would have noticed that they did their part on that. Race issues? Absolutely. Class warfare? Of course,” Querard added. “The hearings are opportunities for the Democrats to audition for president and/or raise money or profile by playing to an extreme left-wing base. They rarely produce moments of intellectual discovery when the Democrats are asking questions of a Republican nominee.
“Worth remembering: (Republican nominee Antonin) Scalia was confirmed 98-0, and the Democrats were just as committed to abortion as they are today. What has changed is the politics, not the issue,” Querard said.
A Frightening Age
Speaking of what has changed, the Daily Wire website reported on September 12 that D.C. McAllister, a rape survivor and commentator, was hammered with threats of rape and death after she criticized “hysteria” favoring abortion, in which “women have flung themselves from the heights of being the world’s civilizing force to the muck and mire of dehumanizing depravity.”
The Daily Wire said McAllister told it, “It’s a frightening age in which we live. All we can do is continue to hold the line of reason and morality against the mob and support one another in the struggle that the Left has created. They want to divide us, isolate us, and if we let that happen, we’re lost.”
Back during the creepy Bill Clinton presidency, Dems deceptively said they wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Meanwhile, the degenerate New York Times and its media admirers kept toxifying society so that significant segments of it unprecedentedly were twisted into celebrating abortion, and looking to crush their foes as surely as their abortuaries crush babies.
We’ll all have to account for our sins before God, but New York Times deceivers won’t be able to get away with more of their fast talk and mirrors.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress