By DEXTER DUGGAN
Seeing some of the desperately wailing, miserable protesters in Washington, D.C., against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court was almost like happening across an injured baby animal by the side of the road. You want to relieve the helpless creature of its suffering.
The best way probably would be to call in a veterinarian. But if we followed the protesters’ own thinking, we’d crush the baby animal’s head without delay. Wishing to administer cruel death, after all, was at the wailers’ crippled core.
They made it clear that maintaining the massive abortion dismemberment of helpless human infants was the focus of their frenzy against the feared future High Court decisions of the Catholic Kavanaugh. Anything possible to try to stop him was necessary, even the pitiable futility of clawing and pounding at the Supreme Court’s formidable exterior doors.
The reality of the babies’ and moms’ welfare was only a useless abstraction to them, kept far at a distance by mind-numbing, dishonest sloganeering about, say, “reproductive health” and “patriarchal oppression.”
The dominant pro-abortion media had tried to avoid the reality when post-birth abortionist Kermit Gosnell was arrested in 2011 and went to trial in 2013. With the movie Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer about to open the same week that new Justice Kavanaugh joined the High Court, media majesties like Facebook were busy trying to suppress the film.
Their majesties’ preference was to continue the infants’ overwhelming slaughter instead of informing the public more widely so that the unconscionable bloodletting might be minimized.
Before President Trump announced Kavanaugh as his nominee in early July, many of the protesters probably never had heard of him. But the judge quickly became such a villain in their minds that any vicious threat against Kavanaugh and his family became justified.
Back in 2005, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) had characterized the Supreme Court as being almost like the voice of God, the Washington Examiner noted on October 9.
“Today,” the Examiner added, “the left is in a panic because they fear that God’s voice (and perhaps even His wrath) are about to turn against them. And it is making them very dangerous. The Supreme Court’s composition is changing, and they have responded like cornered animals….
“Liberals are so accustomed to getting their way that they cannot control themselves. They fear an era is coming to an end, and they want to prevent this,” the Examiner said.
One after another, public figures who disagreed with the protesters’ rigidity had to be protected by guards, including Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine), who made a strong statement for Kavanaugh that actually paid attention to his professional judicial record, unlike Democrats’ trying to divine long-ago scribblings in his high school yearbook.
Collins reportedly told CBS: “I’ve had the honor of serving in the Senate for nearly 22 years, and this is as ugly a situation as I’ve ever seen in that time….I have had to have security because of threats against me and family members and staffers, and this has been unlike anything I’ve ever been through.”
Phoenix-based radio talk host James T. Harris (KFYI, 550 AM) played a commentator’s voice on October 4 saying protesters against Kavanaugh came to D.C. with “incandescent rage.”
On October 6 Kelley Paul, the wife of Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), posted an open letter to Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) at CNN to urge the Democrat to withdraw his incitement to confrontation against other politicians. Her husband had just been subjected to such an attack at an airport, she wrote, adding:
“Preventing someone from moving forward, thrusting your middle finger in their face, screaming vitriol — is this the way to express concern or enact change?”
Mrs. Paul recalled a left-wing Democrat’s dead-serious firearms attack at a Republican congressional baseball practice in 2017, and her husband being violently beaten later that year by a Democrat neighbor. Their home has extra sheriff’s patrols, she said, and she keeps a loaded gun by the bed. “I have never felt this way in my life.”
Her husband is a pro-life libertarian Republican, while Booker is a radical pro-abortion Democrat who pretends to possess moral superiority but helped harass Kavanaugh at the Senate Judiciary Committee.
National radio host Laura Ingraham said on October 9 that Booker had been considered a moderate at some time in the past, but, like other Democrats, he was “sucked down the left-wing vortex of radicalism.”
“Civility,” which was so prized in left-wing rhetoric after GOP Sen. John McCain died on August 25, itself died instantly when Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings began on September 4 to the shrieks of protesters.
Nor did the corrupt Alinskyite Hillary Clinton think “civility” could return until the protesters’ goal was achieved of dismembering GOP majorities. To her, mob action’s merciless threats merely showed “strength” against Republicans.
Hillary told CNN on October 9: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”
As the 2004 presidential campaign of George W. Bush against John Kerry drew toward election day, the liberal UK Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland had noted the very different orientations of Republicans and Democrats. The question for the future, Freedland wrote then, was: “how long can these two competing worldviews, so far apart from each other and so sharply divided, coexist in the same country?”
The recent propaganda barrage and mob action against the possibility that a pro-lifer like Kavanaugh might help guide the nation’s laws would suggest that coexistence has ended.
Freedland in 2004 saw a clash between “true believers” and the “reality-based community.” However, if there’s anyone today who opposes reality, it’s blinded pro-abortionists who reject any scientific evidence and who place their faith in the hymnals of the unhinged New York Times.
Why were these protesters’ consciences so obviously troubled by inner turmoil? They had been beguiled by elements like the Times to believe that serious sins including permissive abortion and severe sexual disorientation are constitutional blessings, but their consciences knew better. How could they ask for the repentance they needed when they were assured daily that their rage was righteous?
An article posted October 8 at The Federalist site said that radicals who chased Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and his wife out of a restaurant gave this motivation for their assault: “We will take from you the peace you have taken from so many others.”
The leftists indeed feel turmoil, but mistakenly believe this unrest comes from the existence of conservatives rather than their own gnawing lack of morality.
On October 5 commentator John Hinderaker asked at the Power Line blog: “Why are Democrats confident that political violence is a one-way street? Conservatives are, on average, better armed than liberals and — I think it is safe to say — more personally formidable. Yet liberals clearly have no fear that conservatives will respond to their violence and mob intimidation in kind.
“I think that is because they assume we are better than they are,” Hinderaker added. “We care about our country, we value its institutions, and we try to maintain the basic presumption of good faith that underlies our democratic system.
“The Democrats are right to think that we are better than they are, but conservatives’ patience is not infinite,” he said. “The potential for significant political violence is higher today than it has been at any time since the Great Depression, and perhaps since the Civil War. The Democrats are sowing the wind, and they may reap the whirlwind.”
Coincidentally, a foe of pro-lifers had been caught on video in Toronto on September 30 as he suddenly high-kicked a peaceful woman in her shoulder, knocking away her phone, before he yanked off a ribbon she was wearing then ran away. The man, later identified as Jordan Hunt, was wearing a pentagram, which could be an occultic symbol, around his neck.
The woman who was attacked, Marie-Claire Bissonnette, 27, posted at LifeSiteNews.com on October 2 this wasn’t the first time she was targeted for being a pro-lifer. “Rocks have been thrown at me. I’ve been spat upon multiple times and pushed. Men have aggressively asked how I would like it if they raped me and forced me to have an abortion,” she said.
“There is a media-driven narrative that pro-life activists are violent and a danger to women. This is a bald-faced lie. The only violence or aggression I’ve witnessed in my many years in the pro-life movement comes entirely from pro-abortion activists, and yet it’s rarely, if ever, reported,” Bissonnette added.
Repulsed By The Tactics
Conservative Republican political consultant Constantin Querard told The Wanderer on October 7 that he didn’t think the D.C. mobs represented most Democrats:
“The violent mobs we saw represent the worst of the left in this country, but it wouldn’t be fair or accurate to claim that they represent the left or Democrats in their entirety. 99.999 percent of liberals and Democrats weren’t violent.
“In fact,” Querard said, “a fair number of Democrats (many of whom are likely liberal in ordinary times) were repulsed by the tactics used by Democrats in Washington, D.C., to try to take down Kavanaugh with such gutter tactics. I daresay more Democrats will vote Republican in November as a protest than will get violent in protest.
“As far as comparing right versus left in the context of behavior, the fringe on the left includes a fair number of anarchists, for whom violence and destruction (riots, fires, looting, etc.) aren’t just a staple of their tactics, they’re the motivation for the protest. That’s why there is such a difference in the nature of protests on the right and the left,” Querard said.
But opposition to Trump also had arisen from some who refuse to acknowledge that the president had come far in demonstrating his opposition to permissive abortion.
Elderly Catholic historian James Hitchcock, Ph.D., published a book in late 2016 that scorned both Trump and Hillary Clinton as presidential candidates who would bring “a tragic ending indeed” to the pro-life struggle.
Hitchcock’s book Abortion, Religious Freedom, and Catholic Politics is peppered with his falsehoods and seriously misleading statements that he fell silent over after I started urging him and his publisher to correct his errors, beginning in late May 2017.
Do a web search for an article I was requested to write for the Arizona Daily Independent a few months ago, “Anti-Trump Historian Peddling Fake News Retreats Into Silence Over His Bold Errors.” At its conclusion are links to other articles about Hitchcock’s obstinate errors. One would hope he’d want to correct these embarrassments without further delay.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress