Scanning the Kavanaugh Sex Crime Times in Search of 2,000 Dead Babies
Just for laughs, I scrolled down MSN’s home page this morning, scanning the headlines they have posted over the past few days. I quickly counted six headlines related to the “latest” rehash of Justice Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misbehavior thirty years ago as a college freshmen, each of the six headlines directly based on one allegation regarding a teenage drinking party, a party at which (although the New York Times carefully omitted this little tidbit) the alleged victim — or should I say “survivor” — of the alleged misconduct claims to have no recollection of the event, or even of having been present at the party in question.
Meanwhile, in Indiana, the family of an abortion doctor who just died found 2,246 aborted fetuses at his home. On my same scroll through MSN’s homepage, I found no headlines related to this story.
Here are the six Kavanaugh headlines:
“[Senator] Collins under fire after new Kavanaugh claims.” (For being the rare woman to judge a man on something other than unsubstantiated thirty-year-old politically-motivated accusations of wrongdoing for which not a single credible witness has been found.)
“Analysis: New storm rises over Kavanaugh.” (Because the Democrat-supporting New York Times chose to run a completely ill-founded and uncorroborated gossip-plant, and cynical Democratic presidential candidates and “Squad” members jumped at the chance to pretend they believed a story without an ounce of credibility.)
“Analysis: Impeaching Kavanaugh is unlikely, but he could be a political weapon.” (No, he is a political weapon, and was never anything else, since there was never any verifiable grounds for all the Marxist tribunal and kangaroo court assaults against him.)
“Report: FBI limited Kavanaugh probe.” (For the same reason the Washington Post killed the story in the first place, namely a complete lack of evidence or corroboration.)
“Pressley to introduce resolution to open Kavanaugh impeachment inquiry.” (Because someone claims he saw Kavanaugh do something lewd at a college drinking party thirty years ago, although Kavanaugh denies it and no other witnesses back up the claim.)
Meanwhile, here is the headline that MSN decided was not worthy of writing during this same period:
Abortion doctor found to have collected over two thousand aborted babies at his house.
To summarize, then, the Kavanaugh story is based entirely on an unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claim of thirty-year-old drunken party misbehavior, in which the alleged “victim” says she was not there. The abortion doctor with 2,246 dead bodies at his house is a current, easily verified fact, corroborated by the perpetrator’s own family. The first story warrants six headlines. The second garners crickets.
Is there any significance to my juxtaposition of these two stories and of their relative coverage in the mainstream media? Just this: the central theme of both stories is abortion.
The absurd, hypocritical, and inhumane hatchet job on Justice Kavanaugh’s life was and remains motivated entirely by the progressives’ fear that he might someday become the deciding vote in a Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade.
Meanwhile, every time an abortion doctor, an abortion rights activist, or an abortion-promoting organization, is revealed to be fundamentally ghoulish, bloodthirsty, and conscienceless in action or motivation, the progressives see this as mere bad publicity for their cause, to be quietly tied up in a plastic bag and tossed into the dumpster out back, like so many random baby limbs. The problem is that their cause itself is bad publicity for the human race.
I feel I must insert my usual “Kavanaugh caveat” here. Nothing in the above observations is intended as any kind of defense of Brett Kavanaugh per se, but only of human decency and a sense of proportionality. Kavanaugh himself, as I have noted before, strikes me as a milquetoast and non-entity as a jurist, but more importantly as a pathetically small man to be chosen to serve on the highest court in any land. I found his whining defense, during his confirmation hearings, of his lifelong penchant for drinking too much beer, to be a singularly annoying bit of special pleading for the worst tendencies of modern unmanhood.
Men who, during their college days, proudly enjoyed frequent drunken blowouts, have little credibility in claiming, as Kavanaugh did during the hearings, that they have never blacked out or forgotten what happened the night before. For they have no defense or answer for the obvious question: “If you were blotto so often, how would you know you never blacked out or forgot something that happened at a party?”
In general, I am tired of the political establishment being peopled by compromised, weak men, full of petty vices and pettier excuses for their vices. “I’m a normal guy” isn’t a defense — it’s an attempt to hide behind the crowd. No, I do not ask for perfection, or for “angels.” Just a wee bit more manhood and character, a little willingness to admit one’s mistakes and learn from them without shameful excuse-making, would be nice — although I know it’s probably too much to ask at this point. We didn’t get to the edge of the abyss for nothing, I suppose. Maybe Brett Kavanaugh is the best anyone has a right to expect these days, which is a very sad statement indeed.
I wonder, sincerely, whether Donald Trump knew Kavanaugh was a lifelong beer-soaked “regular guy” when he nominated him. What am I saying? Of course, Trump knew nothing about him at all. The reason that crazy thought crossed my mind, however, is that, as I have mentioned before, the only thing I like about Trump is his teetotaling.