"You shall know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free"
Publisher / Editor:
Paul Hayden

Liberal Commenter Insists the Left is NOT Out to Destroy Kavanaugh

October 8, 2018

Yesterday, I received a rather lengthy rebuttal to my World Net Daily Article entitled:
The rebuttal was comprehensive and quite revealing of the thinking of the left. So much so, that I thought I would post it, anonymously, as well as my responses to several of the commenter’s (talking) points.

My responses are indented.

Commenter: Sir:  No one has set out to “destroy” Brett Kavanaugh. However, the accusations against him seem quite creditable (sic). Only he knows whether he actually attempted to assault Dr. Ford sexually over 30 years ago. And Dr. Ford, unless her memory has been faulty.  
On this, we will have to agree to disagree. From everything I’ve heard, seen, and read, all there are are baseless accusations and convenient “memory” lapses from every accuser. Not a single person has come forth regarding any of them to corroborate the woman’s stories. That is rather far-fetched, even with so much time past. And with a lack of any evidence or corroboration, any reasonable person must default to a presumption of innocence – in court or in life.
With accusations of this magnitude, a feeling that accusers “seem” credible, or “#IBelieveHer” just doesn’t cut it.
Commenter: The notion that the Democrats deliberately orchestrated a smear campaign against judge (sic) Kavanaugh and have paid Dr. Ford and other women to make false accusations against him, and that this is solely because they are “pro-abortion” is simply preposterous. 
I certainly never asserted that the good doctor was paid by anyone. However, even NBC News confirmed the Democrat strategy of disrupting the proceedings by Senators and the vile accusations from the crowd.

Commenter: What does Christine Blasey Ford have to gain by accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault?  Absolutely nothing. In fact, if she is revealed to be a liar, she would be committing career suicide. She will no doubt lose her position at the university where she works and will disgraced (sic) for life and never be able to find employment in her field again.
Just like her original accusation, only Dr. Ford can reveal what, if anything, she gains by testifying. It may be nothing – and remember, she didn’t want to come forward. She was outed by someone on the left.
As far as her position at very liberal Palo Alto University in California – she will likely be hailed as the conquering hero upon her return. Career suicide in the California college system? Please.
Commenter: To call his accusers “predators” is an outrage!  And to call her accusations and those of the others a “stunt” is absolutely contemptible.
I never once called Ms. Ford’s coming forward a stunt. I did, however, classify what the woman in the elevator who cornered and then verbally assaulted Jeff Flake as a stunt, because it was. She was clearly the predator and pitiful Jeff Flake, the prey.
Commenter: And please remember the despicable skullduggery of the Republicans when they prevented Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by former President Obama to the Supreme Court from even getting a chance to be interrogated for the opening.  
There was no “skullduggery,” as you put it. The Republicans were merely following precedent, and Democrats love precedent, do they not? Not confirming a justice to the Supreme Court has been a practice for the last 78 years. The last original nominee to be confirmed to the Supreme Court during a presidential election year was 1940.

Commenter: Kavanaugh’s conservative views on abortion are not the only reason why the Democrats oppose him.  He is an opponent of gay rights and a corporate shill who supports corporate greed over the rights of individual Americans.  

Actually, I’ve heard Kavanaugh speak of the Bill of Rights – of which he is a supporter. You know the Bill of Rights, which rather nicely delineates the rights of all Americans equally. It is the left who in fact specifies that we need special rights for “special” people or groups.

 And yes, he supports corporate greed, as you put it, because he believes, like our silly Founding Fathers, that government should have little authority to regulate business … to death. 

Commenter: Kavanaugh is opposed to everything the Democrats stand for - progress, freedom, quality and justice.  Conservatives like you oppose any nominee to the Supreme Court who is pro-choice. So why shouldn’t the Democrats be opposed to those who are anti-choice?  And no one is “pro-abortion.” They are PRO-CHOICE.  People who oppose the right of a woman to choose an abortion are not “pro-life.” You are anti-choice. Pro-birth. FORCED birth.   

Well heck – where to begin. 

Democrats believe in social justice, not justice. We can clearly see this playing out as Kavanaugh has been denied the presumption of innocence despite no evidence or even corroboration of his guilt. I’m not even sure what “quality” means. 

As far as progress and freedom – both are laughable, unless you are referring to the “progress” of government to control individual “freedom.” 

And while we’re at it, let’s touch on the Democrat pro-choice platform. It’s not pro-choice when the only choice one is permitted to support is abortion. So much so that pro-life Democrats in the past have been refused time to speak at Democrat conventions. There’s inclusiveness for you. You may recall, or not, that the late Governor of Pennsylvania, Democrat Bob Casey, was not even allowed to speak at the 1992 Democrat National Convention, because of his strong pro-life views. 

Commenter: It’s not clear whether Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, but he may very well do this.  Along with the other conservatives on the court. But this will never "end" abortion. Nothing will. Making abortion illegal again will no more end abortion than Prohibition stopped Americans from consuming alcoholic beverages.  If abortion becomes illegal again, dangerous back-alley abortionists will instantly spring into action in all 50 states. And they will kill many poor women, or nearly kill them. The poorest women will kill themselves or gravely injure themselves with makeshift devices such as coat hangers, poison, and other things - self-induced abortions. And many poor children will be left motherless. 

The Supreme Court can’t just decide to overturn a previous court ruling like Roe v Wade. It can only render decisions on cases brought before them. And no one knows how Kavanaugh, or anyone for that matter, would vote. The left just claims it to scare their base into rejecting any constitutionalist jurist. 

And if abortion should remain legal in any and all cases, why then doesn’t the left also support infanticide? What’s the difference between killing a child inside the mother or in his or her bedroom, or kitchen, etc.? It’s not an iPhone or Cuisinart growing in the woman. It’s a child. 

Commenter: The only way to prevent abortions is by preventing unwanted pregnancies. All pro-choicers want very much to prevent as many abortions as possible. 
But this is more easily said than done. But Trump’s appallingly counterproductive planned police (sic - "policy") of decreasing government funding to help the poor, poor women and their families are only going to INCREASE the abortion rate markedly. The Obamacare you conservatives oppose so vehemently has actually PREVENTED an enormous number of abortions, because it has enabled poor women to obtain contraceptives and medical care, and enabled them to provide for their children, born or unborn. 

I’m frankly growing weary of the abortion debate, as there is no debate to be had. We on the right believe in the sanctity of life. There is no difference between killing a baby inside the mother and outside. You on the left try your damnedest to convince yourselves and others that somehow there is a difference. 

We believe the States should decide these issues, not the feds. If one State wishes to outlaw abortion, you as a United States citizen are free to move or travel to another. We on the right also have no problem with contraception. If you want to have sex without “being punished with a baby” (h/t: Barack Obama), use contraception. We also insist on personal freedom. With freedom comes personal responsibility – not collective responsibility. In other words, if you don’t want to have a baby, take some responsibility and do what you must to prevent it. Or stop having sex. It’s a simple choice that everyone can make.

Comments: 0
  1. Email address is REQUIRED, in case we need to contact you about your comment. However, we will not display or use your email address for any purpose other than to contact you about this comment.
  2. Nickname should be a short nickname that you choose to use. Please do NOT enter your full, real name. Nickname will be displayed along with your comment.
  3. Comments will not appear on our website until they have been reviewed by our Editorial Team. Inappropriate messages will be rejected by the Editorial Team. Free speech is important here at ConservativeTruth, however, the Editorial Team reserves the absolute right to determine what content appears on this website.
    • Comments that contain foul language, profanity or vulgarity will be rejected.
    • Comments that contain links will be rejected. (send email to the editor if you wish to let us know about another website)
    • Comments that advertise a product or service will be rejected.
    • Comments that contain email addresses will be rejected.
2500 characters max
Copyright ©2018

Brent Smith, "The Common Constitutionalist," offers not just conservative commentary and analysis, but a blend of politics, history, arts, science, and humor. Whoever said conservatives aren’t funny? Yeah, I know…most people. Brent is a contributing writer for numerous online publications. When he is not burning the midnight oil writing his insightful commentaries, he is raising his two teenage sons to be patriots and Conservatives.
Visit Brent Smith's website at www.commonconstitutionalist.com