Note: Make sure you are at the latest version of this site.

MANY READERS of this website are too wise to be caught up in the vulgar political entertainment  surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. And that’s what it is, distracting and vulgar entertainment, similar to the NFL. You can’t emerge from this show without catching some of the stink. For those wisely not paying attention, here is a short version of the plot, without the pornographic details: The Democrats say, “Bad boy! Bad boy! All men are evil!” And the Republicans say, “Due process! Due process! The Constitution of America! Feminism is evil!”

As Dr. Thomas Droleskey has said, “American politics and governance is just an exercise in theatrics.”

This latest melodrama shoved into sheepish brains  — in Orwellian America, R-rated political theater plays on public screens at gas stations and doctors’ offices — clearly illustrates that statement.

Many are being deceived or misdirected by all the fuss.

Any low smears against Kavanaugh, any denials of due process to him, ultimately serve the same purpose as the smears against Trump when called a “Nazi” or “white supremacist.” In other words, they result in the herd-like, unthinking defense by “conservatives” and patriots of a candidate who is not their friend.

Got that? Brett Kavanaugh is not your friend. He is not your savior, any more than the vulgar and lying demagogue, Donald Trump, is your friend or savior. Kavanaugh is just one more lackey for an entirely creepy establishment.

The Protestant commentator Chuck Baldwin writes: “A Republican-dominated Supreme Court (SC) gave us Roe v Wade, homosexual marriage and Obamacare. In fact, Republican appointments have dominated the SC for the last 45 years. All of this talk about Republican presidents appointing pro-life, constitutionalist, originalist justices is just so much hot air.

“Republican presidents have given us William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, Harry Blackmun (the man who authored Roe v Wade), Anthony Kennedy (the man who gave us homosexual marriage), and John Roberts (the man who gave us Obamacare). Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch (the man who made it illegal to deport illegal alien criminals) and now Kavanaugh are likewise in the mold of the above justices.

“Kavanaugh is a favorite of the establishment. Judge Andrew Napolitano rightly called Kavanaugh a “swamp pick.” He said that Kavanaugh was the “heart and soul of the DC establishment.” He said that Kavanaugh is “a big government guy.” Napolitano also quoted Kavanaugh as repeatedly saying that “the President [ANY President] can do no wrong.” Baldwin also points to what he says was Kavanaugh’s role in covering up the murder of Vincent Foster and his defense of mass surveillance.

The definitive piece on Judge Kavanaugh and why he offers merely the illusion of change, however, was written in July of this year, long before an apparently troubled woman came forward with hard-to-substantiate accusations against the judge. In Don’t Place Your Bets on Brett, Dr. Droleskey wrote:

Kavanaugh will be confirmed despite all of the huffing and puffing by Senate Democrats and despite all of the well-organized “demonstrations” and “protests” that have been staged by groups associated with and funded by the tentacles of billionaire George Soros.

My own first reaction upon reading the news of Brett Michael Kavanaugh’s nomination was, “Great. Trump has nominated a somewhat more “conservative” version Anthony McLeod Kennedy to replace Anthony McLeod Kennedy. Wonderful.” Obviously, this was sarcasm on the part of a displaced New Yorker. The point, however, is this: Brett Michael Kavanaugh has been part of the Washington, District of Columbia, establishment since his birth on February 12, 1965.

He continues later in the piece:

Brett Michael Kavanaugh is one of the architects of the unconstitutional “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism [Patriot]Act of 2001” that was passed by Congress on October 26, 2001, at the behest of the statist “conservative” President George Walker Bush in the aftermath of the tragic events that unfolded on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. This unconstitutional act, whose full title is an Orwellian monstrosity, was created to give the government of the United States of America the full authority to spy on us all, thus bartering legitimate human liberties in the name of an illusory sense of “national security.” Such must ever be he work of Trotsykites, who are prone to curb legitimate freedoms and increase the surveillance powers of the civil state in increments.

Many hopes rest on Kavanaugh’s family policies and Droleskey dispels myths that he will bring significant change in that area:

It was in his current capacity as a judge on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion in the case of Priests for Life v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, May 15, 2015, that, while reaching the correct result, included the conviction that the government of the United States of America had a “compelling interest” in assuring that insurance companies provide coverage for contraceptives, which, of course, are evil of their very nature…

[…]

No government of any kind or at any level has any kind of “compelling interest” to assure that women have access to contraceptives. Once one concedes that there such a “compelling interest” exists, however, then one becomes trapped in a never-ending series of legal sophisms to “balance” “religious liberty” claims against the nonexistent “right” of women to frustrate the natural end for which God has given to rational beings the generative powers.

In summary,

[Kavanaugh] is a legal positivist in the mode of all the other justices, whether “originalists” or “activists,” who have ever sat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, including the Talmudic-friendly legal icon of the false opposite of the naturalist “right,” the late Antonin Scalia, who, along with the mercurial savior of ObamaDeathCare, Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, based his dissent from the Court on an appeal to “democracy” and the need to have the “people” “decide” a matter that is beyond the ability of mere creatures to change …

[Judge Andrew Napolitano also comments, though from a misguided libertarian perspective.]

Brett Kavanaugh is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. He is not going to restore the institution of marriage or end mass surveillance of the American people. He is not going to end excessive immigration. He is certainly not going to overturn the control of our government by skillful liars. He is certainly not going to tell the truth about 9/11 and he is certainly not going to lead to a repeal of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve or the unconstitutional income tax.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America cannot save America now. America doesn’t need new judges or new presidents. It needs an exorcism.

It needs to be exorcised of the spirit of modern democracy. Democracy is a sham, an illusion.

As Msgr. Henri Delassus wrote in Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy:

“The principle of Christian civilization is the existence of evil in the heart of man, and the necessity of authority in order to combat it and to establish the reign of virtue. The principle of revolutionary civilization is the immaculate conception of man and his right to liberty and equality. See there, the two roads; ‘they are not only different,’ a certain author of many evil books acknowledged, ‘but two very divergent lines,’ the author, Michelot, concluded, ‘that must always remain apart, even unto infinity.’”

Alexis de Toqueville issued prophetic warnings in his famous work Democracy in America:

I think then that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything which ever before existed in the world: our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I am trying myself to choose an expression which will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it, but in vain; the old words “despotism” and “tyranny” are inappropriate: the thing itself is new; and since I cannot name it, I must attempt to define it.

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest—his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not—he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances—what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

De Tocqueville would not be surprised by the emergence of “the deep state.” A people in perpetual childhood need more and more supervision. And since children cannot always handle the truth, this supervision must become more and more secretive.

In his introduction to Buffin de Chosal’s work, The End of Democracy, (available at Tumblar House) historian Charles A. Coulombe embraces this thesis of democracy’s inherent totalitarianism too:

Democracy has been a system in perpetual degradation. it has participated in the decline of the Western world, being both its cause and its fellow traveler. It is a factor of “decivilization,” and it leaves in its wake disappointed and politically immature peoples. Behind the screen of its rituals, it consolidates oligarchic totalitarian regimes which shall one day surprise — indeed this day has come — people who believed themselves free.

What can we do if there is no hope in the current political system?

Well, for one we can refuse to be one of democracy’s dupes.

I said readers of this site are too wise to be caught up in The Brett Kavanaugh Show. If a few of them are not here is my advice:

Turn off the tube. Turn off any and all adulation or high expectations of Kavanaugh and Trump. Seek God’s graces in your life. Build your interior mansion. The people are not in change of the government, despite democracy’s utterly false claims to the contrary, but they are in charge of their own souls and, to some extent, their own private lives.

The Supreme Court needs an exorcism. America needs an exorcism.

The people are not in charge. God is showing us that truth very clearly.

Only He can save us from ourselves now.

— Comments —

Caryl writes:

 I basically agree with you. But don’t you feel that the feminist totalitarian accusations
against him are worse than his pseudo-conservatism? As bad as that pseudo-conservatism is, I think a subversion of his candidacy by such groundless accusations would be worse.

But here we are, once again, trying to adjudicate “the lesser of two evils.” I don’t know how long a people can survive as a nation without some vision of the Good. The last time I experienced some vision of the Good– and in itself it could often be problematic—was the Civil Rights era in Birmingham. That ended a long time ago, and the social dynamism it generated has been preyed upon ever since by groups and people wielding various agendas. As we so well know.

Laura writes:

Don’t you feel that the feminist totalitarian accusations against him are worse than his pseudo-conservatism?

No, I don’t.

He lacks the principles by which feminist totalitarianism could be defeated.

We’re dealing with religious fanaticism. It cannot be defeated by Constitutionalism.

He also lacks the power. The people who fund candidates and the media have the power. The government is  controlled by a monolithic oligarchy that is immune to appeals to democracy. So in other words, his style of pseudo-conservatism perpetuates the illusion that there is any chance of even pseudo-conservatism winning in the end. Chuck Baldwin again:

Yes, radical leftists will vehemently protest Kavanaugh’s appointment. (It is the right that should be protesting, and a few will. Senators Rand Paul and Tom Cotton have already expressed reservations.) But the cacophony of protests from the left means NOTHING. The Deep State doesn’t care about the protestations (or the agendas) of the left or the right. All it cares about is putting people in power that they can control—and Kavanaugh fits that job description perfectly.

Yes, it would be disgraceful if his nomination were overturned or delayed due to underhanded, dirty political maneuvers. But so what? The Republicans (and Democrats) deny due process all the time to the unborn, to the people they launch wars against, to Americans who have no choice but to hand over much of their earnings to the government, to Americans subjected to surveillance and a Police State atmosphere. To make appeals to reason and civility is hypocritical.

Here are some more interesting, relevant comments by Baldwin on Kavanaugh’s pro-life credentials:

As to the life issue, pro-life organizations across the country are lauding Kavanaugh as staunchly pro-life. These endorsements don’t impress me at all. Most of the national “pro-life” (and “Christian”) organizations are unabashed sycophants of the Republican Party. Furthermore, they adamantly refuse to support the only pro-life bills that would actually STOP abortion: personhood bills such as the one repeatedly introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by former congressman Ron Paul.

If passed, Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act would have defined life as beginning at conception and under Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the court, thereby overturning Roe. Yes, the pro-life Republicans in Congress—along with a pro-life Republican President—could overturn Roe v Wade anytime it wanted to. Saying they must wait for a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe is simply a way for cowardly congressmen and presidents to pass the buck and still claim to be “pro-life” at the same time. [emphasis added]

[…]

For 45 years, wishy-washy Republicans have bragged about being “pro-life” and have voted for all kinds of compromised “pro-life” bills that have done absolutely NOTHING to overturn Roe v Wade and stop the slaughter of over 60 million unborn babies. Kavanaugh was a clerk for Anthony Kennedy and rose to power in the rabid neocon administration of G.W. Bush. His pro-life credentials are mired in compromise.

Please follow and like us: