Their only hope for victory

Despite yesterday's filibuster compromise, I am outraged but not surprised by the recent spate of blatant lies and ad hominem attacks on two brilliant jurists, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Activist courts are the last bastion by which liberals can institute that which they could never effect through legislation.

Liberals are teetering on the brink of the abyss. They have lost their majorities in Congress and continue to lose seats. They lost the White House to the "dumbest man in America," who continues to place them in check with every move.

TRENDING: Athlete files lawsuit alleging she was forced off team for refusing to kneel

They no longer have proprietary exclusivity and control of the news. The New York Times today could not shill for Hitler with impunity as it did decades ago. CNN's Eason Jordan today would not be able to cover-up for Saddam Hussein as he tortured and murdered. Dan Rather and CBS for years lied and distorted the news according to the will of the liberal cognoscenti – but it was a blogger who exposed their recent villainy. Newsweek has also been "outed" as a shill for the anti-war, anti-American, liberal interest groups.

The aforementioned bureaus of agitprop are no longer trusted. It is FoxNews and the New Media which are forging the news today. So, not unlike Hitler prior to his demise or Saddam Hussein as he fled Kuwait, the liberal special-interest groups have instructed their public personifications to scorch the earth with absolute lies, distortion and a zeitgeist of intimidation and calumny.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., condemned judicial nominees Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen in the same sentence when she said: "Brown [is] a wonderfully inspirational story. Her life story is an inspiration, but it is what she wants to do to our lives and other people's lives that is so frightening to us ..." (U.S. Senate Floor, May 18, 2005).

That's not only an interesting comment, but a telling one. It is telling because if Brown's life, as Boxer readily acknowledges is an inspiration, then how can it be worthy of fright at the same time? And if "frightening" – as Boxer employs it – means harmful, the conundrum then becomes why would Justice Brown do injury to that which enabled her to achieve such lofty heights? Why would Justice Owen do such a thing? I find it interesting that people like Boxer always fear what it is that Christians will do, while embracing and defending every form of evil and pagan debauchery destructive to man.

Boxer is sinking to new depths of dishonesty. She and her liberal cabal fears Brown because Planned Parenthood, Nance Keenan of NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) and Norman Lear, founder of People For the America Way tell them Brown is bad. They are the wizards behind the curtains pulling the strings of the marionettes known as the Democrat Party.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., viciously and falsely attacked Justice Clarence Thomas and now attacks Brown, but it is the verbiage he employs in his racist fomentations that tells the story. He said: "She's never looked back to ensure that the millions of Americans who live like sharecroppers are taken care of" (U.S. Senate Floor, May 18, 2005).

How many black people does Reid know of today who are barefoot, without clothing and forced to slave in fields sun up to sun down for pennies a day? Does Reid envision blacks as living in shacks with gaps between the boards of the walls, dirt floors, glassless windows, no doors, no indoor plumbing or electricity and many without stoves in them? Is this Reid's opinion of how blacks live? Reid implies it is uncommon for blacks – black women in particular – to live on a transcendent level to him and his kind. His words portray an unambiguous condescending contempt and elitism.

Personal assaults on these two women should be an affront to all women. They are not being attacked because of judicial temperament or judicial impropriety – they are being attacked because they are women who do not pledge allegiance to the radical feminist agendas, but rather to the Constitution of the United States.

Still, it is the Congressional Black Caucus that is the true conundrum. For them to remember that "the filibuster was systematically used when Senate minority rights meant the denial of the rights of [blacks]," but not remember it was the Democrats employing it, presumes they are either humiliatingly ignorant of factual history, dishonest to their core, or fearful of opposing the masters of their political plantation.