I firmly believe that the organized vendetta against the elevation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, is the fear by the pro-abortion zealots, that he could be the swing vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Therefore, you, as a sane person, could conclude that this whole sex abuse fiasco against Judge Kavanaugh could be classified as “The Attempted Abortion of Judge Kavanaugh”.

Chances of overturning Roe vs. Wade is remote (possible, but not likely), but if you are part of the pro-abortion crowd that abortion is the “holy grail” of public policy, the likes of which are NARAL, the ACLU, and PLANNED PARENTHOOD, you'd think that it is a “sin” to even contemplate that Roe vs. Wade would somehow be overturned. Since Judge Kavanaugh is painted as a strict constitutionalist, and a practicing Roman Catholic, according to them, he most likely would vote to overturn the right of women getting an abortion in the minds of the pro-abortion lobby. Judge Kavanaugh has not given any indication one way or another how he would rule, but that's not good enough for the pro-abortion zealots.

This whole organized attempt to delay and hopefully derail the vote on Kavanaugh to be confirmed, is being financed by the likes of George Soros and other pro-abortion benefactors. The Democrat Party is a willing co-conspirator using liberal activists and anti-Trumper's to come out of the woodwork to make sexual abuse charges against Judge Kavanaugh. It seems like they would go to any lengths to block the confirmation of Kavanaugh - they validate the saying that “the end justifies the means”. They are so dedicated to their pro-abortion cause that they'll ruin a mans reputation in trying to meet their goal – to them, so be it. In addition, what about the rule of law, the Constitution, the trauma to his family or even the general welfare of society? The quest for power is so intense on the part of the Democrats, that they will use such extreme actions to achieve it.

Judge Kavanaugh has led a life of decency, integrity, commitment to family, the rule of law, and a commitment to community few Americans can match. He also has received the highest rating of the American Bar Association, a liberal lawyer organization, and has served admirably over 10 years on the D.C. Court of Appeals. He has been subjected, over his legal career, to 6 FBI background checks with nary a dissenting opinion, and just recently he was subjected to 2 days of scrutiny by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Other than some challenges to some of his legal decisions, he passed the test with flying colors. Then the charges of sexual abuse surfaced after the Judiciary Committee had finished its work and right before a committee vote was scheduled to pass along his nomination to the full Senate for confirmation, all for the purpose of delaying or scuttling his nomination.

So, in conclusion, if Judge Kavanaugh would've come out saying he wouldn't overturn Roe vs. Wade, he wouldn't have had any trouble being confirmed, including the votes of many Democrats. But, since he has an open mind on the subject of abortion, he is subject of the same violation faced by now Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991 - a high tech lynching, only this time with a white candidate not a black candidate to the Supreme Court.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Never heard of that word? It is the antonym of “misogyny” which is defined as hatred of women. Misandry is defined as the hatred of men.

Hawaii Senator, Mazie Hirono, recently has stated that men must step up in the era of “#Me Too” or just shut up. That belligerent statement seems to be the prevailing opinion of many feminist groups who blame all men for all misbehavior against women. Placing all men in the same boat as women abusers seems to be quite a misguided blanket statement.

According to these emotionally charged statements by feminists, if you don't believe or you question the motives of women, you are classified as a misogynist. They say all women should be believed if they make a claim that they have been abused by a man, no if's, and's, or but's, no matter if the facts are dubious or even non-existent.

The accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, fall into this category. Regardless of of his exemplary record of integrity and judicial achievement, he has had to defend himself against a nebulous charge of sexual abuse of 36 years ago, as a 17 year old, by a woman he may or may not have known. According to the “fake news” media, without any real proof at all, they have accused, tried, and convicted him without a trial or any corroborating witnesses. A sane person observing this hysteria should be able to come to the conclusion that they could “smell a rat”. This last minute “Hail Mary” against Judge Kavanaugh, pushed by the Democrats to stall or postpone the elevation of him to the Supreme Court, seems to be an act of desperation on the part of the Democrats. They want to delay a vote before the mid-term elections hoping that the Democrats will prevail and be able to take back control of the Senate, thereby voiding the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.

The “#Me Too” movement seems to be the motivating factor in this charade of a confirmation process. Why should we accept the charges of a partisan Democrat woman activist who was a “Bernie” supporter and who has also contributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign. This has all the markings of a “political hit job” for only partisan political purposes.

The women who practice “misandry”, will do or say anything to ruin the reputation of this outstanding jurist, not because he is deficient in the law, but because of his judicial philosophy which they disagree with. They are using this dubious charge of sexual abuse as the reason he should be denied confirmation.

This charade must end and the Senate must confirm him immediately to bring sanity back into the realm of fairness and due diligence in the confirmation process.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

​A few years ago that question would be scoffed at, but today that question is being debated and in some cases embraced by a significant number of people, mostly left-leaning people (a/k/a Democrats and Progressives).

With the emergence of socialist Bernie Sanders, during the 2016 Democrat primary, when ole Bernie attracted a strong, vocal following in his quest for the Democrat presidential nomination (which he lost to the chicanery of Hillary and the DNC), to now, with the emergence of 28 year old Alexandia Ocasio-Cortez, who won the Democrat primary in NYC against a sitting long time congressman, by proclaiming that she was a Democrat Socialist (she won with only 13% of the registered voters voting in the district), she has now become the darling of the Democrat left.

In subsequent interviews in the press and on T.V., she has espoused what she thinks is the way our country should change - to a socialist system of government. Quite simply, she defines her socialism as taking money and property from some people (the rich) so it can be given to make everyone more or less equal. She has as her goals, free college, paying off a student's debt, housing as a human right, Medicare for all, and a mandatory minimum wage guaranteed by the government. Basically, what she is proposing is that “stealing” is the right of governments to try to level the playing field of life.

When she is asked, “Who is going to pay for all this “free stuff”, her answers vary, but all have one thing in common, confiscatory taxation, and she graduated from college with a degree in economics? It looks like she missed a few classes, or she was just repeating the words of her ultra-liberal professors who make up 90% of the faculties of our colleges and universities and who believe in the socialist philosophy.

Ole Bernie and his protege, Ms. Cortez, have been barnstorming around the country espousing their socialist ideas and programs, which seems to find sympathetic ears on the group called “Millennials” (18 to 35 age group). That group of people are easy marks because many of them are saddled with a huge amount of debt due to their student loans, and their inability to get a decent job to make their college degree pay off financially. I guess a degree in women's studies, black history, and communications etc. are not that much in demand, and they are “pissed”, so they welcome the “free stuff” offered by Bernie and Alexandria.

Socialism is defined as such: “Socialism requires the intervention and control of the marketplace by an overwhelmingly powerful central government. It penalizes high achievers, rewards laziness, and stifles choice”. As the late former Prime Minister of Britain, Margaret Thatcher, once said; “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money”. A recent report by George Mason University evaluated the proposals of Bernie and Alexandria and came up with the figure that it would cost $33 trillion over the next 10 years to implement their proposals. Both of them don't know where or how we would get all that money to pay for all that “free stuff”, but they say not to worry as it is for the benefit of society (deja vu Margaret Thatcher). Isn't that called “pie in the sky” or “wishful thinking”? Of course, and that's why the question asked at the beginning of the editorial should read that socialism is NOT a viable alternative to capitalism. And in the words of another famous Brit, Sir Winston Churchill; “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”. And, that's the way it is.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann​

Just recently, both Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, ex- Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton, former Democrat candidate for president, were asked that headline question, “What's the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat” and the question was met with a “burst” of silence. In other words they didn't know any difference. I don't really blame them because there really is no difference. Many elected Democrat officials are members of the organization called the Democratic Socialists of America (Google up members of the Democratic Socialists of America). You will find approximately 70 members of the House and Senate who are members, and practically all of the Congressional Black caucus, are members of that organization.

Most Democrats will deny that they espouse Socialism because the word, according to them, has a negative connotation in the lexicon of the American language, but it is with their ideas and actions that belie the fact that they are more sympathetic to Socialism than they are of Capitalism. There has been a quote going around that is attributed to the late perennial presidential candidate on the Socialist Party line in the 40's and 50's, Norman Thomas, who supposedly said, “ The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform”. Whether Norman Thomas actually made that statement, it sort of rings true as the past 70 years have shown. The Democrat Party has evolved into the party of big government and big government handouts, and who some have called them, sarcastically, the “free stuff” party.

Just recently, we had an admitted Socialist running for president, Bernie Sanders, and two other Democrat candidates by the names of Hillary Clinton and Martin O' Malley, who instead of using the term socialist, referred to themselves as “Progressives” (which many say is a euphemism for Socialists).

The U.S.A. was founded on capitalist principles and in a little over two short centuries has brought forth more innovation and accomplishments than any other economic system used by man. That successful system is now being attacked as being unfair and an exploiter of the average citizen. In 2008, then candidate and now ex-president, Barack Hussein Obama, campaigned on the slogan of “Hope and Change” and that he was going to “Transform America”. Well, how did that work out?

Yes, some people have fallen through the cracks and some have been unable to take advantage of our capitalist free enterprise system, but to abandon our capitalist free enterprise system for a government guarantee of everyone being taken care of by the government, we would have then taken out the incentive for people to better themselves and to make their lives a success on their own. We then will have descended into mediocrity by accepting the Marxist philosophy of “from everyone according to his ability to everyone according to his need”.

The people espousing Socialism want to “rob from the rich to give to the poor” (the term “income inequality” is what is used by the Democrats), which is a form of government looting of the producers in our society to support the non-producers, which inevitably runs into trouble whenever the givers of these government “goodies” (the politicians) run out of other peoples money (us, the taxpayers). The Socialists then blame Capitalism, which was the goose that laid the golden egg. In a classic bait and switch, the Progressives (a/k/a the Democrats and Socialists) offer freedom and deliver regulations. They offer prosperity and deliver stagnation, inflation, and economic ruin. This mentality of “robbing Peter to pay Paul” (mainly to generate votes for the Democrat politicians), is a prelude to blame Capitalism for the economic ills of society when in reality, Socialism is the problem and Capitalism is the solution.

Just listen to the Democrats and see what they have to offer - they want government to be the be-all and end-all of society, therefore giving these Progressive leaders power over the people, by making and keeping them dependent on the government, which is what they always seem to crave. So the answer to the headline of this editorial's question is - there is absolutely no difference between a Socialist and a Democrat.

Conservative Commentary by Chuck Lehmann