The recent death of Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has inspired a flooding of praise for the woman’s life and legal record. She has become an almost religious icon for modern feminism, specifically for her history of famous dissenting opinions.
The slogan “I Dissent” became virally attributed to her during the infamous Bush vs. Gore decision which has since appeared on t-shirts, bumper stickers, social media wall paper, and e-books.
What followers of the late Justice seldom like to discuss, however, are dissents that firmly earn her the title “Ruth Traitor Ginsburg” to both God and country.
Some of her most outrageous and appalling dissents date back to 2003.
She was one of two dissenting opinions on a Florida child porn conviction case. In the Court ruling, led by Justice Scalia, the 2003 ruling stated that child pornography was not protected under the 1st Amendment aka “protected speech.” An extension of the ruling would criminalize “pandering” such vile material.
“Pandering” being defined as anyone who advertises, promotes, presents, distributes or solicits said material. She was one of two dissenting opinions in this case, advocating for child pornography pandering to be protected under free speech. A disturbing thing for ANY Justice to dissent against.
That same year, in “United States vs American Library Association”, the Court ruled that the “Children’s Internet Protection Act”, or CIPA, did not violate the 1st Amendment for its requirement of federal libraries to utilize firewall software to block pornography and other content deemed harmful to children in order to receive federal moneys. Again, Ginsburg dissented.
Her rulings in favor of pedophiles is not surprising when one reads the book she co-authored while on the General Council of the ACLU in the late 70s. Among many abominations she, in her book titled “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code”, advocated for effectively lowering of the age of consent to that of twelve years old on page 102.
Snopes, Reuters and other Soros funded “fact checkers” will split hairs as they always do in defense of their satanic icons, however. They will state that this is false solely because this was not a “direct quote” despite what she advocated for. Snopes goes as laughably far as to state that this page specific excerpt was “likely a drafting error” and thus deemed as false despite its verifiability.
What these soulless fact checkers can hardly attempt to smokescreen is found on page 98 where Ginsburg “dissents” against the 1910 “Mann Act” which punished those who engaged in interstate sex trafficking of women and girls.
More specifically, the Mann Act was a federal law that makes it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commercial transport of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution, debauchery or any other immoral purpose.” Her opinion deemed the law “offensive” and that such acts should fall within the “zone of privacy.”
Not only was Ginsburg sympathetic to pedophiles, she was actively manipulating the language of the 1st Amendment to empower human traffickers, something we know is a massive illicit industry that is widely associated with the man who appointed her… Bill Clinton, whose name has appeared on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” flight logs over twenty-seven times. ‘Lolita’ being an ironically disturbing reference to the novel featuring a man who marries the mother of an underage girl in order to get close to and sexually seduce said girl.
While many followers of RBG may not be aware of such rulings (despite them being openly quoted by her detractors in an effort to block her appointment in 1993), what surprises me most about her demise is the praise and canonization she is receiving from self-proclaimed Christians.
“RIP RBG” and “She was an amazing woman” are but a couple of the things I’m seeing even among those I know personally. Would King Herod, the man who ordered the slaughtering of first-born babies in an attempt to murder Jesus as an infant, be tweeted about in the same way today?
Ginsburg has arguably more blood on her hands than King Herod ever dreamed possible. Her rulings on the defense of Roe vs. Wade was one that kept the flood gates open for state sponsored infanticide in this country and continues to be used to justify millions of convenience-based abortions. Something I also blame the Republican Party for at the time as six of the nine judges during the actual case were Republican, only one of which dissented.
Whatever the corrupt or misguided rationale of the rest of the majority, it is not hard to imagine the motivations behind Miss Ginsburg, however. She openly embraced the ideology of Margaret Sanger’s eugenics movement and the role mass abortion had in achieving that movement’s goals.
In a 2009 interview with New York Time’s Emily Bazelon in regards to the defense of the Roe V Wade ruling, Ginsburg stated, “…I had thought that at the time…there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” implying blacks and immigrants.
Many RBG apologists have tried to minimize this quote in claiming she was only speaking about the impoverished (as if that makes it acceptable). But when one looks to someone like Margaret Sanger, these two women both believed in the eugenics core value of abortion and birth control. It would not, then, be a stretch to assume she was covertly referring to the culling of the African American population as did Sanger.
This would explain why almost 80 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are found within inner city communities and receive millions of dollars in tax subsidies each year. For a more in dept analysis of Margaret Sanger and eugenics, I encourage you to browse my article “Supporting Planned Parenthood Makes You a Racist.”
Thus far, we have shown from her own volition and voting record that Miss Ginsburg was a racist, pro-pedophile, sex traffic enabling, eugenicist. Sadly, the woman’s depravity does not stop here.
Miss Ginsburg, while vowing to “uphold and defend the Constitution”, took every chance she could to denounce it to the world in 2012. During Egypt’s volatile 2012 election following the overthrow of corrupt Autocrat Hosni Mubarak, Alhayat TV released an interview they conducted with her.
The unstable nation, looking to the U.S. for a structured constitutional transition to the corrupt political chaos they suffered under Mubarak, was told by Ginsburg “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa.”
She goes on to laud the South African Constitution over that of the one she swore to defend, stating: “That (South Africa’s) was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
If that wasn’t grounds for impeachment, I don’t know what would have been. Let alone the absolute ignorance it would require to believe that the country with one of the highest rape percentages, allows for the mass murder of white south African farmers and unrepresented government confiscation / redistribution of land has somehow become the Constitutional gold standard for human rights.
In the end, it does not take more than a few hours of research to truly uncover who Ruth Bader Ginsburg was. And she was not a person that anyone should be celebrating.
The laurels and praise she has received brings to mind a verse which depicts how many will behave in the end of days. Isaiah 5:20-21 says, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light…woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight.”
This verse clearly defined Ginsburg’s dissents before she passed. I would advise her followers to unharden their hearts before they too stand before the Judge of judges and receive His dissent.
You can support my writing at: Jared Miller is creating Political Articles from a Christian Perspective | Patreon
4 thoughts on “Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Satan’s Dissenter”
If Ginsburg was nominated by Clinton in the 90s, and Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973, how did she rule on it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I merely meant that she ruled continually in its defense and continued to laud it as a victory for “women’s rights.”
Even mainstream media outlets like NPR have come out this week that her death is a “Pivot Point” for abortion rights now that her spot is open and she can no longer defend the ruling.
Thanks for reading!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You based this whole article on a false quote. Why would you do that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
1. It’s not a direct quote, it’s an excerpt from a proposed law which she openly supported.
2. It gets people like you to click and hopefully learn.
LikeLiked by 1 person