I was aghast at how many people were treating her as a "heroine" and "champion of women," and seen as above criticism. Even President Trump (not politically correct to be sure) spoke of her in glowing terms; most likely because the president realized he couldn't survive the backlash if he dared to speak the truth about this horrid jurist. There is an old aphorism, De mortuis nihil nisi bonum, which translates roughly as "Of the dead, [say] nothing but good" because it is wrong to attack someone's character when they cannot defend themselves. While this might apply to the average person, public figures are another matter. I will not allow another day go by without the truth about her record being known. Ginsburg being pro-baby killing and pro-sodomite is only the beginning of her promotion of evil.
Ginsburg was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for years. She served on the Board of Directors. According to the ACLU's own website:
Ginsburg deliberately chose the ACLU as the vehicle for her legal work, rather than an organization with a narrower women's rights agenda, in large part because she believed that the ACLU would enhance the credibility of the women's rights cause. Ginsburg has also said that she chose the ACLU because of the integral interconnection between civil liberties and civil rights, including women's rights. 'I wanted to be a part of a general human rights agenda . . . [promoting] the equality of all people and the ability to be free,' she said. (See https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-driving-force-change-aclu-womens-rights-project; Emphasis mine). Bader Ginsburg knew all about the ACLU and proudly promoted their agenda. This agenda, as this post will show, has nothing to do with "human rights" or "women's rights." It attempts to destroy society and banish God from human thought. Most don't realize just how depraved that agenda really is and the untold harm it does to souls. WARNING! Some descriptions in this post are graphic in nature. Reader discretion is advised.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Short Bio
As most people of been besieged in the media with her "remarkable achievements," I offer here a concise biography, free from hyperbolic claims. Ginsburg was born Joan Ruth Bader on March 15, 1933, in Brooklyn, New York. The second daughter of Nathan and Celia Bader, she grew up in a low-income, working-class neighborhood in Brooklyn.Ginsburg earned her bachelor's degree in government from Cornell University in 1954, finishing first in her class. She married law student Martin D. Ginsburg that same year. The early years of their marriage were challenging, as their first child, Jane, was born shortly after Martin was drafted into the military in 1954. He served for two years and, after his discharge, the couple returned to Harvard, where Ginsburg also enrolled. She became the first female member of the Harvard Law Review.Martin recovered from a diagnosis of testicular cancer, graduated from law school, and accepted a position at a New York law firm. To join her husband in New York City, Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she was elected to the school's law review. She graduated first in her class in 1959. During the 1970s, she also served as the director of the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union [and was on the Board of Directors]. In 1980 President Carter appointed Ginsburg to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She served there until she was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 by President Clinton. In 2016 Ginsburg released My Own Words, a memoir filled with her writings that date as far back as her junior high school years. The book became a New York Times Best Seller. In January 2018 Ginsburg appeared at the Sundance Film Festival to accompany the premiere of the documentary RBG. (This information excerpted from https://www.biography.com/law-figure/ruth-bader-ginsburg).
The Communist Connection Of The ACLU and Director Ginsburg
The ACLU was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin, an agnostic, and a Socialist who became a convinced Communist. He said, "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." (See Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union: A Portrait, , pg. 192). Baldwin was born to a wealthy family that was Unitarian. He got the idea of forming the ACLU to transform America via using the Courts and legal system. He counted among his closest friends the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the diabolical founder of Planned Parenthood. (Ibid)
Baldwin told those who helped him found his organization that the ACLU was to disguise itself as a pro-American organization; Communism and Socialism were not to be mentioned. Instead, they were to talk about the Constitution and how their goal was to keep America free by enforcing the Constitutional rights of all citizens. They would enlist young and idealistic lawyers from law school, eventually winning them over to their subversive ideals and eventually getting them placed in high positions as judges. The ACLU began its relentless attack against traditional values in four areas:
- Human Life
The Assault Against ChildrenJefferey Curley was a normal ten year old boy, living in Massachusetts, who liked baseball and riding his bike. Unfortunately, both parents needed to work, and he was a "latchkey kid," spending his time afterschool without supervision. The year was 1997, and two sodomites, Salvatore Sicari (age 21) and Charlie Jaynes (age 22) had befriended the boy; they lived near him and would make conversation as well as taking him out to eat multiple times. On October 1st, Jeffrey's life would be brutally ended. The two perverts took Jeffery for a ride, ostensibly to go eat. Prior to that, the men had gone to the public library and accessed the website for the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which promotes pedophilia and abolishing age-of-consent laws. During the ride, Jayne offered to buy Jeffrey a new bike since his old one was stolen. He asked the boy to have sex with him in the back seat of the car as "payment" for the new bike. Jeffrey refused and tried to fight off Jaynes, but Jaynes got angry, pinned the boy down, and held a gasoline-soaked rag over his mouth and nose until the fumes killed him.
Jaynes and Sicari then drove to a local store and purchased lime, concrete and a 50 gallon container, and headed out to an apartment Jaynes had been renting. There they had sex with Jeffrey’s corpse (necrophilia), then proceeded to place his body in the 50 gallon container and fill it with concrete. Early the next morning they dumped his body in a nearby river called “The Great Works River." Jeffery's body was eventually found, and both Jaynes and Sicari were found guilty. Sicari was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.
Jaynes was found guilty of second degree murder and will be eligible for parole in 2021, however in 2006 a former prisoner stated he heard Jaynes yell “I wouldn’t hesitate to do it again. I would pull him out of the grave and do it [kill and rape the boy] again and again.” The prisoner told sources “It was in his gut, it was how he really felt.” The crime was so heinous, the Massachusetts legislature came within one vote of restoring the death penalty.
(See e.g., http://lanternproject.org.uk/library/general/articles-and-information-about-sexual-abuse-and-its-impact/curley-kidnapping-still-packs-a-punch/).
In 2000, Jeffery's parents initiated a wrongful death lawsuit Curley v. NAMBLA, against NAMBLA for inciting the murder of their son. The ACLU came to the defense of NAMBLA.
According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group. The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."
...According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse. ''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe. (See https://www.wnd.com/2000/12/4648/; Emphasis mine).
The ACLU won on a technical ground. Much has been made about the inaccurate claim that Ginsburg wanted the age of consent dropped to twelve years old, but no one can deny that she sat on the Board of Directors of the organization which protected child molestation advocates. Moreover, in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (where the 12-year-old remark was made in reference to gender-neutral language), she has gone on record asserting that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are "arguably" unconstitutional. (Page 195).
The Assault Against Marriage
In 2004, in New Paltz, New York, then-Mayor Jason West "married" twenty-five "same sex couples" which was against New York State Law at the time. He was charged on multiple misdemeanor charges for performing marriages without a license. The left-wing judge dismissed the indictment because "the state failed to show it has a legitimate interest in banning same-sex weddings." (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32522-2004Jun10.html?nav%3Dheadlines).
The AP newswire of 2/26/04 reported that the Executive Director of the NY Chapter of the ACLU (which defended West) stated, "Bravo, bravo for the mayor. Equal rights for gay couples (sic) are long overdue. They are entitled to equal treatment under the law, including the right to marry and the family protections enjoyed by heterosexual couples." Are "equal rights" what sodomites (and their Communist ACLU allies) really want? That question was answered in 2011 when Andrew "Put the COVID patients in the nursing homes" Cuomo, a member of the Vatican II sect, made legalizing sodomite "marriage" a priority.
One of my friends from law school was elected as a Republican member of the State Legislature; he was a member of the Democratic-controlled, 150 member State Assembly. When the same-sex "marriage" bill came up for a vote, he obtained the floor to speak. What he did next to expose the homosexual agenda was nothing short of brilliant. He proposed that to settle the matter, he would sit down with counsel for the Democrats and draw up a bill for a "New York State Domestic Partnership Bill" which would ensure homosexual "couples" get every single right as that of heterosexual couples. The only difference would be that heterosexual unions would be called "marriage" in respect to the long held societal and religious beliefs in New York, and the homosexual unions would be called "NYS Domestic Partnership"--only the nomenclature would be different. The chamber went crazy with pro-sodomite legislators calling him a "fascist" a "homophobe" and the guards had to be called in to restore order. This is proof they don't want "rights," they want to destroy the institution of marriage.
Why do Ginsburg and her ACLU comrades want to destroy the institution of marriage? The legal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples affirms the belief that real marriage is the most valuable sexual relationship in society. If homosexual partners are called "married," it makes their relationship equal to heterosexuals and makes deviant, perverted behavior seem normal. It is a slap in the face to both the Natural Law and the Divine-Positive Law. Ginsburg thus (as far back as 1977) was contemplating as unconstitutional laws prohibiting polygamy and, in effect, "group marriage." The civil law is a great teacher, and it will teach that deviant sex is normal. This will encourage adolescents to experiment with such behavior, thereby increasing the number of homosexuals and bisexuals (there is already evidence of that happening). Moreover, your children will be indoctrinated in school, and you will get "diversity and tolerance" training at work. "Tolerance and respect" is a one-way street; you must tolerate and respect deviants, but they need not respect and tolerate your values and religious beliefs.
If you think that the tragedy of Jeffery Curley is an isolated instance of murder caused by homosexual deviance, it is not. Homosexuality was rightly considered a mental disorder by the APA until they caved to political pressure in the 1970s, and until the 5-4 decision in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, homosexual sodomy could be criminalized (and it was in several states). Ginsburg was in the five member majority.
Here are the statistics you should know:The top six American male serial killers were all homosexual:
- Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky
- John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard
- Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways
- Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois
- A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he had sex with their corpses--necrophilia--as in the case of the murderers of poor little Jeffery Curley).
A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals (See Cameron, Dr. Paul,  "Is homosexuality disproportionately associated with murder?" Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Assn Chicago).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice Elena Kagan were in the five member majority in the decision declaring "sodomite marriage" a "Constitutional right" (See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644). Yet, neither had the right to hear the case ethically, because they were bound to recuse themselves. Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code titled “Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge,” states that “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Kagan performed a September 21, 2014, same-sex “marriage” ceremony for her former law clerk and his partner in Maryland. Likewise, Ginsburg performed a same-sex “marriage” ceremony at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington D.C., in August 2013. They refused to recuse themselves and neither was impeached. Can you imagine if Associate Justice Clarence Thomas joined the March for Life and continued to hear cases involving abortion?
The Assault Against Human Life
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 decision, that the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, made law by Congress in 2003, was constitutional. (See Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124) Partial birth abortion is the act by which an unborn baby (usually seven to nine months old) is taken out of the mother's womb, and with just a couple of inches of his/her head inside the mother, has the head opened with a surgical instrument and his/her brains extracted; the decapitated body is thrown out as "medical waste."
Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion as to why this barbaric means of murder should be allowed. Her opinion states, "Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." Ok, so decapitating a child fully capable of living outside the mother's womb isn't murder, it's about the woman "determining her life's course" and being an "equal citizen." At least half of those babies murdered are female. What about their rights? Ginsburg also doesn't care about how abortion is unfair to men based on her own secular legal principles. Example: a man gets a women pregnant and he tells her to kill the child by abortion. She says no, and keeps the baby. He must pay for the child he didn't want to have for the next 21 years. If in the same scenario, the man wants to keep the child and take care of him/her and pay for him/her, the woman can say no and kill the child by abortion. How is this fair to men in Ginsburg's world?
In an interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg had this to say, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe [v. Wade; legalizing abortion in 1973] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. " (See https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=print; Emphasis mine). Exactly what populations do we "[not] want too many of"? Blacks? Hispanics? Non-Jews in general?
The Assault Against Religion
I'll let Ginsburg's record of rulings on religion while on the Supreme Court speak for themselves:
- In 2019, the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Court allowed the Bladensburg’s Peace Cross memorial for WWII veterans to remain on public property by a 7-2 decision. Ginsburg wrote the dissent. She contended, inter alia, that the Cross offended non-religious observers and its symbolism violated the conscience of those who did not share the meaning of “the Latin cross … the foremost symbol of the Christian faith" and it was funded by taxpayers. While Ginsburg would allow enemies of Christianity to stop the Cross maintenance by tax dollars, and, in the name of conscience, to refuse even to associate in any way with the theological meaning of the cross, she will not extend the same right to believers not to be coerced to act against their beliefs.
- In 2014, Ginsburg dissented in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. whereby the Court ruled in favor of a corporation, Hobby Lobby, when they objected on religious grounds to paying for drugs popularly (and erroneously) called contraceptives. Those "contraceptives" also acted as abortifacients (i.e., they kill unborn babies) and were mandated by Obamacide. In her dissent, Ginsburg noted how dubious it would be for a firm to claim their corporate conscience had been violated. Yet this same woman had no problems with corporations refusing to do business in states that did not support same sex marriage prior to 2015. Can you say hypocrite?
- In 2018, the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al upheld the right of a Protestant who designs wedding cakes to refuse service to a homosexual couple based on his religious beliefs. The ACLU supported the sodomites in Court. Did Ginsburg respect the right of the baker's conscience? On the contrary, she dissented because the Christian must conform to "laws of general applicability." She treats your right to be free from religion as practically inviolate; she regards your right to act on your religion to be circumscribed by “laws of general applicability”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a Communist sympathizer and "fellow traveler" who supported everything ungodly. God is to be banished from the public square. Sexual perverts are to be extolled and marriage destroyed. Babies are to be murderer at any point during pregnancy, and for any reason, in the name of "women's rights." This person is a "great American" and a "champion for human rights"? She aided and abetted the ACLU in its plan to destroy America and belief in God. Have the Vatican II sect "bishops" condemned her life of evil actions? You already know the answer. Not a word from the Argentinian apostate, Francis.
Writing an article for the Jesuit rag America magazine ("What I will teach my children about Ruth Bader Ginsburg") Erika Bachiochi opines, "Justice Ginsburg lived a heroic life (!) in many ways, and I am grateful for her exemplary tenacity, equanimity and concern for others—not to mention her trailblazing work at the Supreme Court in the 1970s." I am reminded of the Biblical verse Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." Ruth Bader Ginsburg was "RBG"--Repugnant Blasphemous Garbage.