Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Deifying Maggots

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default Deifying Maggots


    Do not forget that the majority of people in every culture throughout history despised lawyers, yet:


    Lawyers are the law. To be more precise judges are lawyers. After lawyers become judges they somehow acquire the authority to tell LAW-ABIDING Americans how to behave, and they do it without benefit of legislation. The way the Constitution itself is violated with impunity by all those lawyers in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and on every level of government, the law has become nothing more than law for lawyers.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...97#post3118297

    It is television, more than every source of information combined, that conspired to convince the American people that Supreme Court justice are worthy of admiration and respect. Novels, movies, and televison courtroom dramas laid the groundwork for ethical lawyers fighting the good fight. The result has been deifying Supreme Court justices. A filthy freak like RBJ is the culmination of more than a century convincing Americans that perverts, bums, and liars are decent human beings. The truth is that no group despises the U.S. Constitution more than the freaks that make it all the way to the High Court. Regardless who is confirmed to replace RBJ he or she will be just as politically corrupt as every other two-faced justice that got there first.

    Ginsburg was an ACLU maggot par excellent who was put on the Court by REPUBLICAN SENATORS:

    Indeed, let’s also not forget the historical context. In 1993, then-President Clinton reached out to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a leading senator on the Judiciary Committee, even though Republicans were in the minority. Clinton solicited suggested nominees for a Supreme Court vacancy, and Hatch recommended Ginsburg. Clinton agreed and Ginsburg sailed through.

    This isn’t ancient history; it was just 18 years ago. The radicalization of Republican politics in the years since has been so successful, the scenario itself seems vaguely surreal, if not completely bizarre. I mean, really — a Republican senator, considered conservative by most standards, recommended a Democratic president nominate a liberal ACLU veteran for the Supreme Court? And nearly every Senate Republican went along with this, without any controversy?


    August 30, 2011 4:45 PM
    It’s amazing Ginsburg is even on the bench
    By Steve Benen

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2011/0...-on-the-bench/

    Flying the flag at half staff for every swamp maggot that drops dead has become a joke; none funnier than the asshole lowering the flag for an ACLU maggot:


    Trump orders all U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff in honor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    By Grace Segers
    September 19, 2020 / 9:13 AM

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ruth-ba...at-half-staff/

    If the asshole had any courage he would fly this flag in Ginsburg’s honor:


    And if the asshole wants to suck up to Democrats he would insist that Diarrhea Mouth Pelosi deliver the eulogy for her democracy:


    “The loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is devasting," Pelosi said in a statement. "Justice Ginsburg embodied justice, brilliance and goodness, and her passing is an incalculable loss for our democracy and for all who sacrifice and strive to build a better future for our children."


    Published 1 day ago
    Pelosi: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death is 'an incalculable loss for our democracy'
    By Marisa Schultz

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nan...-ginsburg-dead

    NOTE: The XVII Amendment has been the most voracious maggot of all:


    Incidentally, television made serving in the Senate a required gradation to the presidency. Filth like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and the Chicago sewer rat are the rule not the exceptions.

    Media moguls are guilty of the evils done by long-serving senators. Media paymasters would fight to the death before they would allow the XVII Amendment to be repealed. It is cheaper to elect and control a majority of senators than it is to buy the HOUSE every two years. In short: Senators are bought for six years. Representatives sign two year contracts with media mouths.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...34#post2766134

    Every long-serving senator gets more of his personal agenda legislated than did every president after 1945. Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) sat in U.S. Senate for 47 years (1962 - 2009). The departed drunk will always be the gold standard for the XVII Amendment.

    Repealing the XVII Amendment is not in the cards at this time; so I have a suggestion for Democrat douche bags who love voting by mail:

    1. Repeal the Senate’s constitutional authority to confirm judges for the Supreme Court

    Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 reads as follows:

    [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    2. Each political party puts up one nominee.

    3. The winner would still have lifetime tenure.

    4. Long-serving senators would lose all influence over deciding who sits on the High Court.

    The American people electing Supreme Court maggots has to be a lot better than the maggots senators have been confirming since 1945. I know one thing for certain —— Americans would never elect an ACLU maggot like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.



    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post

    Do not forget that the majority of people in every culture throughout history despised lawyers, yet:


    Lawyers are the law. To be more precise judges are lawyers. After lawyers become judges they somehow acquire the authority to tell LAW-ABIDING Americans how to behave, and they do it without benefit of legislation. The way the Constitution itself is violated with impunity by all those lawyers in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and on every level of government, the law has become nothing more than law for lawyers.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...97#post3118297

    It is television, more than every source of information combined, that conspired to convince the American people that Supreme Court justice are worthy of admiration and respect. Novels, movies, and televison courtroom dramas laid the groundwork for ethical lawyers fighting the good fight. The result has been deifying Supreme Court justices. A filthy freak like RBJ is the culmination of more than a century convincing Americans that perverts, bums, and liars are decent human beings. The truth is that no group despises the U.S. Constitution more than the freaks that make it all the way to the High Court. Regardless who is confirmed to replace RBJ he or she will be just as politically corrupt as every other two-faced justice that got there first.

    Ginsburg was an ACLU maggot par excellent who was put on the Court by REPUBLICAN SENATORS:

    Indeed, let’s also not forget the historical context. In 1993, then-President Clinton reached out to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a leading senator on the Judiciary Committee, even though Republicans were in the minority. Clinton solicited suggested nominees for a Supreme Court vacancy, and Hatch recommended Ginsburg. Clinton agreed and Ginsburg sailed through.

    This isn’t ancient history; it was just 18 years ago. The radicalization of Republican politics in the years since has been so successful, the scenario itself seems vaguely surreal, if not completely bizarre. I mean, really — a Republican senator, considered conservative by most standards, recommended a Democratic president nominate a liberal ACLU veteran for the Supreme Court? And nearly every Senate Republican went along with this, without any controversy?


    August 30, 2011 4:45 PM
    It’s amazing Ginsburg is even on the bench
    By Steve Benen

    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2011/0...-on-the-bench/

    Flying the flag at half staff for every swamp maggot that drops dead has become a joke; none funnier than the asshole lowering the flag for an ACLU maggot:


    Trump orders all U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff in honor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    By Grace Segers
    September 19, 2020 / 9:13 AM

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ruth-ba...at-half-staff/

    If the asshole had any courage he would fly this flag in Ginsburg’s honor:


    And if the asshole wants to suck up to Democrats he would insist that Diarrhea Mouth Pelosi deliver the eulogy for her democracy:


    “The loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is devasting," Pelosi said in a statement. "Justice Ginsburg embodied justice, brilliance and goodness, and her passing is an incalculable loss for our democracy and for all who sacrifice and strive to build a better future for our children."


    Published 1 day ago
    Pelosi: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death is 'an incalculable loss for our democracy'
    By Marisa Schultz

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nan...-ginsburg-dead

    NOTE: The XVII Amendment has been the most voracious maggot of all:


    Incidentally, television made serving in the Senate a required gradation to the presidency. Filth like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and the Chicago sewer rat are the rule not the exceptions.

    Media moguls are guilty of the evils done by long-serving senators. Media paymasters would fight to the death before they would allow the XVII Amendment to be repealed. It is cheaper to elect and control a majority of senators than it is to buy the HOUSE every two years. In short: Senators are bought for six years. Representatives sign two year contracts with media mouths.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...34#post2766134

    Every long-serving senator gets more of his personal agenda legislated than did every president after 1945. Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) sat in U.S. Senate for 47 years (1962 - 2009). The departed drunk will always be the gold standard for the XVII Amendment.

    Repealing the XVII Amendment is not in the cards at this time; so I have a suggestion for Democrat douche bags who love voting by mail:

    1. Repeal the Senate’s constitutional authority to confirm judges for the Supreme Court

    Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 reads as follows:

    [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    2. Each political party puts up one nominee.

    3. The winner would still have lifetime tenure.

    4. Long-serving senators would lose all influence over deciding who sits on the High Court.

    The American people electing Supreme Court maggots has to be a lot better than the maggots senators have been confirming since 1945. I know one thing for certain —— Americans would never elect an ACLU maggot like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.



    Im not glad she's dead but death doesn't scrub away a putrid record as a justice. She was an idiot as a justice and her being dead doesn't change that fact.
    Last edited by Yakuda; 09-20-2020 at 02:24 PM.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Yakuda For This Post:

    Flanders (09-20-2020)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakuda View Post
    Im not glad she's dead but death doesn't scrub away a putrid record as a justice. She was an idiot as a justice and her being dead doesn't change that fact.
    To Yakuda: Exactly so.

    Note that Bill Clinton came out from under his rock hoping his comments carry enough weight to give Senile Joe Biden a chance to replace her:


    'Superficially hypocritical': Bill Clinton slams Republican push to replace Ginsburg before Election Day
    by Mica Soellner
    September 20, 2020 10:18 AM

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...e-election-day


    The pervert has no squawk coming:


    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Indeed, let’s also not forget the historical context. In 1993, then-President Clinton reached out to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a leading senator on the Judiciary Committee, even though Republicans were in the minority. Clinton solicited suggested nominees for a Supreme Court vacancy, and Hatch recommended Ginsburg. Clinton agreed and Ginsburg sailed through.
    Last edited by Flanders; 09-21-2020 at 02:34 AM.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an egomaniac who should have retired years ago


  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    23,366
    Thanks
    4,242
    Thanked 10,178 Times in 7,089 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1,196 Times in 1,111 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakuda View Post
    Im not glad she's dead but death doesn't scrub away a putrid record as a justice. She was an idiot as a justice and her being dead doesn't change that fact.
    You're Drunk.

    Get a clue Creep!

    RBG was America's Darling for decades.

    She was one of the most admired, respected, and beloved women in American History.
    Last edited by Geeko Sportivo; 09-20-2020 at 03:38 PM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Geeko Sportivo For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (09-20-2020)

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    RBG was America's Darling for decades. She was one of the most admired, respected, and beloved women in American History.
    Maybe to you she was.

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    23,366
    Thanks
    4,242
    Thanked 10,178 Times in 7,089 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1,196 Times in 1,111 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Maybe to you she was.
    Maybe to you she wasn't.

    You can't give us any reason why she wasn't for you.

    Was there a decision the Court made- YOU DIDN'T LIKE?

    Never mind. We know you're hatred for her was not about her decisions made on the court!

    You're hatred towards her is just you're personal hatred towards women. Same hatred you have for all women!

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    Maybe to you she wasn't.
    That's the only accurate portion of your screed.

    BTW, learn the difference between "your" and "you're".


  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Fun fact: the National Women’s Law Center, the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, and the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund all opposed Saint Ginsburg's nomination.

  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    RBG was America's Darling for decades.
    To Geeko Sportivo: Wake up. She was only a darling to decent Americans when she was on the nod.


    https://www.dartblog.com/data/images...FNCSpecRpt.jpg



    Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-Clip-Art-Freebie-2973045-1490547848/original-2973045-1.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    She was one of the most admired, respected, and beloved women in American History.
    To Geeko Sportivo: Get real. Television mouths deify every maggot on the bench and in Congress.

    For the record the word notorious is a more accurate definition of the almighty maggot:

    Incidentally, RBG, Diarrhea Mouth Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton will be recorded as the most despised American women in history. Media glorifying three truly evil women who spewed the same venom throughout the same decades is one of this country’s greatest tragedies. I find it interesting that all three cite the Constitution whenever it suites their purpose while they despised the Founding Fathers who also lived at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Maybe to you she was.
    To Legion: Well said in five words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Fun fact: the National Women’s Law Center, the Women’s Legal Defense Fund, and the National Organization for Women’s Legal Defense and Education Fund all opposed Saint Ginsburg's nomination.
    To Legion: Thanks for the info. I did not know that before now.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Incidentally, RBG, Diarrhea Mouth Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton will be recorded as the most despised American women in history.

    RBG’s physical stature was much larger than her reputed intellect. Thankfully, a lack of her accomplishments is being registered for posterity before she is in the ground:


    With sincere apologies to William Shakespeare:

    Friends, Americans, fellow defenders of liberty, lend me your ears.

    I come to bury Ginsburg, not to praise her.

    The very little and well-disputed good she has done will be celebrated, living long after her.

    The evil she has enabled shouldn’t be ignored by interring it with her bones.

    Let that not be so with Ginsburg.

    Harsh words. Harsh words indeed. From my seat, however, they are more than deserved. I understand senior political leaders acting presidential, senatorial, or whatever. I get that they have to mouth certain platitudes to avoid leftist outrage and pearl clutching from our own side. I also understand that it is customary to wait some dignified time after the funeral to castigate the deceased. Not this time.

    I’m truly tired of the left canonizing certain figures because of their sex or melanin content, using the excuse of long-past accomplishments, real, imagined, or of dubious value to do so. All that does is allow them to designate undeserving persons as beyond reproach, thus tying conservative hands. One of my long time Army buddies put it this way (with minor edits for innovative language):


    What’s all this RIP stuff coming from Conservatives? How about BIH?

    Have y’all even read Lady Creepo’s decisions, or evaluated the Luciferian effects of them on our society? WTH?

    Oh! I see; You are trying to show human decency for the opposing team. You are above the fray. Hearts & Minds (how’d that work out in Iraq) Love thine Enemy, etc.

    Do you think this “kindness” is really gonna put a dent in the thinking of the Left that is intent on destroying this country?

    This is the same mentality that got Bush 1 unelected, got Romney and McCain slaughtered in elections, for their “above it all” attitude—and also why Iraq is now fully in the hands of Iran.


    My Pal is right. Ruth Bader Ginsburg indeed might have been involved in a couple of minor decisions that negligibly advanced women’s rights. But when you balance the books, she’s not fit to be viewed as some sort of respected American judicial icon.

    For one thing, the philosophy that Ginsburg actively promoted and defended has been and continues to be responsible for the deaths of more Black babies than the Holocaust or Soviet pogroms. Some folks might assert that she never directly ordered the murder, rendering asunder, or later sale of “usable parts” of unborn children. I agree. However, when you review her advocacy and later rulings from the bench, the best thing you could say about her is that she hid behind the artificial construct of Stare Decisis while others did and profited from the dirty work.

    For those of you who claim to hate some/most of her opinions but somehow can still respect and be friends with her, I’d ask you this,

    Could you still respect and admire her if she believed in a philosophy that based on one attribute or another, say skin tone or birth status, you were not human and thus not due protection under the law. Would you still like and admire her if she held the view that due to said attributes, you could be bought, sold, or discarded in a trash can?

    The left has one and only one purpose in canonizing Ginsburg. You can see it in the language they use and their strident screeching over the past 3 years, as they realized that President Trump might get to name her replacement. There have actually been folks who volunteered to donate their own (I think) organs to keep her alive —and they are very clear why. They don’t want Roe versus Wade overturned. That is their single-minded purpose. Pure and simple evil.


    Opinion: No Hagiography for Ginsburg
    Posted at 5:30 am on September 21, 2020
    by Mike Ford

    https://www.redstate.com/darth641/20...-for-ginsburg/

    Naturally, Saul Alinsky’s star pupil —— Hillary Clinton —— had to spew her usual garbage:




    The Parasite Class losing a tax dollar is incredibly dangerous to Hillary Clinton:


    She added, “You know, what’s happening in our country is incredibly dangerous.

    The public trough is the only institution Hillary does not want undermined:


    Our institutions are being basically undermined

    And heaven forbid that the American people ever regain their lost freedoms —— freedoms that were stolen by Democrat parasites in their own lust for absolute power:


    by the lust for power,

    Power for personal gain is the one thing Hillary should erase from her talking points considering the number of Democrat parasites that gained millions from tax dollars:


    power for personal gain


    They all arrive in Washington wearing dirty underwear and leave with steamer trunks full of tax dollars.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...19#post3456019

    Hillary Clinton cannot open her mouth without sending for:


    Saul Alinsky: Accuse your enemies of committing your crimes.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...95#post2951895


    in the case of the president or power for institutional gain in the case of Mitch McConnell, at the cost of ensuring that our institutions withstand whatever the political wins might be. But they made this decision if 2016, and they held to account for it.”

    Hillary Clinton: Trump, GOP’s ‘Lust for Power’ Is Destroying Our Institutions
    by Pam Key
    20 Sep 2020

    https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020...-institutions/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  14. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Fay Voshell elaborates on deifying maggots in diplomatic language; nevertheless, the facts define maggots and fools who worship them:


    Anyone who watched the lines of people who paid their respects to Ruth Bader Ginsburg as she lay in state at the Supreme Court would have noticed a peculiar atmosphere. The reactions of those filing past her coffin went far beyond ordinary, quiet, and respectful homage to the dead. Women and little girls were kneeling down before her, offering prayerful salutes and shedding tears of grief and rage. Some were almost hysterical.

    Once again, it's clear that the left is deeply religious. Be it the elevation of Greta Thunberg to the status of St. Joan of Arc; the high reverence accorded Al Gore, the prophet of doom whose declamations have rivaled those of St. John's pronouncements in the book of Revelation; or now the late Justice Ginsburg, it is apparent that the left has a religious need for saints as surely as any Christian church.

    Now already elevated above her mortal status as a judge on the bench of the Supreme Court, Ginsburg is seated in the pantheon of the left. Even her final words, in which she apparently expressed a wish that her replacement not be nominated until after the election, are as authoritative as scripture to devotees such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who believes that the oracular pronouncements of an "icon" of the left are to supersede the directives of America's constitution.

    After the memorials in her honor are complete, Ginsburg doubtless will be accorded hagiographies. What is perhaps more troubling than the accordance of sainthood on the former justice by the left are the obsequies of Christians and others who have almost fought one another in conferring honors on a person who was unalterably and ferociously opposed to everything Christianity once stood for without apology: the sacredness of every human life, the sanctity of marriage, the biological distinctions of the sexes, and the integrity of the Church.

    Typical of the accolades heaped on her by even the religious are the praises offered by Erika Bachiochi in her article "What I Will Teach My Children about Ruth Bader Ginsburg." Bachiochi separated Ginsburg's personal life from her judicial decisions, praising her for "her noble vision for caregiving" as exemplified by her tender regard for her husband of 56 years.

    But as the redoubtable and indefatigable Phyllis Schlafly pointed out in her article appearing in Human Events in 2005, no matter how tender the late justice's caregiving, what Ginsburg stood for as a legal scholar and justice of the Supreme Court was a radical leftist's wish list for America.

    Schlafly noted that the late justice called for the "sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal." She added that perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.

    Continuing in a similar vein, Ginsburg called for the "sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts" because they "perpetuate stereotyped sex roles." College fraternities and sororities were to be replacedwith "college social societies." In the interest of equality, Mother's Day and Father's Day were not to be celebrated separately

    Worse, "Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are 'less than 12 years old.' She wrote that laws against 'bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist' are unconstitutional. Further, prostitution was a consensual act, and the Mann Act was "offensive," as such acts were to be considered "within the zone of privacy."

    Schlafly continued:


    Ginsburg listed hundreds of 'sexist' words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and 'to man' a vessel[.] ... She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.

    Not only did Ginsburg pass former President Bill Clinton's litmus test of being pro-abortion, (she even supported partial birth abortion) but she was also on record as opposing what was then settled law that the Constitution does not compel taxpayers to pay for abortions. In her chapter in a 1980 book, Constitutional Government in America, she condemned the Supreme Court's ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.


    Considering just how radical Ginsburg's stances and decisions were, what are we to make of Christians' praise and support for her? Why are conservatives, religious or not, putting wreaths on Ginsburg's head?

    The fact is that in place of Christian virtues, too many conservatives have substituted the progressive virtue of "tolerance." The hallmark of secular progressive religion has also become the defining virtue of the Christian/conservative community. The drive to appear "nice" and inoffensive, to "understand' the other viewpoint, no matter how offensive or prurient, has vitiated the Judeo/Christian virtues of justice and righteousness; of steadfast opposition to evil. The progressive idea of virtue has won over the truth, including the truth of what Ginsburg and her feminist acolytes devotedly believe in — most avidly and ferociously, the progressive sacrament of abortion. Ginsburg never, ever wavered from her advocacy of abortion. Never.

    We cannot praise her tenacity as a good thing. Her tenacity and those likeminded have contributed to the deaths of some 60,000,000 innocents.

    Would a similar tenacity be exhibited by Christian conservatives, many of whom have waffled continually, debating for over fifty years what is anathema to the God they profess to worship — namely, the shedding of innocent human blood?

    In conclusion, while God the Creator pronounces himself as not taking pleasure in the death of any human being and admonishes those who believe in Him not to rejoice when any human dies, neither are we to praise and give accolades to those who are by their ideology sworn to do evil.

    On the contrary, those who are opposed to the "fundamental transformation" of American society by the advocacy of evils that have become systemic, evils Ginsburg promoted in the name of equality should stand up and fight: Fight for the good, the true and the beautiful — for human life in all its fullness.


    September 27, 2020
    The Canonization of Saint Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    By Fay Voshell

    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._ginsburg.html
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  15. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

     

  16. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

  17. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    4. Long-serving senators would lose all influence over deciding who sits on the High Court.
    Vomit Schumer is not only an ordained asshole he is a stupid man:




    The day the XVII Amendment was implemented (never ratified) is by far the darkest day in the Senate’s history:


    Schumer: Barrett Confirmation ‘One of the Darkest Days’ in Senate History
    Josh Christenson
    October 26, 2020 8:50 PM

    https://freebeacon.com/democrats/sch...enate-history/

    Schumer & Company truly believe that a piece of garbage like China Joe Biden’s 36 years as a U.S. Senator qualifies him for the presidency.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-09-2018, 02:12 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •