Operation Rescue
Recently, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has achieved a near cult-like following among those who consider themselves “progressives.” Young liberals idolize her. CNN has made a documentary praising her. Law students tattoo her image on their arms.
Ginsburg, 83, the former head of the ACLU, was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, where she presented herself as a “moderate and an advocate of judicial moderation.” But that was just to make her acceptable to the mainstream to ensure her confirmation.
Once she was confirmed, her true colors were exposed and she has since become the extreme ideological leader of the liberal activist faction of the Supreme Court.
It is no secret that she abhors President Donald Trump. She’s called him “a faker” and skipped his 2018 State of the Union Address in a show of disrespect for him. She has vowed to stay on the Court as long as possible to prevent Trump from appointing her successor.
In fact, she refused to retire and allow even Pres. Barack Obama to select her replacement, complaining that the political climate would not allow him to appoint anyone who was her ideological equal. Her plan was to allow Hillary Clinton to replace her, a plan that was thankfully thwarted by Trump’s election.
The Ginsburg Agenda
But specifically, what tenets comprise the Ginsburg ideology, and how has that affected America over the years since she first ascended the most powerful Court in the land?
A summary of the Ginsburg philosophy has recently resurfaced. The document contains three statements that were entered into the record in 1993 in opposition to Ginsburg’s nomination to the Supreme Court. The first — and most revealing — was prepared by Susan Hirshman, who was then the Executive Director of the conservative Eagle Forum.
The second was the statement of Kay Coles James, a veteran of the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations who is currently serving as President of the Heritage Foundation. Finally, the document contains a statement by Howard Phillips, former head of the conservative Constitution Party.
The paper exposing Ginsburg’s radical positions reads like an Orwellian prophesy. One could hardly conceive of a better blueprint with which to destroy the American family and way of life.
In the 1970’s Ginsburg had developed her idea of what feminism should mean. She had complained that in the 19th century, the status of women was akin to that of Blacks under the pre-Civil War slave code. Instead of putting women on a pedestal, it put them in a cage.
Ginsburg advocated for affirmative action and supported hiring quotas for women. However, she hated the traditional sex roles and worked to create a “genderless society” – that is except where her female hiring quotas were concerned.
The paper exposing Ginsburg’s radical positions reads like an Orwellian prophesy. One could hardly conceive of a better blueprint with which to destroy the American family and way of life.
In the 1970’s Ginsburg had developed her idea of what feminism should mean. She had complained that in the 19th century, the status of women was akin to that of Blacks under the pre-Civil War slave code. Instead of putting women on a pedestal, it put them in a cage.
Ginsburg advocated for affirmative action and supported hiring quotas for women. However, she hated the traditional sex roles and worked to create a “genderless society” – that is except where her female hiring quotas were concerned.
Her radical views were articulated in print in the 1977 book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, which she co-authored by ultra-feminist Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, who worked with Ms. Magazine founder Gloria Steinem and partnered with Ginsburg at the ACLU.
No comments:
Post a Comment