“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. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
~ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview on Al Hayat television
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Cairo, Egypt, in late January for four days of discussions with judges, law school faculty, law school students and legal experts to “listen and learn.” While there she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model post-Arab Spring. Ginsburg words were spoken with the full understanding that Egyptian military officials were preparing to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers (including Sam LaHood, son of Ray LaHood, Obama’s secretary of transportation).
So why would Justice Ginsburg express such anti-American ideas in Egypt?
In my opinion Justice Ginsburg’s actions were tantamount to treason. Why would a member of America’s highest court, founded under the oldest, most venerated and imitated Constitution in the world, place another constitution above the U.S. Constitution on foreign soil? Why would she praise South Africa – a nation whose 46 years of racial apartheid (1948-94) amounted to Jim Crow, involuntary servitude and slavery of tens of millions of black Africans, Indians, coloreds and others, and whose subsequent 1996 Constitution actually has much less human rights protections than the U.S. Constitution of 1787?
Don’t be deceived. Justice Ginsburg’s radical statements in Egypt were not uttered by accident. I know many judges. Judges are by nature very deliberate and cautious with their words. If she went all the way to the other side of the planet to meet with judges, law students and legislators in Egypt and Tunisia, two countries that recently suffered violent, bloody revolutions resulting in thousands of deaths, then you must understand her statements praising the Arab Spring is essentially a de facto vote of confidence to Islamic jihad organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, which has nearly 50 percent of the seats in Egypt’s Parliament. Ginsburg’s careless words will undoubtedly lead to the continuous and gratuitous destruction of churches and the genocide of the Christian communities in Egypt and throughout many Muslim countries in the Middle East while the world ignores this tragic bloodlust.
Who is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg (born March 15, 1933) is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. For a large part of her career she was a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union and was a member of its board of directors and one of its general counsel. Ginsburg was recommended to President Clinton by Janet Reno, his attorney general. Ginsburg was appointed by Clinton and took the oath of office on Aug. 10, 1993 after the U.S. Senate confirmed her by a 96-to-3 vote. For a point of comparison, Justice Clarence Thomas, my intellectual mentor and arguably the most influential member of the Court over the past 20 years, in 1991 barely was confirmed, with only 52 percent in the Senate.
Ginsburg belongs firmly inside the progressive/liberal wing of the Court. For example, she has consistently supported abortion rights and joined in the Court’s opinion striking down Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion law in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). She has criticized the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973) in a 2009 New York Times interview, in which she said regarding abortion that “[t]he basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.” Nevertheless, one statement she made during the interview (“Frankly, I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”) was criticized by conservative commentator Michael Gerson as reflecting an “attitude … that abortion is economically important to a ‘woman of means’ and useful in reducing the number of social undesirables.”
This Malthusian/Nietzschean ideology came directly from one of Ginsburg’s feminist heroines, Margaret Sanger, founder of The American Birth Control League (established 1921) who wrote to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, one of her financial backers of the birth control movement: “We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” In 1942 Sanger changed the name of her organization to “Planned Parenthood” and established the “Division of Negro Service” to oversee outreach to the African-American community nationally. Tragically, Sanger’s work was endorsed by African-American leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and W.E.B. DuBois.
This diabolical lineage is self-evident: Sanger–Ginsburg–Obama. Sanger’s Nazi-like racialist eugenics and birth-control tactics in the 1920s put into policy her radical ideas that became established into law in the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Forty years later Roe has led inevitably to President Obama’s existential, progressive war on Christianity as witnessed in two recent controversies: 1) The Komen Breast Cancer Foundation’s paid alliance with Planned Parenthood while ignoring scientific studies exposing a direct link between women who had abortions and increased rates of breast cancer; and 2) Obama’s recent fascist attempts to usurp the Separation of Powers Doctrine and demand that all Catholic hospitals, churches, charities (and all religious faiths) pay for contraception, sterilization and abortion on demand under the shameless pretext of receiving federal funds. Religious conscience and the U.S. Constitution be damned!
During a moment of rational reflection, when one thinks back nearly 40 years to the genesis of Roe v. Wade and the resultant 54 million innocent babies being murdered in cold blood, I realize that 16 million were black babies like me. This gives me profound pause and the strength to fight on.
In conclusion, here is how I think Mother Teresa would respond to the legacy of Justice Ginsburg, and to what I call her Jurisprudence of Genocide:
“The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn’t learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.”