Friday, July 17, 2009

Democratic Appointed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Puts On A Happy Face



Here are the recent words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, uttered in the course of an interview.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae—in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that 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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion....


Many on the left are defending Ginsburg on the grounds that she wasn't giving her own feelings, but what she assumed was the feelings of many others involved in the debate at the time the particular case in question was decided.

Naturally, Jonah Goldberg takes exception, and points out the long history of progressive support for the eugenics movement, from Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes (a former Supreme Court Justice, appointed by President Woodrow Wilson), and myriads of others.

It might surprise many to read that, even though I agree with Jonah Goldberg's assessment as to Ginsburg's true intent-she meant what she said, in other words-it is my intention to actually come to Miss Ginsburg's defense.

Yes, of course many if not most who believe in abortion rights do so as a means of controlling the populations of those they would prefer there not be so many of. And, so do I.

In fact, the great master plan, set in motion years ago by the great trickster gods of the universe rolls full steam ahead as we speak. Not a year goes by that tens of thousands of leftists, Democrats, and Republican RINOs take part in the plot that, if allowed to continue as it should, will lessen their numbers within the great human family. Seeing as how fully two thirds, at the very least, of babies that are aborted in the womb would otherwise over time come eventually to adopt the political beliefs of the parents that aborted them, I can only imagine the gods sigh with relief every time the procedure is performed.

As such, I call on the Republican Party and other conservatives to drop their opposition to the policy of abortion, though I certainly understand and to an extent sympathize with certain aspects of their opposition, such as federal funding of abortions, and any move towards a federal, one-size fits all rule that would allow abortions throughout all states, with no limitations as to the type or when during the pregnancy they are performed.

Look at it this way though. The more and more abortions that are performed on a yearly basis, then the more time goes by, as if by magic, the less and less will be performed, for the simple fact there will be less and less people born likely to take part in such a procedure, unless there is of course valid reasons to do so.

Before you know, abortion as a form of birth control will be a rarity-an extreme rarity.

As for you Democrats, Leftists, Greens, and others who are so determined to maintain your rights to butcher your progeny while they are still residing within the wombs of your women, I say to you-take heart. In this endeavor, you will always have my wholehearted support.

So much to the point that, if the Republicans should ever be successful in their long term stated goals to end the procedure, I will do everything I can to help you. Just let me know, and whatever you need-bicycle spokes, rusty coat hangers, quining, turpentine, you name it-I will do my utmost to see that you acquire whatever you need, unhindered and unmolested.

On this, you have my solemn vow. And as a true blue pagan that wants to see the world become a better place, regardless of what it takes to achieve that goal, you know that means something.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Another reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. Well done, neo-con.

A suggestion though, perhaps you might think a bit harder about the Holocaust before glibly insinuating that someone/anyone is comparable to Hitler or the Nazis.

The Pagan Temple said...

Sort of puts you in mind of the way so many of you fucktard leftists used to refer to George Bush as Bu$Hitler, doesn't it?

And as you might have gleaned if you read the post, I don't really give a fucking shit what you or anyone else thinks of what I say. I've heard and read you cunts comparing anybody that opposes you to Hitler, or fascists/Nazis for so long, your objection to my using that comparison is fucking hilarious.

And like I said, by all means, keep on going. Hades is calling out for human sacrifices, and the more the merrier. Round up all your leftist cunt sisters and take them all to the nearest abortion mill-please! He promises that if they sacrifice their babies, in return they'll have enough money to get them that boob job, or the newest Ipod, the money to party hardy and the time to do it.

Who needs a fucking baby draining time and resources, when there's fun to be had. What leftist man wants paint the town red with a leftist bitch with a bastard baby to support. Help your sisters. Help the world.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Hitler was far more astute than Bush. Hitler built up the German economy. Under Bush and republican, we lost 3,000,000 jobs in three years. Hitler's popularity was real, as opposed to the fabricated polls that kept telling us that Bush was doing a great job. I have to say, I never saw any signs that read "I support President Bush" in any neighborhoods, and I live in a military town.

Still, the parallels between German society of the 30's and 40's and the United States post 9-11 were eerily similar. Bush never achieved full dictator status, but all it would have taken was one event and a bunch of panicked sheep. Another strike on American soil, or as Cheney wanted to do, dress up Navy Seals as Iranians and have them launch an attack on American troops in Iraq.

It's the Reichstag factor of 9/11 that generated comparisons between Bush and Hitler.

FYI, I came across a letter to the editor on Truth Out called "The Bush Hitler Thing." The letter is written by a woman whose family members were victims of Hitler's regime. The author spoke to many people growing up, always asking, "How could this have happened? How could you remain silent." She repeats the answers given to her in her letter to Truth Out.

On the comparison of Hitler and Bush she said:

"So far, I've seen nothing to eliminate the possibility that Bush is on the same course as Hitler. And I've seen far too many analogies to dismiss the possibility. The propaganda. The lies. The rhetoric. The nationalism. The flag waving. The pretext of 'preventive war'. The flaunting of international law and international standards of justice. The disappearances of 'undesirable' aliens. The threats against protesters. The invasion of a non-threatening sovereign nation. The occupation of a hostile country. The promises of prosperity and security. The spying on ordinary citizens. The incitement to spy on one's neighbors - and report them to the government. The arrogant triumphant pride in military conquest. The honoring of soldiers. The tributes to 'fallen warriors. The diversion of money to the military. The demonization of government appointed 'enemies'. The establishment of 'Homeland Security'. The dehumanization of 'foreigners'. The total lack of interest in the victims of government policy. The incarceration of the poor and mentally ill. The growing prosperity from military ventures. The illusion of 'goodness' and primacy. The new einsatzgrupen forces. Assassination teams. Closed extralegal internment camps. The militarization of domestic police. Media blackout of non-approved issues. Blacklisting of protesters - including the no-fly lists and photographing dissenters at rallies."

So, if you can make a comparison at that level and not boil it down to one very specific item that borders on conspiracy theory, then I'll bite.

Until then...

The Pagan Temple said...

It's natural for people to get carried away with national pride and patriotism during war time. I was not a Bush supporter. Never voted for him, plus I objected to the way they conducted the Iraqi War, and for that matter the Afghan War. I was never a big fan of the idea of a Department of Homeland Security. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another government bureaucracy, something that we need ten times less of, not more of.

It was the fucking Democrats who supported the Bush policies in the aftermath of 9/11 wholeheartedly. I remember they even had films of him in their re-election campaign, standing beside him yucking if up with him, bragging about how they stood with him in support of his policies in the war on terror. I even remember Al Gore standing and delivering a speech where he told a group of people "George W. Bush is MY President" in which he stated his unquestioning support for him.

Almost all Democrats supported him, in fact, so much to the point that they never bothered to read the fucking bills they signed such as for Homeland Security and other such things as that. They just signed and made sure they were photographed saluting the flag and crying crocodile tears over 9/11.

Then, the minute things started going a little south for Bush, what did the motherfuckers do? They suddenly turned into the venomous reptiles they are in reality. They did everything they could possibly think of to do to undermine Bush and his Administration, even at the expense of the security and safety of the soldiers whom THEY WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORTED SENDING INTO HARMS WAY TO START OUT WITH!!!

With a very few exceptions (and here, though I don't really like him or agree with him on much of anything, I will have to give a shout out of respect to Russell Feingold of Wisconsin), they acted in such a craven, cowardly manner that it is to this day an effort, and in fact it is all but impossible, to see them even as fellow human beings.

As for Cheney wanting to fake an attack on American soldiers with the intent of blaming the Iranians, I don't buy that for one second. That sounds like something somebody dreamed up, and people that hate Cheney just decided well, let's go with that, anything to get the motherfucker.

I'm glad though that you caught on to how well things were on the surface in Nazi Germany. Hitler conducted quite a few policies that pumped money into various segments of the economy. I guess you might call it an economic stimulus package. I call it what goes up.

See, here's the thing. Economic cycles rise and fall with regularity. There is always periods of adjustment that don't always look too hot. But they are unavoidable. Government intrusions into that cycle only make matters worse, because there's more at stake now. Oh well, we all learn the hard way, including George Bush, who was by the way not a conservative, other than in social policies.

Anonymous said...

The democrats were the minority party and some crossed the aisle in a time of crisis right after 9/11. I didn't agree with it, but I don't expect to agree with much either the dems or repubs do and the country had just been attacked. It's funny that when republicans talk about "crossing the aisle," they mean democrats need to cross the aisle to them. Which the spineless democrats do way too much.

Please remind me who put the Patriot Acts in front of Congress to sign.

Actually don't bother, all the policies you say the democrats supported/went along with were/are the platform of the republican party, which as I said, was hijacked by neo-cons, although perhaps hijack is too strong a word, since it was a mutual union.

The problem I have is that so-called conservatives forgot what it means to be conservative, at least in the way they practice it. You things are supposed to cherish liberty for all, not authority over all. You are also supposed to be fiscally conservative, however, actions speak louder than words.

From January 2003 to January 2007, when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, this country collected more taxes than ever before, while also amassing more debt than ever before. During this time, funds were also cut from public education, law enforcement, border enforcement, firefighting, public roads, and other necessary domestic programs and institutions.

So record tax revenue combined with record deficit spending along with less money for public services equals where the hell did all of our money go?

Texas Republican and perhaps the only real conservative left in this country, Ron Paul says: "Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers."

Please remind me who created this massive deficit. Oh right, Bush & Co. And the bulk of what he didn't contribute was still there from Reagan. This after entering office with a balanced budget and a tax surplus. And I thought war was supposed to be good for an economy.

Well done neo-cons, well done. And yet y'all still have the audacity to wave the flag as if you give two shits about this country or your fellow Americans.

But what should we have expected having a "President" who is a draft dodger who eventually hid out in the TANG only to desert his last year of "service" and have his daddy get him out of a court-martial and dishonorable discharge, then bankrupted 4 major companies, including the Texas Rangers and his oil company, before going into politics?

Btw, the only other period of time in U.S. history where republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House for more than two consecutive years was right before the first Great Depression.

The Pagan Temple said...

Take it up with your buds on the jackass side of the aisle. They're the ones that fight tooth-and-nail against any spending reductions. Not just that, they fight tooth-and-nail against any reduction in the rate of spending increases. You can't blame taxpayers for demanding, and getting when they can, tax cuts that go mainly to the asshats that don't pay a dime in taxes. What few taxes they do pay, they get most of it back at the end of the year. In many if not most cases, they get every damn cent of it back at the end of the year.

So who is actually supporting the country? Sorry, but if you don't pay taxes you shouldn't get a vote, in my opinion. If voting was limited to people who actually pay taxes and own property, there wouldn't be a deficit or a tax problem. It's pretty easy to vote for an expensive government program when somebody else is footing the bill, isn't it?

beamish said...

My only objection to limiting voting to property owners is...who owns GM now? And what happens when your city council Kelo's your property to make way for something more taxable?

beamish said...

Who's this anonymous wannabe "deficit hawk?"

No Child Left Behind and Medicaid Prescription Drug assistance aren't exactly Bush era spending cuts.

And Obama's spending spree since taking office 6 months ago has quadrupled the deficit. He promises to cut the deficit "in half" by 2013. In 6 months, he's quadrupled it. Obama's deficit spending makes Reagan look like a penny pincher.

The Pagan Temple said...

Anytime you hear a Democrat or other leftist type complaining about spending deficits, what they mean is the "rich" aren't taxed enough to pay for the programs they want.

Rob Taylor said...

How awesome. Another lefty claims your Hitler reference is silly because it can't possibly apply to our enlightened betters on the left, then goes on to claim Hitler was a better leader than Bush.

They all secretly long to don a "O" armband and march us in to death camps.

The Pagan Temple said...

Rob-

Yeah, I noticed that but decided not to engage him on it. After all, I am encouraging them to abort themselves out of existence.

Check out the post immediately before this one, where he says I couldn't possibly be a pagan because I'm a "neocon". Then he denies being a Democrat.

I have a theory, that you're going to see more and more of this kind of thing from these folks, for the simple fact that, as time goes on, they are going to start falling apart at the seams the more obvious it becomes they've been sold a bill of goods. A fool will blame anybody but himself for his foolishness.

It's going to be fun watching them come ever more unglued over the coming years.

beamish said...

Well you know me. I object whenever left-wing socialists like Adolf Hitler are called "right wing conservatives." As if the Nazis were all about individual freedom, free markets, and small government.

Your identification of the leftist origins of Hitler's efforts in the psuedo-scientific field of eugenics was spot on, PT.

Anonymous said...

Hitler a left-wing socialist? Lol! Just because he called it socialism doesn't make it so. BMW is to the Nazis what Halliburton is to the Bush Admin. The corporations supported Hitler in his imperialist endeavors and enabled him to ultimate power, the way military contracting corporations and oil companies made it possible for Bush.

As for this statement, "As if the Nazis were all about individual freedom, free markets, and small government." I find it humorous that anyone on the right would dare to claim this as their ideology. It's a nice thought, but actions always speak louder than words.

You sponsored the Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, NSPD 51, and called anyone who opposed them unpatriotic - as in these were your ideas and somehow you bullied some spineless democrats to go along with it. You consistently vote to intrude on the personal lives of other Americans and have launched campaigns in most states to take rights away from a segment of Americans despite the 14th Amendment that provides equal rights and protections under the law to all. Furthermore, it is conservatives who resisted civil rights, women's suffrage, voting rights, blacks serving alongside whites in the military during WWII, gay equality, and supported prohibition. I guess it's all in how you define, "individual liberties," eh?

Under Bush, the federal gov't was expanded more than any other time in history. MORE THAN ANY OTHER TIME IN HISTORY. And he set new records, breaking Reagan's record, in deficit spending een during a period of time when record tax revenues were being boasted. Regardless of how you spin it, Obama has inherited a mess you and your ilk created. Not that I support or agree with everything he is doing.

How free is/was the market under so-called de-regulation that conservatives pushed for? Here in California we deregulated energy utilities back in 1996. Even I was for it at the time. We were all led to believe that we would be able to pick our electrical provider, like we do with our cell phones, and that competition would raise the quality of service and lower the price. Well, 13 years later, my electricity is no better. It also isn't cheaper, in fact, it is quite a bit more expensive, and since deregulating, we have had numerous periods of rolling blackouts and power failures sometimes lasting for multiple days. So the price has continued to go up, while the quality has gone down. Woo hoo!

What happened is that once regulations were removed, energy providers no longer had to keep ahead of the demand. They quit building new power plants, they quit improving existing ones so their operating costs went down, and as the demand steadily increased, the supply remained the same. That sent prices through the roof. And as the demand surpassed the supply, we began to experience rolling blackouts where entire grids shut down and millions went without power for hours and even days at a time.

And while that may be good for energy companies and their investors, it is not good for the majority of the people, either economically or environmentally.

And I'm still stuck with the same lousy, one and only provider I have no choice but to purchase energy from. Good call, neo-cons. Let's do that with everything! And you wonder why everything in this country has already gone to hell.

"So who is actually supporting the country? Sorry, but if you don't pay taxes you shouldn't get a vote, in my opinion. If voting was limited to people who actually pay taxes and own property, there wouldn't be a deficit or a tax problem. It's pretty easy to vote for an expensive government program when somebody else is footing the bill, isn't it?"

Now there's where we may have some common ground. Representation for each state should be based on contribution to the gdp, not population, since invariably the role of Congress is to dole out federal funds. Why should states that contribute next to nothing have so much say in how it gets spent?

The Pagan Temple said...

Like I told you before, George Bush was not exactly a conservative, other than on taxes and some social issues. Also, I am not a big fan of deregulation. Make no mistake about it, I think some regulations are appropriate and even necessary. They just tend to go way too far way too many times. There needs to be a reasonable balance struck.

As for this idea of the smaller states having a disproportionate say, well, that's the way it rolls. That's why they're called states and not counties, or regions. That's why every state has two senators, regardless of population. It's a way of protecting state sovereignty. If not for that, it would amount to mob rule through the House of Representatives. Better be careful what you wish for, you might not always be in the majority.

But as long as it is that way, and as long as the Federal government insists that it should speak for America, and the people should bow to its sovereign will, then the individual states would seem to be the only bulwark towards applying some limitations on the federal governments encroachments.

In other words, what money goes to each state could well be seen as somewhat of a pay-off which gets doled out to whoever the various state agencies wants to keep in their hip pockets.

I would gladly do without it, frankly. It's just another avenue for corruption. Most of the money collected by the federal government goes towards bureaucrats, two-thirds of whom are wholly unnecessary. At least tens of billions of dollars disappear down various different rat holes every year.

Instead of complaining about how much money goes to the smaller states, you might want to look more into who is responsible for doling out this largess, and who is actually receiving and benefiting from it.

In the meantime, you seem to be defending, if not outright supporting, a political party and system who seems to never miss an opportunity to stick its hands in your wallets for what you assume is for my benefit. Your attitude is incomprehensible to me.

beamish said...

I did not stutter. Fascism / corporatism / national socialism are all left-wing philosophies. The very moment any political program attacks capitalism (by seizing profits and / or property for government / public use) it becomes the exact opposite of being a right-wing program.

As for the Patriot Act, it was proposed by a Democrat, and voted on favorably by a huge majority from both parties, and renewed in 2005 by a huge majority from both parties.

One of the sponsors / authors of the Patriot Act, Joseph Lieberman, was campaigned against by his own party in 2006, something the Democrats have never done against the Klansman of the Senate Robert Byrd.

I suppose that's what happens when your country is at war with people who hate Jews and your party is too left-wing to disagree with Hitler.