Hey RBG, How's that South African Constitution Working Out?

Back in 2012, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg advised a group of Egyptians to look to South Africa’s constitution as the paragon for modern governance, instead of the United States. That is quite a statement coming from a Supreme Court Justice. Here is what she said:

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US 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, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

I find it laughable that while this woman lectured Egyptians on the importance of liberty and freedom, she, along with her fellow travelers on the court, have demonstrated time after time, their contempt for our constitution and the federalist principles therein. The biggest threat to the American creed is a lawless judiciary fronting a powerful central government. The irony seems to be lost on her. Here is another excerpt:

Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don't care, then the best constitution in the world won't make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution - first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.

I will give her that. South Africa’s constitution is laden with all sorts of Marxist ideology. It is a meandering mess of fourteen chapters containing 244 sections along with 8 schedules. And it’s all worthless. This utopian document isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on because the majority doesn’t believe those principles apply to white farmers. These unfortunates are being murdered and their property confiscated.

Today’s Democrats echo the same kind of Marxist ideology. And while this redistributive rhetoric permeates our political discourse, they’re opening our borders to third-worlders who’ll one day act as their shock troops. When that happens the United States will be fundamentally transformed into the progressive dystopia, Democrats have been waiting for.

Source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_South_Africa

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/south-africa-begins-seizing-whiteowned-farms/news-story/8937f899bd3f131bfc4ffb648ea5c53b

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/05/prominent-south-african-farm-attacks-activist-annette-kennealy-is-beaten-to-death-with-a-pipe-and-hammer/
https://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2012/02/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-advises.html

White Demonization and the Coming Dark Age

A disturbing trend has permeated the world’s stage: the demonization of white people, particularly white men. This phenomenon has taken over college campuses and is now seeping into our political discourse. When I first heard this nonsense, I laughed like everybody else. What fool would believe this crap? I completely forgot to factor in the libtard horde.

What’s really odd is that white people have taken up this self-loathing banner without thinking about the consequences. These idiots are trying to assuage a guilt that is completely self-inflicted. We have nothing to be ashamed about. The United States is the most prosperous country in human history and that is due to our Anglo-American heritage. 





Anyone who is of a different race, legally comes to this country, acculturates and subscribes to our creed is welcome to the land of peace and prosperity. But that’s not what’s happening. We have political forces who are trying to balkanize this country by pitting one subset group against another. This is called multiculturalism.

One has to ask, what will happen when white people become a minority population. Will the American creed still hold? The left has basically repudiated our founding principles of life, liberty and property. They laugh at the notion of federalism and the rule of law. They want to destroy American exceptionalism, because they think we don’t deserve it.

To all those fools who repudiate the American creed, all I have to say is look elsewhere and see the results of your ideology. Latin America is an anarchist’s wet dream. Europe is under siege by an Islamic horde hell bent on jihad. And white people are facing genocide in South Africa. Here is an excerpt from the BBC:

The party has found it impossible to ignore the calls to go beyond its willing-seller-willing-buyer approach to land reform.

And Mr Ramaphosa appears to have bypassed a parliamentary consultation when he said in a television address that the constitution should be amended.

Section 25 of the constitution deals with property issues and there has long been a debate about whether it allowed the state to take land without money being paid for it.

A parliamentary committee has been looking into changes to the constitution to allow expropriation in the public interest.

Its nationwide televised public hearings have been a show of emotion by people of all racial groups, regardless of class or political affiliation.

During a session held this week in Cape Town's Goodwood suburb one woman representing the South African Homeless People's Association said: "Twenty-four years of liberal democracy [has] increased poverty.

"The masses are worse off because of the willing-buyer-willing-seller principle."

Another person who gave testimony said: "We are going to take the land, even if it means we're going back to the dark ages. This country must be African. We are African."

After listening to all these teat squawkers in the United States, do they sound like they respect property rights, the rule of law, or the U.S. Constitution itself? The answer is hell no! These people are of the same mind as these South Africans. They will take away everything you have, even if it means going back to the Dark Ages.

Source:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-45099915

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Advises Egyptians that U.S. Constitution is an Outdated Model

You know our country is in trouble when a Supreme Court justice tells citizens of another country that the U.S. Constitution is antiquated and no longer legitimate, and a more appropriate model for the modern age is South Africa’s, or Canada’s.

I’m not making this up. Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave that advice to a group of Egyptians via an interview, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time - that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.

[...]

I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that's one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.

I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

[...]

Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don't care, then the best constitution in the world won't make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution - first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.

[...]

You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US 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, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?

This isn’t the first time that Ginsburg has publicly shown contempt for our constitution. In 2005, she openly advocated for the right of judges to use foreign law in their decisions; in effect, installing a judicial oligarchy. And again in 2009:

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday.

The court’s more conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — oppose the citation of foreign law in constitutional cases.

“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

This woman shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. Better yet, the court shouldn’t be the sole arbiter of all things “constitutional.” The federal judiciary has been on a power grab since its inception. It’s about time we put a “check and balance” on this rogue institution.

Source: http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3295.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/politics/02ginsburg.html

IPCC Conspires to Confiscate Wealth Through International Climate Change Court

If you thought Barack Obama and his Marxist pals in the Democratic Party where masters of class warfare rhetoric; just wait until we get the brunt end of a cudgel at an international level. The United Nations is holding a climate change conference in Durbin, South African. These conspirators are devising a way to undermine the nation state, and confiscate the wealth of the more successful through the means of an international climate change court of justice.

Fox News reported the machinations of these thugs:

The rules of the road the court would presumably enforce are based on the view that these developed countries owe developing countries a "debt" over climate change, and must provide financial aid in addition to taking major steps toward cutting emissions.

In one section, the document calls for developed countries to help poorer countries with "finance, technology and capacity building" so they can "adapt to and mitigate climate change" while helping eliminate poverty. Another section provides that developing countries should receive an amount of money equal to the amount "developed countries spend on defense, security and warfare."

Yet the document also calls for a guaranteed end to warfare altogether -- for the sake of curbing climate change.

One section, noting that "conflict-related activities emit significant greenhouse gas emissions," calls on all parties to "cease destructive activities" like warfare -- and then channel the money that would have been spent on war and other defense projects toward "a common enemy: climate change."

The document also asserts the "rights of mother earth," a concept that environmental activists have been pushing for.

Mother earth has rights? What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Do we have a transcendental being that can channel the grievances of the earth? And who will sit in judgment … third-world dictators? Have we all gone mad?

I believe the common enemy of all free peoples is the United Nations. How long are the American people going to put up with their nonsense?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/10/un-floats-global-climate-court-to-enforce-emissions-rules/#ixzz1gFJ753VW