2653

Jan 6 2019 12:32:35 (EST) !!mG7VJxZNCI Q ID: 38db44
4627556→
[RBG]
Why was she ‘selected’?
Who appointed her?
Remember [her] history.
Ref: 230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:
>Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)
>Called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (Page 145)
>Insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (Page 169)
>Cast constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (Page 146)
>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)
>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)
>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)
>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)
>An indefatigable censor, 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). (Pages 15-16)
>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.” (Page 52-53)
>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
http://humanevents.com/2005/08/23/senators-overlooked-radical-record-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/
Who are the doctors ‘currently’ treating [RBG]?
What other political [former/current] sr. political heads are they affiliated w/?
What ‘off-market’ drugs are being provided to [RBG] in order to sustain minimum daily function?
What is the real medical diagnosis of [RBG]?
Who is managing her care?
Who is ‘really’ managing her care?
The clock is ticking.
PANIC IN DC.
Q

20 Replies to “Q post #2653 – [RBG]. Why was she ‘selected’?. Who appointed her?”

  1. She is evil and the walking dead with Maga Cancer stage 4 at this point. They will keep her body alive by any means possible so they can delay Trump appointing another SCOTUS member!
    Big Yawn will come on and say dumb stuff – don t fall for his crap!
    The Q Team – we are Q

  2. All three of her (usually very deadly) cancers were found accidentally and early enough to treat including: colon, pancreatic, and lung.

    As for what’s keeping her alive, I’m guessing the pineal gland of soulless Haitian children concocted by the satanist worshiping (((doctors))) affiliated with the Clintons and McCain. Give me a big fat NPC REEEEEEEE If I’m close.

  3. She was appointed by Bill Clinton and every thing she has done has been against the people in many ways an against God. She pushed for non man or women and thought that if someone wanted sex with children that that was their private affair and they should not have any rules about it meaning abduction and thief of children was a private matter and we should not interfere with their privacy. she believes that killing baby’s life is ok. She hated our constitution and told other country’s to be careful an do not try to make their constitution like the U.S. constitution.

  4. Wow! What an eye-opener! I had no clue such evil could exist in a little old lady! Thank you, Q for bringing her true character to light. I hope she gets right with God before it’s too late.

    1. She’s an intellectually honest liberal and the only one on the court that can Marshall a coherent (albeit misguided) argument for the left. The other 3 will be incoherent idiots once she’s gone. Isn’t that better than dealing with brain deAd NPC’s who shout REEEEEEE When something doesn’t compute?

    2. what some people on here do not get , yes there is evil an not every one will be saved at their own choice but it is Gods wish that none are lost. I like coming here and ready all this but sometimes i wonder if some of the hateful words and talking about burning down DC if the president does not hurry up is healthy. All things in Gods time.

  5. This may come off as creepy but I’m actually in favor of reforming the arbitrary way we consider adulthood and legalize certain sexuality. From my perspective adulthood should be inclusive of driving, smoking, drinking, military, contracts, legal responsibility for actions, voting, consent for sex, etc. By law group all that together at age 18 but allow a local magistrate to hear a petition to delay until 21 or lower age down to 14 (post puberty) on a case by case basis. Basically you’d be a minor dependent until you got your adult card. Hell, do a ceremony once a month at the local magistrate with a friendly phamplet and Q and A.

    I have antiquated notions of sexuality: I don’t see a problem with a sexually mature underage females marrying an older man if that is in the best interest of both parties. I’m 100% convinced successful long term female pairbonding is dependent on low promsecuity and also that women are largely in need of guidance from a responsible male, so marry them to men early as her family suggests and approves of. 12 is too early obviously but post puberty 16-18… sure, why not? I don’t view the genders as equal and this current mess we have where everyone whores around until they hit the wall at age 30 and then tries to marry a whore to an ATM beta buck provider after she’s had 50-250 alpha cocks in her is just destroying the concept of female fulfillment (which is derived from birthing and raising children and caring for marriage and the home), culling our birth rates below replacement levels, and leading to the financial ruin of men and also of women to a lesser extent during a divorce.

    If you want to go your own way and be an independent third wave feminist, we’ll thats your perorgotive but once you hit the wall and your looks fade you’ll be alone with your cats living off of welfare and being alone, fat, and miserable.

  6. She is obviously trying to slowly condition people into the normalization of pedophilia and gender confusion. Man and woman have had defined roles in society since the dawn of humanity. While those roles have evolved over the years, the distinction and importance of specific gender roles has not diminished. Sometimes women take on men’s roles out of necessity and vice versa but RBG is off the deep end here.

    1. Bullshit. Pedopilila is sexual abuse of prepubescent minors by older men outside of a mogonomous pairbonding relationships, which is stomach turning, revolting, and deserving of punishment.

      What she’s actually arguing is that female sexual agency should be able to be legally aserted during the early stages of puberty. Now I don’t agree with the ‘early stages of puberty’ portion of her argument. But she is opening the door for discussion on how our post Puritan sexual norms and relevant law obscure the ancient norms of having post pubescent young women (think age 14, 15, 16, 17, etc) marry off to husbands to start mothering children earlier than we typically do now. Understand, this is largely how it worked across cultures and races prior to the Puritan period of time and would be thought of completely normally.

      This is done on an individual basis. RBG is somewhat arguing that by drawing an arbitrary line in the sand at 18, we’re denying the female of the species her biological sexual agency and its tyrannical. I can’t help but sympathize with this argument. I think she’s correct and I think our continued denial of at least an earnest discussion on this matter is unfortunate and close minded. Also note I’m saying this as a divorced man in his late thirties whose sworn off woman and I live very happily abstaining from sexual activity entirely for 2+ years now. I’m not chasing after young tail.

      My point that is based on my knowledge of female nature (the more cock they have other than their husband’s before marrying their husband, the less likely they are to be able to pair bond and maintain a healthy successful marriage), our laws denying post pubescent female sexual agency are indeed tyrannical and are also contributing to the breakdown of successful marriages and subsequently our population growth rates. See this chart for what I’m talking about. https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/sexual-past-matters-for-women-but-not-men.1113249/. In today’s world of no fault divorces, a man would be insane to marry anything other than a virgin and to furthermore abstain from sexual activity with her until married. If you marry a Virgin your marriage has a 90% chance of success, if you marry the woman who you devirgined something like low 80’s, if you marry a woman who had just one cock before yours, your chances for a successful marriage go to 50%.

      That’s huge! Let that sink in. We take the success rates of marriage from 90% to below 50% by simply having the female have one sexual experience with a man other than the first husband she marries. So by denying a sexually mature adolescent female the right to her sexual agency in her late adolescence we basically doom almost half of marriages to fail. How’s that a successful proposition for western civilization?

      Remember Roy Moore being lamb basted for chasing after young women once he established himself in his 30’s. What he was doing was totally natural and culturally normal in the south at those days. The mothers and fathers of young girls married them off early once they were ready (assessed on an individual basis). The divorce rates weren’t what they are now and the Anglo Saxon American culture bred prodigiously inside of happy healthy married homes.

      Now I realize what I’m saying is not exactly the argument RBG is putting forth and our reasons for putting our respective arguments forth are quite different, but they are both rooted in similar truths about female and human nature.

    1. It’s for the procreation of the species, and the survival and expansion of the Anglo American race. Men need to run things both inside and outside of the home, boys raised to be strong moral masculine men, and women to be the caregivers, mothers, and homemakers they are mostly suited to. The majority of today’s children, to the extent we have any, are raised in broken homes, without the necessary paternal guidance and security a father brings. The boys are drugged and told they are idiots and second class citizens, and the actual weaker gender, WHO IS NOT SUITED TO RUN A CIVILIZATION AND WHO BY AND LARGE LACKS RATIONALITY AND PERSEVERENCE is encouraged to be a immoral whore, to disrespect men, and told the ludicrous claim they should be running the world. Get back to me once they fight in and win wars, do half the jobs like soldier, trash hauler, sewer maintenance, road builder, bridge painter, coal miner, lumber cutter, power line repaired, farmer, fisher, trucker, merchant marine etc, etc, etc.

      Fucking idiots frost the hell out of me: thinking if they only ran half of the C suite companies there would be true equality.

  7. So basically we agree there ARE defined roles of men and women and that they should exist. But I disagree in the exact roles. Women don’t have to stay in the house and be caregivers, home makers and shit. They can do alot of different things in society BUT there does need to be a dichotomy where the man leads and the women support and offer guidance and perspective. It should be a mutually beneficial relationship where both male and female opinions are considered and agreed upon. True. Many women lack rationale and perseverance but not all. Just like many men lack emotional intelligence and are overly aggressive but not all. There needs to be a balance regardless of the roles decided upon for each relationship. As far as the “expansion of the Anglo American race” I just think that’s your racist propaganda you’ve been pumped with by neo Nazi influencers. You seem to be racist and a misogynist based on your colorful descriptions and pov of women and people of color. Maybe just back woods small town mentality idk but it’s definitely something.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

14 − 3 =