By DEXTER DUGGAN
Could the astounding confluence of evils in the United States in 2020 mean Satan is thrashing about in desperation because he knows his current power is about to be shackled, and a new age of blessings from Heaven is ready to arrive on Earth?
True, that idea is unverified hopeful speculation, but a person also keeps in mind that God through the passage of particular decades eventually wearies of evils of that era inflicting themselves on His children and clamps down on devilish ills.
Over the last half-century, one of the dominant powers imposing arbitrary, sinful rule on the U.S. has been an unaccountable Supreme Court thrusting its personal agenda on society, lacking legal precedent as well as some other justification.
A major partner in advancing these ills has been cheerleading dominant left-wing media.
To look at Americans in a photo from, say, 1960 is to be reminded that they lived under a system far removed from our twisted one — although certainly no human generation is perfect.
The court’s amazing invention of national permissive abortion overnight in 1973 is the strongest example but hardly the only one at a time of various disorders being declared constitutional rights. Truly, a person today couldn’t be a good Catholic and a constitutionally “correct” American at the same time.
By this definition, to be a good Christian — or merely a good American of any persuasion — would mean having to laud and live in a state of constant mortal sin.
Was that the reason defiant liberal Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and presidential nominee Joe Biden declared themselves to be good Catholics while defending and advancing the worst of the court’s evils? They were the sort of good “constitutional” Catholics who helped pave the way for victims to the gates of Hell with deceit and deviance.
Already afflicted in 2020 with a pandemic generated in Communist China and the accompanying social and economic tribulations, as well as nationwide Marxist-inspired rioting, looting, arson and assaults — not to mention the dangers of a clearly unhealthy Democratic presidential nominee and his openly anti-Catholic running mate — the U.S. suddenly faced a high court justice’s dying in September.
Conservatives and traditionalists long had hoped for a rejuvenation and transformation of the ideologically impaired Supreme Court when a vacancy occurred. The impending replacement of elderly hard-left, pro-abortion extremist Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative justice faithful to a rule of sound law, not a “law” of made-up left-wing imperatives, raised trembling hopes.
Republican President Trump announced that he’d reveal his choice of a woman to succeed Ginsburg on September 26, Saturday, two days after this hard copy issue of The Wanderer went to press. He was expected to select a conservative pro-lifer such as Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett or Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Barbara Lagoa.
With Trump already having put two justices on the court, it stood at a putative 5-4 conservative majority, although “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, was a weak reed. And Trump’s 2017 nominee Neil Gorsuch showed earlier this year that he, along with Roberts, could be bent to endorse unconstitutional transgender notions.
Last March Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) stood outside the Supreme Court building and ranted to a crowd about the danger posed to permissive abortion by, he said, Gorsuch and Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh. Although Gorsuch didn’t capitulate in a June ruling on a Louisiana abortion law, weak reed Roberts did, showing that threats in some instances can succeed.
Former ACLU lawyer Ginsburg went onto the court back in 1993 thanks to pro-abortionist Democrat President Bill Clinton. She served that agenda well, furthering the slaughter of countless defenseless pre-born babies.
To see videos of some women alarmingly distraught by the cancer death of the frail 87-year-old jurist suggested that one of the main lines of defense they had used in their own thinking to favor massive cruel abortion was that they could cite the high-court authority of whom they admiringly christened “the notorious RBG.”
Alas, she was as mortal as the rest of us, and her authority came to an end laid in the same flower-covered box awaiting those yet alive.
Pro-life activist Gianna Jessen, who survived being aborted by saline in southern California in 1977, tweeted: “She does deserve honor and respect because she was made in the image of God. Her stand on taking the lives of the unborn does not deserve my respect. But yes, as a human being, she deserves the respect she did not afford to others.”
As for the necessity to keep reaching out to the lost, pro-life activist Jill Stanek tweeted a quotation from the late English evangelist C.T. Studd: “Some wish to stay within the sound of church or chapel bell. I’d rather run a rescue shop within a yard of Hell.”
Although the tributes to Ginsburg from the establishment were as generous as one might expect, they skipped past one of the most revealing points in her thinking, voiced to the high-profile New York Times Magazine in 2009.
Before she joined the court, it had decided in 1980 that abortion needn’t be funded by Medicaid. In 2009 Ginsburg told Times interviewer Emily Bazelon: “The ruling surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided (in 1973), 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.”
“Populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” If they used Medicaid, they’d be poorer people. And who is the “we” that decided how many “we” want to live? Ginsburg’s future high-court colleagues with final word on the law?
Rather than explore Ginsburg’s frightening implications at the time, interviewer Bazelon waited three entire years before circling back with her in an article posted at the Slate website on October 19, 2012, where together they merrily laughed off the very idea of eugenicist scandal. They had to think long and hard so they could get their excuses together.
Probably like many other religious people, I was sad at Ginsburg’s death because of the judgment that may have come to pass on obstinate her immediately thereafter. But invincible ignorance is as real on one hand as Hell is on the other.
Some people really seem blind to the evils of massive abortion and other mortal sins, so it’s up to God to probe their consciences when they come before him in the everlasting realm where He, not The New York Times, prevails. I wouldn’t want to face Him if the best defense I could present was a sheaf of decomposable Times editorials praising my disordered conscience. But perhaps Ruth’s view was invincibly impaired.
Conservative Republican political consultant Constantin Querard told The Wanderer on September 22 that Ginsburg’s death could mean big changes on the court.
“Ginsburg’s passing is a likely inflection point in the history of America, and its importance should not be minimized,” Querard said. “It is why Democrats will work so hard to stop it and why Republicans as ideologically unreliable as (U.S. Sen.) Mitt Romney will actually stand tall and do their duty.
“The last several decades have witnessed a steady erosion of respect for our nation’s foundational values and institutions,” he said. “A 6-3 conservative court that could hold for the next decade or longer will have the chance to restore and defend fundamental liberties in a way that is priceless for all Americans, even those who don’t and won’t ever appreciate it.”
Earlier in his statement, Querard said: “Ginsburg lived a remarkable life that, had she held conservative views, would have been celebrated by those of us on the right and vilified by those on the left. I’m inclined to allow the celebration without practicing the intolerance the left showed after (Justice Antonin) Scalia’s death.
“It is fair to opine that Ginsburg’s disdain for critical parts of the Constitution should disqualify her from any standing as a great jurist, as her opinions often violated the very document she was sworn to uphold and defend,” he said. “And her enthusiastic defense of the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies is a case she is likely now defending before the highest court in any land.”
Meanwhile, left-wing Democrats and their allies elsewhere in society threatened all manner of destruction and mayhem if Trump and his Republicans went ahead to fill Ginsburg’s seat before the November 3 elections — even though a full court of nine justices could be needed to deal with legal challenges arising from the expected contentious balloting.
Socially dominant leftists weren’t pleased to see their ability possibly slipping away to impose their immoralities on the nation through the high court. They spoke gravely of the need to follow proper procedures.
However, conservatives pointed out that for decades Democrats blatantly violated one norm after another to get their way with that court. And now wild-eyed Dems suggested everything from putting additional justices onto the court — what’s called “packing” — to adding additional states to the Union to maintain their power.
Trump could be impeached yet again, or GOP Atty. Gen. William Barr could be impeached, or, Pelosi said, there were other arrows in the quiver. The message never seemed to get through to Pelosi’s elite that most Americans are thoroughly sick of the Dems’ maneuvers, as well as the violence the donkeys usually ignore.
The U.S. edition of the London-based Sun newspaper posted on September 20: “As fury raged in Washington, high-profile leftists hinted at violent insurrection in posts on social media. Trump-bashing former CNN presenter Reza Aslan tweeted to his 293,000 followers: ‘If they even TRY to replace RBG, we burn the entire f***ing thing down’.”
Fox News quoted conservative, pro-life U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) that Democrats are “the same party that looks away while rioters and looters burn down our towns. Now, the Democrats are saying they’ll burn down the Constitution. These people should not be in power.”
Indeed, one might wonder how hordes of experienced street fighters suddenly sprang up across the U.S. this summer, in well-coordinated, well-armed attacks. In, coincidentally, the very election year that Communist China spread its virus internationally. Dominant left-wing media, who viewed these thugs as their allies, didn’t seem too worried about answering the unavoidable questions.
The Washington Examiner posted on September 23 that Pelosi, joining an event with left-wing activist Sister Simone Campbell, bashed Trump supporters ahead of the president’s honored virtual appearance that morning at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.
The Examiner quoted Pelosi, “ ‘What would Christ do?’ We always say that. Well, there’s a big difference between what Christ would do and what they’re honoring this morning.”
In her unique skin-crawling way, bad Catholic and radical pro-abortionist Pelosi often drags in poor Jesus to try to justify her raw politics. But in saying she “always” asks what Christ would do would be true only if Pelosi meant she wants to discover His will so that she can reject it, the more horrifyingly the better, as with massive abortion.
The Hill political news site posted that Trump told the Catholic breakfast, “Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born Alive executive order to assure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty.”
The president also said his administration would increase federal funding for neonatal research.
On the other hand, bad Catholic Pelosi and her Democratic leadership had blocked a born-alive bill for helpless babies dozens of times in the House.
Back on February 28, The Washington Times posted, “For the 80th time, House Republicans sought to require doctors to provide medical care for newborns who survive botched abortions, and for the 80th time, House Democrats defeated the measure, days after Senate Democrats blocked a similar effort.”
While helpless babies are below Pelosi’s attention, there’s something else beneath her feet.
One viewer’s pungent reaction posted below a YouTube video of Pelosi urging clean air and water noted the widespread human public defecation in Pelosi’s San Francisco home town. She can’t even keep the poop off the streets, said the comment.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress