Ginsburg’s court is a supreme hoax

In an age when most Americans aren’t capable of identifying the three main branches of their own Federal government, and yet can repeat the ideologically programmed talking points – whether derived from the manufactured right or the fabricated left – spouted ad nauseum from their favorite corporate news pundit verbatim, the following may fall on deaf ears and go unseen by those with eyes wide blind.

So be it.

As for the likes of those, one is beginning to conclude there may be no saving redemption.

For those counted among the loyal readership of however, one shall no doubt find the following comical, if not a bit tragic. Here, one shall examine the Supreme Court career of Ruth Beta Ginsburg, only the second woman designated to the land’s highest court since the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor.

In addition, one of our old friends from the gilded land of Hollywood shall also figure prominently in this installment. And as any loyal reader shall immediately recognize, this Hollywood celebrity has appeared in the public eye many times before and in so many guises.

Here, however, he stars as the host actor for a very prominent Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia. After one is finished perusing the content demonstrated here, one will assuredly no longer wonder why it is whenever this Hollywood star stares back at the audience from the silver screen, his trademark, smoldering gaze seems to always accompany the greatest and most smug of self-satisfied, smiling masks.

On August 10, 1993, Ginsburg, subsequent to appointment by then US President William Clinton, took the oath to join the vaunted ranks of America’s Supreme Court. Only the second female to be confirmed for the court after Sandra Day O’Connor, and one of four female justices to be confirmed overall, Ginsburg remains, with the retirement of O’Connor, the only female currently sitting on the high bench.

Renowned for her rather liberal interpretations of the law and her staunch support of both gender equality and women’s rights, she has allegedly spearheaded some of the more recent majority opinions handed down by the court, including United States vs. Virginia, Olmstead vs. L.C., and Friends of the Earth Inc. vs. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. It is interesting to note, that all of these cases for which Ginsburg issued forth a legal opinion regarded “hot button” social issues, of the type the ruling elites first concoct then heavily promote through their mainstream/alternative media organs and thence into mass consciousness.

The first, US vs. Virginia, was deemed a landmark case because it struck down Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admission policy. Noteworthy here is the fact another of Ginsburg’s colleagues, Justice Clarence Thomas, who became publicly embroiled in a sexual abuse imbroglio, felt it best to recuse himself from rendering an opinion, on the sole basis his son was matriculating at the school in question.

Although one is by no means a legal expert, one finds it nonetheless curious that the Supreme Court doesn’t consider striking down the female-only policies held by institutions of a similarly prestigious stature. The second, Olmstead vs. L.C., concerned the legal nuances of the Americans with Disabilities act, and what was felt to be a widening and general discrimination against people with mental disabilities.

Although this would seem – superficially at least – to be a rather altruistic legal pursuit, upon digging deeper one discovers perhaps ulterior motives.

Of course, when one actually reads the Supreme Court’s definition of what constitutes a person of mental disability, the legal parameters seem rather vague and non-specific, and in essence can only truly be defined by mental health professionals in cooperation with health officials employed by federal and statutory agencies. Perhaps this was the point of the decision, to allow the parameters of the very definition of mental disabilities to lapse into such grey areas so as to allow anyone serving in the mental health industry and including those serving in government agencies to define and redefine such parameters (such is the case with the legally established definition of terrorism) at their pleasure, whim or caprice to expediently fit the prevailing social or political agenda of the moment.

And finally the third case, Friends of the Earth Inc. vs. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc., concerned the court ruling in favor of an environmental suit brought forward on behalf of residents located near South Carolina’s Tyger river. The court ruled that the plaintiff residents had cause to sue an industrial polluter, against whom it is alleged similar suits and civil penalties had already been pursued.

Although the defendant polluter argued before the court the legal suit brought forward was moot based upon the fact the factory responsible for said pollution had been rendered defunct, Ginsburg and her majority colleagues still found grounds to rule the defendant polluter still retained license to operate the factory and therefore still retained legal liability. But this is where difficulties come into play regarding the non-government organization Friends of the Earth Inc.

David Brower, per established biography, founded the non-government organization in 1969 after resigning chairmanship of Sierra Club to address not only environmental concerns, but other issues he found paramount such as “sustainable development,” a philosophy which entails centralized global control over technological, political, social, environmental, and in essence of every sub-domain of human endeavor to ensure the needs of the present are met but not at the expense of future generations.

The philosophy of sustainable development is advocated today by UN Agenda 21, and is merely an ideological veil covering the reality that the ruling elites, with great advances in digital and artificial intelligence, no longer need great numbers of the proletariat or the Western middle classes to support the ongoing profitability of their global commercial system. That’s right folks, climate change and social and political concern over the welfare of the planetary environment merely mask the fact the owners and operators of the prevailing global commercial economic system no longer require great numbers of employed humans – whether it be in production or administrative capacities –  to work in their factories or commercial facilities when machines can perform the same duties much more cheaply, efficiently, and most importantly, profitably.

Be that as it may, when research commenced into David Brower, one was able to discover the identity of yet another host actor portraying a character sporting a pseudonym. Let me ask folks, does Mr. Brower appear to resemble a legendary Hollywood screen actor?

Yes, folks, Mr. Brower and Mr. Smith goes to Washington/Jimmy Stewart have a great deal in common in terms of both ear and facial landmarks.

Coincidence? Not a chance – but that’s not all folks!

As one shall soon observe, like the scripted theatrics of the congressional body one observes performed “live” on MSNBC, the Supreme Court is filled with actors operating under pseudonyms and serving as proxies through which the ruling elite Jesuit families enact their social and political agendas.

As detailed before (See: How Crown Temple rules America) America’s legal and financial administration, and all executive decisions regarding same, emanate from within London’s one square mile, which is coordinated with the Jesuit order (Black and Grey Pope’s) represented by the Knights of Malta at the Vatican in Rome.

That’s right folks, while the public is beguiled by the Federal Government’s magic show, the real decision making is handed down from centralized control existing elsewhere and out of the public’s sight. Ginsburg clearly represents a remnant of the ancient theatrical realm derived from the Shakespearean tradition of classical mythmaking, that of a fabricated character portraying and acting out words and deeds of someone else’s creation and at the behest of a third party. In other words, folks, Ruth Beta Ginsburg is a puppet of the thirteen ruling elite Jesuit families.

Contemporary evidence of this is available and right in plain sight of the public for those wishing to examine the implications. Subsequent to the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor from the court, Ginsburg’s ascent to the pantheon of mythical figures began in 2006, when her alleged dissenting opinion in the case of Shelby County vs. Holder 570 U.S. in 2013, inspired the creation of a blog dedicated to celebrating the Justice’s maverick and dissenting legal positions entitled the Notorious RBG, a pop-culture comparison made to the late and popular Gangster Rap star The Notorious B.I.G. AKA Chris Wallace.

Of course, loyal readers here at have by now discovered most, if not all, of those presented to them through the magic conduits of mainstream pop culture and media are in fact characters portrayed by host actors, and the lives presented to the public via fabricated biographies are merely legends created in the sub-department cubicles of CIA in Langley, Virginia. Ginsburg, the feminist legal superstar and Wallace, the gangster rapper who allegedly rose up from the dregs of an inner city ghetto to acquire the fruits of the “American Dream” are indeed two of a kind.

What was initially a blog, began by then-law student Shana Knizhnik, shortly became a New York Times best seller co-written by MSNBC reporter, Irin Carmon (yes, folks, a fake reporter hired to chronicle congressional theater) and fully helped to solidify Ginsburg’s cult of pop culture personality and celebrity. It should also be pointed out that in the case of Ginsburg, as with seemingly every mythical character created by the ruling elites, there were, in addition to the book, numerous other commercially marketed products such as nail art, Halloween costumes, a bobblehead doll, tattoos, and even a coloring book. There was even – get this folks – a rap song, entitled Notorious RBG that allegedly went viral in 2013. Thus far, Ginsburg’s mythical character has followed the usual programmed pattern of fabricated biography to celebrated cult of personality, leading eventually to mass commercial and media exploitation.

Clearly, hers was merely a famous face created to help sell certain social and political agendas, and to make a profit while doing so.

One should think that a Supreme Court Justice, a legal professional appointed and confirmed to a position of extreme complexity and seriousness requiring the utmost intellectual objectivity and agility would shy away and indeed shun such frivolous commercial exploitation? But that isn’t the case with Ginsburg, because you see folks, our lone female Supreme Court heroine is an actor, a prominent actor who once had her own television show broadcast on a major corporate American network. Remember Murphy Brown?:

That’s right folks, facial landmarks and ear bio-metrics are a complete match with Candace Bergen and our Supreme Court heroine “the Notorious RBG.”

Admittedly, though, one was not the first to make this positive comparison. Yet another excellent researcher named Greg Bradford came to the same conclusion. An example of one of his excellent productions is found below:

If one has read this far, certainly the name Bergen is more than familiar with those that may have read a recent installment: See: Peter, Polly, JFK, Bobby and Jackie too Part II

And yes, folks, in the above video one shall notice our old friend, Hollywood heartthrob George Clooney is the host actor portraying one of the interviewers throwing softballs at RBG AKA Candace Bergen, the very same actor who starred in the Vegas shooting hoax as an alleged witness and as one of RBG’s Supreme court colleagues (clowns), Judge Antonin Scalia.

Indeed, folks, in just two years since Newsspell began, the rabbit hole has become frighteningly deep.

4 thoughts on “Ginsburg’s court is a supreme hoax

Leave a Reply