Jump to content


Spartacus

ERA - 2009


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,979 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 03 April 2007 - 09:38 PM

dbl dbl post???

Edited by John Dolva, 03 April 2007 - 09:49 PM.


#2 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,979 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 03 April 2007 - 09:47 PM

Perhaps the ERA is not dead after all...

Long odds for Equal Rights Amendment By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 25 mins ago

http://news.yahoo.co...kmA_FoyJlrMWM0F

Yahoo News - "Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, said he plans hearings on the modern-day ERA. Sponsors said their goal is to get House and Senate votes on it before 2009.

"I would love for the American people to see who votes against women's equality," said O'Neill.

In 1971 and 1972 the amendment swept through Congress, with votes of 354-24 in the House and 84-8 in the Senate. Over the next five years 35 states ratified the measure, but even with extension of the seven-year deadline for action to 10 years, no other states concurred. The first ERA was introduced in Congress in 1923, three years after women got the vote. The last ERA-related vote was in 1983.

The new version has less than 200 original co-sponsors in the 435-member House, and one of them, Rep. Ralph Hall (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, dropped off the day after it was introduced, leaving only eight GOP signatures on it. In he Senate, the measure has only 21 sponsors, none of them a Republican. Constitutional amendments must be approved by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislature.

O'Neill says those numbers reflect that Republicans are "farther to the right than they were in the 1970s."

Conservative groups have been quick to mobilize their opposition, underlining the abortion and same-sex marriage issues that resonate with Republican lawmakers.

"We believe the ERA is dead," said Jessica Echard, executive director of Eagle Forum, the conservative grass-roots group founded in 1972 by Phyllis Schlafly as she led the fight against the original ERA. "We'll see if Congress really wants to get back into this."

Among the main opposing arguments in that Vietnam War era, besides the images of men and women having to share bathrooms, was that the ERA would subject women to the military draft.

The draft issue "is still very much alive" in today's wartime America, Echard said, as are concerns that an ERA would be used to codify abortion and same-sex marriage rights.

A proliferation of female doctors, lawyers and stockbrokers and the fact that women now receive nearly 60 percent of college degrees show that women don't need an ERA to succeed, she added.

Not so, says Rep. Carolyn Maloney (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., who has sponsored ERA proposals in six different sessions of Congress. She noted that women still get only 77 cents for every dollar that men are paid, that only 3 percent of federal contracts go to women-owned firms, and that the poverty rate of older women in nearly twice that of older men."

#3 Harry J.Dean

Harry J.Dean

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 693 posts

Posted 07 April 2007 - 09:18 PM

Perhaps the ERA is not dead after all...

Long odds for Equal Rights Amendment By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 25 mins ago

http://news.yahoo.co...kmA_FoyJlrMWM0F

Yahoo News - "Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, said he plans hearings on the modern-day ERA. Sponsors said their goal is to get House and Senate votes on it before 2009.

"I would love for the American people to see who votes against women's equality," said O'Neill.

In 1971 and 1972 the amendment swept through Congress, with votes of 354-24 in the House and 84-8 in the Senate. Over the next five years 35 states ratified the measure, but even with extension of the seven-year deadline for action to 10 years, no other states concurred. The first ERA was introduced in Congress in 1923, three years after women got the vote. The last ERA-related vote was in 1983.

The new version has less than 200 original co-sponsors in the 435-member House, and one of them, Rep. Ralph Hall (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, dropped off the day after it was introduced, leaving only eight GOP signatures on it. In he Senate, the measure has only 21 sponsors, none of them a Republican. Constitutional amendments must be approved by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislature.

O'Neill says those numbers reflect that Republicans are "farther to the right than they were in the 1970s."

Conservative groups have been quick to mobilize their opposition, underlining the abortion and same-sex marriage issues that resonate with Republican lawmakers.

"We believe the ERA is dead," said Jessica Echard, executive director of Eagle Forum, the conservative grass-roots group founded in 1972 by Phyllis Schlafly as she led the fight against the original ERA. "We'll see if Congress really wants to get back into this."

Among the main opposing arguments in that Vietnam War era, besides the images of men and women having to share bathrooms, was that the ERA would subject women to the military draft.

The draft issue "is still very much alive" in today's wartime America, Echard said, as are concerns that an ERA would be used to codify abortion and same-sex marriage rights.

A proliferation of female doctors, lawyers and stockbrokers and the fact that women now receive nearly 60 percent of college degrees show that women don't need an ERA to succeed, she added.

Not so, says Rep. Carolyn Maloney (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., who has sponsored ERA proposals in six different sessions of Congress. She noted that women still get only 77 cents for every dollar that men are paid, that only 3 percent of federal contracts go to women-owned firms, and that the poverty rate of older women in nearly twice that of older men."


Hi, John
Information re; ERA, CIA, LDS combine.
An official of the US. Agriculture Dept. Larry Bush {Mormon} explained in an 1981 interview
that todays Washington Saints refer to themselves, among themselves, as a "Sisterhood" It's
a term with roots at the CIA where the Church is particularly well represented. CIA agents also
refer to one another as "sisters."
.......here the best example of Mormon clout changing the face of America is the case of Sonia
Johnson and the ERA in April 1977 when Mormon Bishop, Jeffery Willis, a long time CIA personel
director, while no stranger to public controversey, Willis was forced by the Johnson case to face
the cameras personally rather than relying on CIA piblic relations staff. His comments revealed
that many other CIA men were Ward members,and that he had sought public relations from an
old friend,newspaper columnist Jack Anderson, himself a member of the Silver Springs, Maryland, Ward.
The hidden role of Mormon elders in setting up anti-ERA demonstrations and in working
through the Sisterhood to oppose the amendment, when it appeared that a pro-ERA measure extending the time alloted for ratifacation might actually reach the floor for a vote, LDS Senator ORRIN Hatch {R, Utah} vowed to stage a filibuster to head off the Senate vote on extension.
Mormon elder James Fletcher, head of the National Areonautics and Space Administration
{NASA}, visited the Sterling Ward house to read the letter from the Twelve Apostles ordering saints
to oppose the amendment. That letter was sent to Mormon lawmakers on Capitol Hill,Saints on the
White House staff, at CIA headquarters,in the FBI, and throughout the federal bureaucracy. It led
to an expertly organized LDS effort in half dozen states from Florida to Illinois. The support it
marshalled against ERA ultimately killed its chances for ratifacation.

{from 1990 Manuscript/book YROJ Connection to JFK by Harry J. Dean, pages 38 & 39,}

#4 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,979 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 09 April 2007 - 02:18 PM

Very interesting, Harry. I remember following the leadup to the vote and while hopeful, but cynical, I was surprised that that was it.

The mormons as an "interest group" political element thus would distort democracy, and if they have such influence they are an enemy of the public. How does one counter that? Self education and through that a measure of judgement? How aware is the general public of these minorities and the disproportionate power they have?

#5 Harry J.Dean

Harry J.Dean

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 693 posts

Posted 10 April 2007 - 06:59 PM

Very interesting, Harry. I remember following the leadup to the vote and while hopeful, but cynical, I was surprised that that was it.

The mormons as an "interest group" political element thus would distort democracy, and if they have such influence they are an enemy of the public. How does one counter that? Self education and through that a measure of judgement? How aware is the general public of these minorities and the disproportionate power they have?

Hi, John
Disproportionate power. YES. Here is one example of subversive progress.
Even before taking the oath of office George Bush Sr. had named BRENT SCOWCROFT,
ROGER PORTER, and STEVE STUDDERT, all Mormons, to top White House posts in foreign
affairs, domestic policy, and political scheduling. The 'Sisterhood was overjoyed.
For {General} Scowcroft the Bush cabinet level appointment capped a long career
serving those at the seat of power from Richard Nixion to Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan.

While Scowcroft, Porter and Studdert were the most visible Mormons running the government
as the Bush Sr. administration began, they were three among hundreds, perhaps thousands
, of D.C. Saints with influential positions in the federal government. Furthermore, similar
Mormon "knots" thrive at the state,county,and local levels throughout the country.

The resulting power elite-a tightly knit, almost exclusively white male assemblage of Jurists,
Journalists, FBI agents, CIA executives, Interior Department managers, Pentagon brass,
Corporation chiefs and ranking White House officials, Mormons make up a substantial portion
of middle management of the United States government.

Note;
Republican/Conservative or by any other name!
Scowcroft and endless others are in the present Bush Jr. administration. If and when an opposition
political party is elected, embeded Mormons will still be infiltating persuading even directing.
Bush Jr. is willingly carrying out Mormon Church leadership policies to bring about a Church/State
world union!

LDS, Latter Day Saints, Mormon "POLITICAL MANIFESTO"

Saints must consult their ecclesiastical superiors to obtain permission before
accepting any appointment that might interfere with their religious duties.

#6 Harry J.Dean

Harry J.Dean

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 693 posts

Posted 10 April 2007 - 07:20 PM

Very interesting, Harry. I remember following the leadup to the vote and while hopeful, but cynical, I was surprised that that was it.

The mormons as an "interest group" political element thus would distort democracy, and if they have such influence they are an enemy of the public. How does one counter that? Self education and through that a measure of judgement? How aware is the general public of these minorities and the disproportionate power they have?

Hi, John
Disproportionate power. YES. Here is one example of subversive progress.
Even before taking the oath of office George Bush Sr. had named BRENT SCOWCROFT,
ROGER PORTER, and STEVE STUDDERT, all Mormons, to top White House posts in foreign
affairs, domestic policy, and political scheduling. The 'Sisterhood was overjoyed.
For {General} Scowcroft the Bush cabinet level appointment capped a long career
serving those at the seat of power from Richard Nixion to Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan.

While Scowcroft, Porter and Studdert were the most visible Mormons running the government
as the Bush Sr. administration began, they were three among hundreds, perhaps thousands
, of D.C. Saints with influential positions in the federal government. Furthermore, similar
Mormon "knots" thrive at the state,county,and local levels throughout the country.

The resulting power elite-a tightly knit, almost exclusively white male assemblage of Jurists,
Journalists, FBI agents, CIA executives, Interior Department managers, Pentagon brass,
Corporation chiefs and ranking White House officials, Mormons make up a substantial portion
of middle management of the United States government.

Note;
Republican/Conservative or by any other name!
Scowcroft and endless others are in the present Bush Jr. administration. If and when an opposition
political party is elected, embeded Mormons will still be infiltating persuading even directing.
Bush Jr. is willingly carrying out Mormon Church leadership policies to bring about a Church/State
world union!

LDS, Latter Day Saints, Mormon "POLITICAL MANIFESTO"

Saints must consult their ecclesiastical superiors to obtain permission before
accepting any appointment that might interfere with their religious duties.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users