- Gloria Steinem is back on tour with her "what's
next for feminism" message for a reason, and she's not acting alone.
Ever the footsoldier of the CIA, Steinem's been deployed 'on point to get
a new frontal assault going. What's coming hasn't been mentioned in the
mainstream news just yet, but I'm finding advance job in progress on internet
blogs.
-
- The failed 1970's ERA amendment is quietly back on the
table again in American state legislatures accelerating toward Congress
and a new round of national attention.
-
- Excerpt of the ERA document:
-
- "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex*."
-
- Sounds reasonable and fair on the surface, doesn't it?
But the legalese beneath the above statement, it's real intention, was
already fully debated - and exposed - during a fierce public relations
battle prominent in US news from 1977 to 1982.
-
- For those with long term memory loss, or not born yet
the first time around, here's the full story.
-
- Excerpt: Phyllis Schlafly - Feb. 07, 2007, Testimony
regarding the reincarnation of the famous 1970's "Equal Rights Amendment"
before Arkansas Legislature committee. (below)
-
- "I think the main reason it was rescinded and rejected
was that it is a fraud. It pretends to help women, but it does nothing
for women; and they are not able to show any benefit, any correction of
law that the Equal Rights Amendment will do. You know that the amendment
does not put women in the Constitution, and it does not put gender in the
constitution. It puts sex in the Constitution. Now we are at the mercy
of the judges.* The Equal Rights Amendment does not say whether it is the
sex you are or the sex you do. We leave all those decisions up to the judges."
-
- (full transcript)
- http://www.wpaag.org/ERA%20-%20Schlafly%
- 20Testimony%20in%20AR%202-7-07.htm
-
- The bill is designed to give sexual deviants the same
civil rights as those based upon race. Schlafly correctly identifies the
real purpose of this bill. It opens a number of doors wide open. Homosexual
and lesbian child care workers, teachers, boy and girl scout leaders, or
such carfetakers openly into sadomasochist and group sex activities couldn't
be barred from the aforementioned jobs. Question it and they could file
suit and win.
-
- The gay marriage controversy flapping in the US involves
something more than whether two same sex adults can use this legal devise
to secure tax payer funded pensions (left to 'spouses') and so on. Legalize
homosexual marriage, and you've legalized gay adoption of children.
-
- (It's no accident that the relatively unimportant, low
population State of Arkansas is hosting the resurrection of this agenda
Hillary Clinton - the machine she represents - maintains formidable behind
the scenes clout with the sitting Arkansas legislature.)
-
- Blogs are already abuzz on this. Salvos on the matter
are a concerted advance job. I'm predicting this re-treading of the old
ERA bill, sex deviant rights masquerading as 'women's rights', will converge
with the 'gay marriage' flap, as one of the prominent 'issues' going into
the 2008 election year. Example of blog advance work below. This one by
'Middle Raged Punk". (citation under quotes)
-
- "You'd think that this would already be in the Constitution,
and something that everyone would be behind right? Well, you'd be wrong
on both counts. The Equal Rights Amendment failed, but now it's making
a comeback. Now being introduced as the Women's Rights Amendment, it will
be reintroduced with the hope of finally making sex discrimination have
the same strict scrutiny that racial discrimination has in the courts."
-
- For the legally literate, that last part is worth repeating.
-
- "...making sex discrimination have the same strict
scrutiny that racial discrimination has in the courts."
-
- Keep in mind that the bill never did and doesn't offer
either protection or legal wording specific to gender at all other that
the deceptive title "Women's Rights Amendment". That's already
been irrefutably established during five years of thorough debate thirty
years ago. This time, they're banking on the new generation of public to
simply neither see the distinction, or care.
-
- She goes on to attack Phyllis Schlafly:
-
- "So she's saying that maybe it might also protect
homosexuals from discrimination? Or we can't discriminate against someone
because they like BSDM? I'm really not seeing why this part would be a
problem anyway. I surely don't want ANYONE discriminated against. Moving
on."
-
- http://www.middleragedpunk.com/2007/03/
-
- Rather than detract from Schafly's exposure that this
bill offers no new legal protection or help for women at all, the anonymous
"Raged Punk" punts, counting on the fuzzy cry of 'discrimination!'.
-
- Is the American public, thirty years later, dumbed down
and morally bankrupt to entirely miss the con job here?
-
- Another clue here is that whenever the the 'two party'
'right/left' charade is scheduled for exchanging the 'right wing' bozos
for the 'left wing' bozos, the media switches it's drum beats for flag
waving and men in suits for our 'leaders', to the alternate cadence for
'discrimination'. Americans fall for the hypnotist's pendulum swing every
time -- it's a long cycle -- every eight to twelve years.
-
- I hope everyone, women and men, of all races and religion
living in the United States beginning to really see and understand how
this works instead of falling for the formula of these emotional con jobs.
Think about it sisters and brothers: the emotional con of so called 'liberalism'
is the identical formula as the 'issues' of the 'right'. We all get screwed
by the hidden agenda served by both the 'left' and the 'right' they give
us.
|
