Belle of Liberty

Letting Freedom Ring

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Taking a Bullet for the President

Obama’s birth certificate has been an issue of controversy ever since he began running for the office of President of the United States.  Most people, who considered themselves sane, dismissed the matter as a conspiracy, a long reach to keep this Stalinist candidate from achieving the highest office in the land.

Still, a small coterie of believers, including Sheriff Joe from Arizona and a group of Tea Party attorneys in New Jersey, kept at it.  According to, Obama’s own lawyers admitted yesterday that the long-form Obama produced was, in fact, a forgery.

“In a NJ ballot access eligibility case spawned by Tea Party Activists, attorneys representing Obama had to admit the document presented to the American people by Obama himself was actually knowingly faked and was used to fool the American public into believing a complete fabrication.

“Lawyers representing the current sitting President of the United States of America have been forced, under penalty of perjury, to admit that the long-form birth certificate presented by the White House in April of 2011 is a total forgery.

“What could be the most shocking aspect of the situation, however, may be the fact that Obama and his attorneys have crafted an argument that truly boggles the mind.  In a direct assault on everything the citizens of the USA take for granted, in layman’s terms, his attorneys literally made the argument during a hearing on April 10th that because the document was so obviously faked and could not possibly be considered proof of citizenship, the document itself should not be allowed as evidence in the case.  Obama is now basically asserting that only a legitimate document should be allowed as evidence in this case and therefore this one should be thrown out due to the fact that it’s not real.  The judge agreed.

“In what may turn out to be one of the biggest scandals in the history of the United States, the Obama administration itself has now virtually admitted to High Crimes and Misdemeanors and to deceiving the public into believing a lie that was ironically intended to distract awareness from the actual issue that truly determines his eligibility, or lack thereof.

“Even though now it has become evident that Obama cannot prove he was born in the Unites States after all, even before that admission in court, it was already known that he was not actually eligible to become either Vice President or President, due to the fact that Obama is not a “Natural Born” Citizen.  Although presenting the fake birth certificate to the American people was an attempt to falsely prove his automatic eligibility, even prior to the issuance of the fabricated document to the public last spring, attorneys arguing against his eligibility since 2007 proved that Obama was simply ineligible due to the fact that only one of his parents was a U.S. citizen.

“Ironically, arguments have been made against this age-old constitutional mandate with regard to Obama’s eligibility by using John McCain’s ’08 eligibility situation as an example, while missing the fact that even McCain’s parents were both born in the USA and therefore was ultimately allowed to run for office, even though he was born on a US military base in Panama.

“This simply isn’t the case for Obama, aside from the fact that his administration has now admitted to open criminal activity and blatant ineligibility on multiple fronts.

“Daily Pen Editor, Pen Johannson released a story Monday in a devastating editorial explaining the circumstances as one that is sure to set off a firestorm of controversy and could end up creating a gigantic constitutional and legislative nightmare of epic proportions in the weeks and months to come.”

The Examiner provides links to other current stories about the birth certificate, including a demand by Obama’s lawyers that videos of the N.J. trial be taken down.

American Thinker: The Sea Change: Obama's Confirmed Forgeries Are Not Going Away
Conservative News and Views: Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ ducks issues
The Right Perspective: Obama Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate Is A Forgery
Tea Party Tribune: Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Damage Control
FEDupUSA: Obama Lawyer Admits In Court Birth Certificate On White House Website Is A Forgery
HillBuzz: Bill Clinton Knew Obama Was Ineligible
Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Cold-case investigation team press conference revealing forgery (YouTube)
NYT (2011): With Document, Obama Seeks to End ‘Birther’ Issue

Perhaps this revelation explains the sudden Media fascination with Secret Service agents being serviced by teenaged prostitutes using cocaine.  Any time you see such salacious headlines, you should be asking yourselves, “What’s really going on?”  In the birth certificate case, the truth has come straight from the source’s mouth.

Obama’s lawyers have dismissed the forgery, which is amazing enough in itself and asked that the fake document be thrown out in this N.J. ballot case.  The judge consented and obviously it had to be.  He may be able to produce an authentic birth certificate or at least a better forgery in order to have a place on the Garden State’s ballot.

In the meantime, someone should be asking some serious legal questions about a President of the United States presenting a forged document as proof of eligibility to be the president of the United States.  Maybe someone will, too, once they get their minds off the Secret Service agents and their call girls.

Seems the Secret Service was doing its job after all – taking a bullet for the President.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Socialist

Nosey as Americans are, privacy is a big deal to them, at least out in the suburbs.  We’re very polite.  We don’t ask about their health, their jobs, their religion, or their politics.  But as Obama “transforms” America, good manners will be extinct as the word “lady.”

“Don’t Tread on Me” reads the Gadsden Flag.  By voting for Progressive and Liberal senators like Menendez and Lautenberg in New Jersey, our Liberal neighbors are openly breaking that pact.  They think it is their business what doctor we visit, what we eat, how much we make, what we spend our money on, how much we save, where and how we worship, and how much we should “donate” to the government under the false auspices of charity.

At last night’s North Jersey Regional Tea Party meeting, Americans for Prosperity was on hand with their annual Taxpayer Scorecard for New Jersey’s 214th Legislative Session (2010-2011).  The first page is the individual legislators’ record for each bill used in the scorecard (which you can view at  If you’re from another state, you can substitute the name of your state at the end and see how your state legislators rank.

Amendment XVII of the U.S. Constitution allowed for U.S. Senators to be elected “democratically”, by popular vote, instead of by the state legislatures.  In New Jersey, it wouldn’t make much difference.

In AFP’s ranking, only one senator – Michael Doherty (R-23) – earned the “Taxpayer Heroes” status.  One with a grade rating of A.  Doherty is followed by two “Defenders of the Taxpayer”:  Steven V. Oroho (R-24) and Gerald Cardinale (R-39).  They get a grade of B.  The 37 remaining State Senators were ranking “Taxpayer Neutral” (C), “Taxpayer Foes” (D), of which there were four, and the remaining 33, “Taxpayer Zeroes.”

Three versus 37.  No wonder Gov. Christie said at the Monmouth County Town Hall meeting that if we wanted him to prevent legislation like the N.J. Residential Foreclosure Transformation Act from passing, send him a better legislature.

The N.J. Assembly showed a little more integrity.  Five Assemblymen were rated as “Taxpayer Heroes”:  Pat Delany (R-08); John DiMaio (R-23); Erik Peterson (R-23); Michael Patrick Carroll (R-25); and Alison Littell McHose (R-24).

They were followed by 13 “Defenders of the Taxpayers”, one of whom, sadly, is deceased (Alex DeCroce).  Among these good guys are Jay Webber, Scott T. Rumana, and Anthony Bucco (who advised that if you want to change the legislators’ minds, change the people’s minds first).

Unfortunately, our valiant Assemblymen and woman are vastly outnumbered by legislators who are all too happy to rob us of our lifestyles, liberty, pursuit of happiness, jobs, and property.  Here are the stats on the New Jersey statists:

Taxpayer Neutral – 15
Taxpayer Foes – 2
Taxpayer Zeroes – 43

Sixty Liberals.  This is what comes of redistricting and redrawing voting maps that look like Rorschach tests.  The young people don’t want to listen because it’s not cool or they don’t want to take on their vicious, Liberal neighbors.  Threaten to write them out of your wills if you must, do what you have to, but make them listen.  Get involved, get on the phone, and get in their faces.  Give them copies of the wording to battle the N.J. State Development and Redevelopment Plan and the N.J. Residential Foreclosure Transformation Act. 

The experts say calling is better than e-mailing.  Doing both is better than doing nothing at all.  Be prepared to make your case beyond the suggested wording.  Google these two pieces of legislation and read for yourself.  Once you get the gist of what’s going on, you’ll have no trouble finding the words to tell the government how you feel about having your property taken away from you and your neighborhoods turned into slums.

You can call Governor Christie at 609-292-6000
Email Governor Christie at, select "Economic Growth" as Topic then "Small Business" as subtopic, and proceed.

Suggested wording for NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan:
Governor Christie, The NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan accelerates the transfer of taxpayer dollars from suburban and rural taxpayers to urban areas, does not explicitly protect citizens' property rights, encroaches on local autonomy and targets economic growth/jobs to urban areas. Only 6 public hearings were held for 21 NJ counties. I request that more public hearings are held, at least 3 per county, so citizens can learn about and comment on a Plan that significantly impacts them. Thank you.

Suggested wording for NJ Residential Foreclosure Transformation Act:
Governor Christie, I request that you veto the NJ Residential Foreclosure Transformation Act if it reaches your desk. By allowing the State to purchase foreclosed houses in any NJ town and deed restrict them to low income/special needs housing for 30 years, this Act will transform our neighborhoods, encroach on local decision making, increase homeowner taxes and reduce property values. Thank you.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Slouching Towards Communism

No one should really be surprised that the Socialist/Communists employ the word “progressive” in their propaganda.  “Progress” is a word commonly used in education.  I am making slow “progress” in improving my mathematical skills.  The progressively-minded always have an objective in mind.  Mine is to pass the Graduate Record Exams so I can study Library Science and Information Research.
Dad’s Dictionary (Mom says his parents gave it to him as a college graduation present, not high school.  He graduated from the notorious City College of New York in the 1930s, just as the educational labor unions were transforming that school) gives the following definitions of “progress”:

1.       Movement forward as in time or space; onward course (i.e., the progress of a disease).

2.      A journeying forward; a march, expedition to a place or through a region; a tour (i.e., “Pilgrim’s Progress”)

3.      An official journey as of a judge or bishop making a visitation

4.      Advance to an objective; a going or getting ahead (i.e., making progress in the study of algebra)

5.      The action or process of advancing or improving by marked stages or degrees

6.      The theory that change from old to new is essential

Woodrow Wilson was a professor at Princeton, so it’s no surprise that he would use a word like progress.  Instead of Marx or Lenin’s fiery revolution, socialists use the boil-the-frog method of gradually indoctrinating us, starting at a young age, into communism.

Karl Marx advised, in his Communist Manifesto, that success depended greatly  upon controlling the means of education and communications.  He was steadfastly opposed to individual families or anything else individual, including owning private property.  Women needed to be encouraged to get out of the homes so that the state could take control of their children’s education.  Psychologically, it wouldn’t be difficult to manipulate women’s envy of men and their supposed power, their education, wealth, and power.  Sigmund Freud was a tremendous aid in this particular objective.

The “progress” of communism has been instituted in such slow, incremental stages that most people are hardly aware that they’re living in an increasingly communist society or that there’s anything wrong with it.  When they move into condos all they know or care about is that they won’t have to deal with the nuisance of caring for the actual land.  Women hate housework.  Voila!  The smaller condos require less housework and no outside maintenance at all.

People don’t realize how they’re being taken advantage of financially.  The current interest rate on savings and checking is 0.25 percent and most banks charge a monthly processing fee of between $3 and $25 per month, depending on how much service you want.  You’re safer keeping your money in your mattress.

Glenn Beck spoke about some countries dispensing with physical money all together.  Consumers will have a chip implanted in their hand or even forehead and they’ll be able to perform monetary transactions automatically.  No more paper checks.  No more accountability.  This is their idea of Progress.

Revelations speaks of people being forced to accept numbers on their hands or foreheads in order to engage in trade.   I always suspected – and warned – that that’s what was coming.  And here we are.

We’ve certainly made “progress”; but towards what?  Are we progressing towards a more efficient, healthier, technically advanced society?  Or are we slouching towards Bethlehem?

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

The N.J. Residential Foreclosure Transformation Act

We told you this was coming.  It was almost a foregone conclusion, as the cliché goes.  First, banks are forced to make loans to people who can’t afford to pay them, through the Community Reinvestment Act.  Then, local municipalities make sweet deals with developers to build houses working class people can’t possibly afford the payments or taxes on, but are lured by ridiculously low interest rates, or worse, Adjustable Rate Mortgages.

The homeowners take the bait, fail to meet their mortgages, and now the government takes their houses.  The New Jersey Residential Foreclosure Transformation Act will allow a property owner's tax dollars to subsidize the next owner of that home -- as low-income subsidized housing- after the property owner has been evicted via foreclosure. Notice that Obama word – “Transformation.”  This could effectively devalue every neighborhood in New Jersey. The New Jersey Builders Association, New Jersey Realtors Association, and the New Jersey Mortgage Brokers Association all have a vested interest: the builders with construction, and the realtors and mortgage brokers with full commissions (subsidized by tax dollars) on every low income subsidized transaction that occurs.

In effect, this legislation would be one of the largest expansions of State Government in our history, bringing government into every neighborhood in New Jersey while making them our largest landlord and property owner.  There are over 600 homes in foreclosure in Bergen County alone. New Jersey taxpayer and Tea Party leader, Bill Eames asked, “Are you comfortable thinking that the N.J. Foreclosure Relief Corporation may purchase the house next door, across the street or up the block?  What happens to our local tax base?” Consider the abuses and negative repercussions: the market increases yet a community is stuck with low-income housing; the State cannot take care of the property; corruption.
In a commenter stated this law violates the NJ Constitution: Art VIII, section 3, para 2-3.

2.  No county, city, borough, town, township or village shall hereafter give any money or property, or loan its money or credit, to or in aid of any individual, association or corporation, or become security for, or be directly or indirectly the owner of, any stock or bonds of any association or corporation.

3. No donation of land or appropriation of money shall be made by the State or any county or municipal corporation to or for the use of any society, association or corporation whatever.
Immediate Actions:

(A) plan to attend a probable May hearing when the Assembly Appropriations Committee meets in Trenton. Then, like Rob Eichmann, GOP State Committeeman from Gloucester County, who opposed this Bill in past testimony and provided much of the aforementioned info, you can do that, too;

(B) share with your local Mayor and Council via e-mail and at their next, televised public meeting, advising them to consult with their borough attorney and the League of Municipalities, as well as your County Freeholders and State legislators to see what actions they will undertake to stop this dangerous, over-reaching legislation. The legislation was proposed by Democrats and passed the Assembly Housing and Local Government Committee and the Senate Economic Growth Committee with Democratic votes;

C) Circulate this information with New Jersey family, friends, local media and Letters to the Editor;

D) Last, certainly Governor Christie should veto this legislation with your encouragement. His number: 609.292.6000.

The bill’s legislative titles are:

The bill has already passed two state committees.  Make sure the bill stops here.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Peace, But No Justice

Since George Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, very little information has been released about the case, primarily because very little is known for a fact.  Today, Zimmerman’s defense attorney asked that the records be kept sealed in order to preserve the case and also to ensure the safety of the witnesses.

There are some facts, not directly related to information about the case, that were not widely reported by the Media, but have been made public thanks to the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy in his column a few days ago.

He writes that, “The affidavit is stunningly weak and unethical.  This affidavit is not law; it is agitprop:  invoking, for example, the explosive term ‘profiled’ but carefully avoiding any discussion of what it means and failing to note that (a) there is no evidence of racial profiling, and (b) absent an invidious racial component, there is nothing wrong with profiling (indeed, we want police to do it so that innocent people don’t get hassled.”

“A few points:

1. “… Zimmerman may have continued to follow Martin despite a dispatcher’s admonition to the contrary. But a citizen engaged in innocent behavior (including investigating a potential crime) is not required to heed a dispatcher’s advice. If Martin had disregarded the direction of a police officer on the scene, that might be different. But no one is required to act on a dispatcher’s direction, even if it would be prudent to do so. Bad judgment is not a crime.

2. “…we haven’t been informed of Zimmerman’s statements to the police…[suggesting] that this is a fact in the prosecutor’s favor. There are ambiguities in the complaint that more information could have cleared up. The prosecutor has more information. Yet, she chose to leave matters ambiguous. That strongly suggests the additional information would hurt the prosecution’s case — a suggestion that is bolstered by the affidavit’s self-serving omission of any mention of Zimmerman’s injuries (and, for that matter, by the fact that the prosecutor chose not to submit the case to a grand jury but, instead, unilaterally decided to charge base on ambiguous allegations).

3. “…the affidavit [is described by another critic] as “agnostic” on the matter of who initiated the “struggle.” But as we all know, prosecutors do not get to be agnostic. An ethical prosecutor does not charge unless he is personally convinced that the evidence establishes all key elements of the cited offense, as defined by the legislature. If he has such evidence, a probable cause affidavit is the vehicle for leveling allegations with clarity, not fudging them.

4. “… [the other critic] uses the prosecutor’s fudging to conflate “confrontation” and “struggle” — as if we should now assume that Zimmerman initiated a physical assault on Martin. To the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that if the prosecutor had evidence that Zimmerman physically attacked Martin, she would say so. Instead, the prosecutor cagily says, “Zimmerman confronted Martin (note the active voice is used when nothing criminal is claimed -- "confronting" someone is not a crime) and a struggle ensued” (as if the struggle, presumably meaning the physical encounter, happened spontaneously -- no one is identified as initiating it). If I ask, “What are you doing?” and you respond by punching me in the nose, and this leads us to grapple, my having confronted you does not alter the fact that you are responsible for the ensuing struggle. Again, we know that the prosecutor has an account from Zimmerman — and perhaps from other witnesses — and thus probably has a good idea of exactly how the physical altercation started. Yet, she knowingly withheld that information (in addition, again, to the information about injuries sustained by Zimmerman).

5. “…[The other critic] wildly overestimates the likely impact of testimony from Martin’s mother to the effect that she recognizes her son’s voice on recorded cries for help. It is not a pleasant experience to cross-examine a mother, but experienced trial lawyers do it all the time and they tend to be very effective in highlighting the mother’s obvious bias without being disrespectful or insensitive. The affidavit says there were “numerous” calls for help, “some” of which were recorded. Neither the affidavit nor the mother’s information discounts to possibility that Zimmerman called for help. More importantly, unlike the audience for this affidavit, a trial jury would not get the mother’s information in a vacuum. Jurors would get to put the mother’s information in context with other relevant proof — evidence of Zimmerman’s injuries, probably Zimmerman’s testimony, accounts from other witnesses, and forensics about the relative positions the combatants were in when the fateful shot was fired. Again, it is more than a little curious that the prosecutor has declined to reveal any of that information even though she obviously has a lot of it. This shooting did not happen yesterday — it happened nearly two months ago.

6. “Finally, [the other critic’s] summation just confuses matters. He declares that ‘there’s probable cause for an arrest (and it’s really not close).’ But prosecutors are not supposed to authorize arrests based on bromides like, ‘When an armed man shoots an unarmed man … charges are expected and routine.’ Prosecutors actually have to identify a specific charge and present evidence that establishes probable cause for each essential element the legislature has prescribed in defining that charge.”

McCarthy believes the state attorney general may be pressuring Zimmerman with second-degree murder to plea down to the lesser charge of manslaughter – which indicates her case against him is even weaker than manslaughter.  McCarthy says he is confident about one thing, at least. “There is not probable cause,” he writes, “in that affidavit for the charge the prosecutor has selected, second-degree murder. It requires proof of depraved indifference to human life. Nothing in the affidavit, and nothing we otherwise know about Zimmerman, indicates such a state of mind — and it’s really not close.

“If I were a cynic,” he says in conclusion, “I’d say that an ambitious special prosecutor — exploiting the rabble-rousing of the U.S. attorney general and the racial grievance industry — filed an exceedingly serious charge for which she lacks evidence, second degree murder, in order to bask in the mob’s adulation while pressuring Zimmerman to plead guilty to a lesser charge, manslaughter, on which the special prosecutor runs a high risk of losing if Zimmerman forces a trial. So I’m sure glad I’m not a cynic.”

There’s more to McCarthy’s column dealing with the shooting of an unarmed man.  This is just to whet your appetites to read his full article and to be aware that while we seem to have peace, we do not have justice by any means.  In Constitutional America, a man is innocent until he is proven guilty.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Resurrecting the Dead

“She is proof that it is possible for a woman to widen her sphere without deserting it.”  Margaret Hope Bacon, The Valiant Friend

This testimonial was written about abolitionist and suffragist Lucretia Mott in the 19th Century, though it could have just as easily been written about Sarah Palin or Ann Romney.  The suffragettes were all about the politics.  They believed that women should have the equal right to vote. They weren’t concerned about a woman’s right to free contraceptives or abortion.

 On March 22, 2012, nine Senate Democrats – Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dick Durbin (D-IL.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Frank Lautenberg (DJ), Robert Menendez (D-NJ.) and, Barbara Mikulski (MD) -  proposed that states be given another chance to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. This is the 40th anniversary of the Senate's passage of ERA and the first time the Senate has ever considered an ERA bill other than the "Start-over."

 SJ Res. 39 was introduced by Sen. Cardin on March 22, 2012 to mark the 40th Anniversary of when both Houses of Congress first approved ERA and sent it out to the states. SJ 39 Res. is the companion bill to HJR 47.  Cardin and the other eight other Democrats proposed a joint resolution that would remove the 1972 deadline for getting 38 states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). By 1982, the ERA had been ratified by 35 states, three short of the 38 needed to become an amendment. Cardin said, that Congress “should give the states another chance,” and said passage of a joint resolution by both the House and Senate extended the deadline once before, in the late 1970s.

Cardin noted that last year, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that “certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.”

Cardin also stated that the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits congressional pay raises from taking effect immediately, was ratified in 1992 - 203 years after first being proposed in 1789 by James Madison.

In 1992, following passage of the 27th Amendment, the ERA Summit, a national coalition working to jump-start a new ratification effort, sought a legal analysis as to whether the ERA's time limit could be removed. The conclusion of this study: “Why the Equal Rights Amendment Remains Viable and Legally Before the States" pointed out that there was: No time limit in the Constitution, the time limit has already been changed once from 1979 to 1982 and, the ERA's time limit is in the proposing clause not the Amendment.

Therefore, it was entirely up to Congress whether or not to remove the deadline.  Following this analysis, in 1993, ERA activists were successful in getting a Resolution in the U.S. House that would authorize Congress to recognize and accept the ratification by three more states. This bill, known as the “Three-State Strategy” was introduced into every Congress through 2008. During this time, efforts were made by ERA supporters to obtain a companion bill in the US Senate but they were never successful.

In 2009, Carolyn Cook, DC Coordinator for ERA Campaign Network, authored a bill that would remove ERA’s ratification deadline in support of the Three-State Strategy.  Jean Landweber, Wisconsin Coordinator for ERA Campaign Network, convinced Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to sponsor the House bill HJ Res 47. It was introduced on the 100th Anniversary of International Women's Day. March 8, 2011.  Since then, Carolyn Cook worked tirelessly to get a companion bill introduced in the Senate.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constituion. ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982 expired and so it was not adopted.

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Although the 19th Amendment had prohibited the denial of the right to vote because of a person's sex, Paul argued that this right alone would not end remaining vestiges of legal discrimination based upon sex. She drafted the Equal Rights Amendment and, in 1923, presented it as the “Lucretia Mott Amendment” at the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention and the Declaration of Sentiments.

Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Like many Quakers, Lucretia Mott considered slavery an evil to be opposed. Inspired in part by minister Elias Hicks, she and other Quakers refused to use cotton cloth, cane sugar, and other slavery-produced goods. In 1821 Mott became a Quaker minister. With her husband's support, she traveled extensively as a minister, and her sermons emphasized the Quaker inward light, or the presence of the Divine within every individual.  Her sermons also included her free produce and anti-slavery sentiments. In 1833, her husband helped her found the American Anti-Slavery Society.

By then an experienced minister and abolitionist, Mott was the only woman to speak at the organizational meeting in Philadelphia. She tested the language of the society's Constitution and bolstered support when many delegates were precarious.  Days after the conclusion of the convention, at the urging of other delegates, Mott and other white and black women founded the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society. Integrated from its founding, the organization opposed both slavery and racism, and developed close ties to Philadelphia's Black community. Mott herself often preached at Black parishes. Around this time, Mott's sister-in-law, Abigail Lydia Mott, and brother-in-law, Lindley Murray Moore were helping to found the Rochester Anti-Slavery Society.

Amidst social persecution by abolition opponents and pain from dyspepsia, Mott continued her work for the abolitionist cause. She managed their household budget to extend hospitality to guests, including fugitive slaves, and donate to charities. Mott was praised for her ability to maintain her household while contributing to the cause. In the words of one editor, “She is proof that it is possible for a woman to widen her sphere without deserting it.”  Mott and other female abolitionists also organized fairs to raise awareness and revenue, providing much of the funding for the anti-slavery movement.

In 1848, Mott and Stanton organized a women’s rights convention at Seneca Falls, N.Y.  Stanton noted the Seneca Falls Convention was the first public women's rights meeting in the United States.  Stanton’s resolution that it was “the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves the sacred right to the elective franchise” was passed despite Mott's opposition. Mott viewed politics as corrupted by slavery and moral compromises, but she soon concluded that women's “right to the elective franchise however, is the same, and should be yielded to her, whether she exercises that right or not.”  Mott signed the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments. Over the next few decades, women's suffrage became the focus of the women's rights movement. While Stanton is usually credited as the leader of that effort, it was Mott’s mentoring of Stanton and their work together that inspired the event.

 The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) stated:   

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The National Woman's Party took ERA to Congress in the 1920s, where Sen. Charles Curtis, a future Vice President, and Representative Daniel R. Anthony, Jr.—Susan B. Anthony's nephew, both Kansas Republicans - introduced it for the first time as Senate Joint Resolution No. 21 on Dec. 10, 1923, and as House Joint Resolution No. 75 on Dec. 13, 1923, respectively. Though ERA was introduced in every Congressional session between 1923 and 1970, it almost never reached the floor of either the Senate or the House for a vote — instead, it was usually “bottled up” in committee. Exceptions occurred in 1946, when it was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 38 to 35 and, in 1950 and 1953, when it was passed by the Senate with the Hayden Rider, making it unacceptable to ERA supporters. The Hayden Rider said:

The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex.

In 1958, President Eisenhower asked a joint session of Congress to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, the first President to show such a level of support for the amendment. However, whenever the ERA was proposed, the Hayden Rider was added; this would make the amendment unacceptable to the National Woman's Party, who would then ask that the ERA be withdrawn.

The Republican Party included support of the ERA in its platform beginning in 1940, renewing the plank every four years until 1980.  ERA was strongly opposed by the American Federation of Labor and other labor unions, which feared the amendment would invalidate protective labor legislation for women. ERA was also opposed by Eleanor Roosevelt and most New Dealers, who either contended that women needed government protection, that men did not, or otherwise did not want the only labor protections abolished before they could be extended to men as well, as it would likely be a blow to unions and the movement for labor laws.

The amendment was opposed by most northern Democrats, who aligned themselves with the anti-ERA labor unions but the ERA was supported by southern Democrats and almost all Republicans.  In 1944, the Democrats made the divisive issue to include the ERA in their platform, but the Democratic Party did not become united in favor of the amendment until Congressional passage in 1972.  The main support base for the ERA until the late 1960s was among wealthy, conservative women. The League of Women Voters, formerly the National American Women Suffrage Association, opposed the Equal Rights Amendment until 1972, fearing the loss of protective labor legislation. Despite this, the amendment kept in line with the views of women's rights advocated by early feminists like Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony.

In 1961, feminists encouraged newly-elected President John F. Kennedy to support ERA. Though Kennedy was elected on a pro-ERA platform and took a position favoring the amendment in a letter to Mrs. Emma Guffey Miller, the chairman of the National Woman's Party, he did not speak out in favor of the amendment due to his ties to labor.  Esther Peterson, , a feminist and the highest-ranking woman in the Kennedy administration, publicly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment and referred to the National Woman's Party members, most of them aging suffragettes, as the “Old Frontier.”

As a concession to pro-ERA feminists, Kennedy appointed a blue-ribbon commission on women, the President’s Commission on the Status of Women, to investigate the problem of sex discrimination in the United States. The Commission was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt who dropped her opposition to the ERA in the 1950s to support the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which had similar language. In the early 1960s, Roosevelt announced that, due to unionization, she believed the ERA was no longer a threat to women as it once may have been and told supporters that they could have the amendment if they wanted it. The Commission helped win passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which banned sex discrimination in pay in a number of professions (it would later be amended in the early 1970s, at the demand of feminists, to include the professions it initially excluded) and secured an Executive Order from Kennedy eliminating sex discrimination in the civil service. 

The commission, made up largely of anti-ERA feminists with ties to labor, proposed remedies to the widespread sex discrimination it unearthed and in its 1963 final report held that on the issue of equality "a constitutional amendment need not now be sought.”   The commission established state and local commissions on the status of women and arranged for follow-up conferences in the years to come. The following year, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned workplace discrimination not only on the basis of race, religion, and national origin, but also on the basis of sex, thanks to the lobbying of Alice Paul and Coretta Scott King and the skillful politicking of Representative Martha W. Griffiths of Michigan.

A new women’s movement gained ground in the later 1960s as a result of a variety of factors: Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique; the network of women's rights commissions formed by Kennedy's national commission; the frustration over women's social and economic status; and anger over the lack of government and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII the Civil Rights Act.   In June 1966, at the Third National Conference on the Status of Women, Friedan and a group of activists frustrated with the lack of government action in enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act formed the National Organization for Women to act as an “NAACP for women,” demanding full equality for American women.  In 1967, at the urging of Alice Paul, NOW endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment. The decision caused some union Democrats and social conservatives to leave the organization and form the Women’s Equity Action League (within a few years WEAL also endorsed the ERA), but the move to support the amendment benefited NOW, bolstering its membership.

By the late 1960s NOW had made significant political and legislative victories and was gaining enough power to become a major lobbying force. In 1969, newly-elected Representative Shirley Chisholm of New York gave her famous speech “Equal Rights for Women” on the floor of Congress.

In February 1970, NOW picketed the United States Senate, a subcommittee of which was holding hearings on a Constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18.  Feminists disrupted the hearings demanding a hearing on the Equal Rights Amendment and won a meeting with Senators to discuss the ERA.  That August millions of American women held a nationwide Women’s Strike for Equality to demand full social, economic, and political equality.  Said Friedan of the strike, “All kinds of women's groups all over the country will be using this week on August 26 particularly, to point out those areas in women's life which are still not addressed. For example, a question of equality before the law; we are interested in the Equal Rights Amendment.”

In Washington, D.C., protesters presented a sympathetic Senate leadership with a petition for the Equal Rights Amendment at the U.S. Capitol. In 1970, Congressional hearings began on the ERA.  In 1978, the Congress approved a controversial joint resolution by a simple majority (not a two-thirds supermajority) that purported to extend the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982.   As the 1979 deadline approached—the 95th Congress adopted House Joint Resolution No. 638 (H. J. Res. 638), by Representative Elizabeth Holtzman of New York.  H. J. Res. 638 received less than two-thirds of the vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; for that reason, it was deemed necessary by ERA supporters that H. J. Res. 638 be transmitted to then President Jimmy Carter for signature as a safety precaution. Carter signed the joint resolution, though he questioned—on procedural grounds—the propriety of his doing so.  During this disputed extension, no additional states ratified or rescinded.

The legislatures of four states rescinded their ratifications before the original March 22, 1979 deadline. A fifth state, South Dakota—while not going quite so far as to rescind—adopted a resolution declaring its ratification to be valid only up to and including March 22, 1979.

Here are details of the rescissions:

1.      Idaho, which ratified the ERA on March 24, 1972, by approving Senate Joint Resolution No. 133, then adopted House Concurrent Resolution No. 10 on February 8, 1977, to rescind that ratification.

2.      Kentucky,  which ratified the ERA on June 26, 1972, by approving House (Joint) Resolution No. 2, then adopted House (Joint) Resolution No. 20 on March 17, 1978, to rescind that ratification; then Lt. Gov. of Kentucky, Thelma Stovall,  who was acting as Governor in the Governor's absence, issued a veto of the rescinding resolution, but the U.S. Constitution does not provide a role for a state's governor in the federal constitutional amendment process.

3.      Nebraska’s unicameral legislature, which ratified the ERA on March 29, 1972 by approving the erroneously-worded Legislative Resolution No. 83 (and then approving the correctly-worded Legislative Resolution No. 86), later adopted Legislative Resolution No. 9 on March 15, 1973, to rescind only the aforementioned Legislative Resolution No. 83.  This meant that Nebraska remains officially in the "ratified" column, but appears to have been widely misconstrued at the time to have been a full rescission of Nebraska's previous ratification.

4.      Tennessee, which ratified the ERA on April 4, 1972, by approving House Joint Resolution No. 371, then adopted Senate Joint Resolution No. 29 on April 23, 1974, to rescind that ratification.

In a fifth state, South Dakota lawmakers ratified the ERA on February 5, 1973, by approving Senate Joint Resolution No. 1. Then, they adopted Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 on March 1, 1979, stipulating that the ERA's opportunity for ratification—by any state of the Union—would expire on March 22, 1979; furthermore, Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 made clear that South Dakota's own ratification of the ERA would only be valid up until March 22, 1979, and that any ratification activities transpiring after that date anywhere would be considered by South Dakota to be null and void.

In Idaho v. Freeman, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled that the rescissions — all of which occurred before the original 1979 ratification deadline — were valid. According to research by Professor Jules B. Gerard, professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, of the 35 legislatures that passed ratification resolutions, 24 explicitly referred to the 1979 deadline.  The court also ruled that the extension of the ratification deadline was unconstitutional. The National Organization for Women appealed both rulings. In NOW v. Idaho, 459 U.S. 809 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court declared the entire matter moot on the grounds that the 1972 ERA was dead with or without either the rescissions or the purported deadline extension. Since 1995, ratification resolutions were introduced, but failed to win full approval in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia.

On Dec. 23, 1981, a United States District Court ruled that the ERA’s deadline extension was unconstitutional and that a state legislature may rescind its prior ratification of a proposed amendment to the Constitution.  The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Administrator of General Services claimed that the required number of states (38) had not ratified the amendment even if the deadline extension was valid and the rescissions were invalid:

 "the Amendment has failed of adoption no matter what the resolution of the legal issues presented here.”

The political momentum changed during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s. At the 1980 Republican National Convention, the Republican Party platform was amended to qualify its support for the ERA. The most prominent opponent of the ERA was Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative Republican. Critchlow and Stachecki argue that public opinion in key states shifted against the ERA as opponents, operating on the local and state levels, won over the public to their side. The state legislators in battleground states followed public opinion in rejecting the ERA.

Many ERA supporters blamed their defeat on sinister undemocratic special interest forces, especially the insurance industry and conservative organizations, suggesting they funded an opposition that subverted the democratic process and the will of the pro-ERA majority.  They argued that while the public face of the anti-ERA movement was Phyllis Schlafly and her STOP ERA organization, there were other important groups in the opposition as well, such as the powerful National Council of Catholic Women and (until 1973) the AFL-CIO.  Critchlow and Stachecki say the anti-ERA movement was based on strong support among Southern whites, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Roman Catholics, including both men and women.

Twenty-one states have a version of the ERA in their state constitutions. Sixteen of those states ratified the federal ERA, while five did not.

Ratified the federal ERA

Did not ratify the federal ERA

The three-state strategy, unveiled at a press Conference in Washington, D.C. by a coalition of women’s groups operating under the name “ERA Summit,”  is an argument made by some ERA supporters that the earlier 35 state ratifications are still valid and therefore only three more are needed in order to add the ERA to the Constitution, without Congress resubmitting it to state lawmakers. Since 1994, proponents of the three-state strategy have promoted ratification resolutions in the legislatures of most of the 15 states that never ratified the ERA approved by Congress in 1972.  These attempts have met stiff resistance—some opponents characterize the

In 1996, the Library of Congress’s Research Service issued a report that said, “There is no precedent for Congress promulgating an amendment based on state ratifications adopted after a ratification deadline has expired. However, proponents of this course cite as possible precedent the ratification activity of the states regarding the 27th Amendment... proponents of the ERA might wish to adopt a strategy of urging its ratification by state legislatures because their actions might prompt this or a future Congress to proclaim the amendment had been ratified.”  CRS stressed that it “takes no position on any of the issues.”

Women have already been guaranteed the right to the two most important issues – valid issues:  the right to vote and the right to equal pay.  With regard to equal pay, women still aren’t measuring up evidently.  Motherhood tends to get in the way of a progressive career, which necessarily affects one’s ability to “get ahead.”  That’s just one of ERA’s socialist goals.  Children are a sticky commodity, in the Progressive view.

 As with all things Liberal, when they tell you that women (or any other group) need the ‘government’s help,’ it’s a sure sign that Progressives, not women, are at work.  The election of Bill Clinton in 1993 gave them new hope to resurrect a bill that was renounced in every way long ago.  Those “sinister” Conservatives knew what they were doing when they put a deadline on this bill.  The big problem with ERA is that its intention is that a Socialist government should wear the pants in the family.