Tag Archives: 14th Amendment

Hunter College students make abortion a fun party game

Jan. 22, 2013, was the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v Wade decision.

In the name of a woman’s “right to privacy” under the due process clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the floodgates were opened to legalized abortion. In those 40 years, more than 54 million tiny human beings were killed.

Here’s another rotten fruit of 40 years of legalized abortion in the United State.

Young Americans are so callous about human life that they’re making a party game out of abortion ’cause, you know, the killing of unborn children is just so darn funny.

CreativeMinorityReport brings us the news that college students at Hunter College, a public college in New York City, celebrated the birthday of their bud Chaz with ice cream cake, balloons, and a game they called “Abortion Wars.”

The college students put an inflated balloon under their shirt, simulating a pregnant woman’s belly. Then the students compete with each other to pop the balloon with a fork, while other students squeal in delight:

“Kill the baby!!! Kill it!!!”

Warning: Offensive language

But then, the death cult psychopaths thought abortion to be funny even in 1972.

During the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade hearing, every time when the subject of whether the unborn is a “person” came up, there was laughter in the audience. You can hear the tittering at the 0:33 and 1:00 marks in this audio:

Go to this site for another audio. Laughter can be heard at the 24:00 and 24:10 marks, every time someone said “If it was established that a fetus were a person under the Constitution….”

See also:

~Eowyn

Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud

Friends and Patriots,

It’s major duct tape time ’cause you’ll need it to keep your head from exploding.

Are you ready for this?

Here we go….

There is now compelling and undeniable evidence that MAJOR vote fraud had been perpetrated in the November 2012 Election. See FOTM’s posts chronicling the extensive pervasive fraud by going to our “2012 Election” page below our FOTM masthead, and click on those post links colored dark green.

But our screaming and hollering are to no avail. No one is listening to us. Not even the Republican Party.

Here’s why….

The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ensure voting integrity and NOT to pursue suspected vote fraud.

Yes. You read it correctly.

In fact, legally the GOP cannot ensure voting integrity, nor can it prevent vote fraud.

Here’s the astounding reason, which is kept from the American people.

PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht (see her photo below) related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity.  The answer?

Nothing.  They aren’t legally able to.

True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht (read more about her, here)

This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).

The lawsuit alleged that:

  • The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
  • The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
  • The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise

In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document to FOTM’s media library. To read Case No. 09-4615, click here!)

This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:

In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

  • Florida: 73,858
  • Ohio: 103,481
  • Virginia: 115,910
  • Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced  problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.

Now you know why.

I’ll leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:

The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.

The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

  • Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008).
  • Being a “light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s original sin of slavery.

It doesn’t matter if this “perfect candidate” has dubious Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of day. The same with his other documents — his passports, school and college records, draft registration, and medical records (so we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar running from one side of his head, over the crown, to the other side).

Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May 2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “Obama was selected before he was elected.”

In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.

The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.

The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.

UPDATE (Nov. 16, 2012):

Since I published this post yesterday, we’ve been asking each other: “What can I/we do about this?” Here are my suggestions:

1. If you are a registered Republican, QUIT! Switch your voter registration ID to non-partisan Independent.

2. Stop donating money, not even one penny, to the GOP. Tell them why.

3. Spread the word. Please send the URL of this post (http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/) to:

  • EVERYONE on your email list.
  • Media people for whom you have email addresses.
  • Tea Party groups you know.
  • Post the link on your Facebook page.
  • Post the link as your comment on websites and blogs you visit.

4. Write your state’s attorney general and ask him/her to investigate vote fraud in your state. Click here!

UPDATE (Nov. 21, 2012):

5 days after I’d published this and 7 days after PolitiJim of GulagBound published his acount, someone in the conservative establishment media is writing about this — WND’s Bob Unruh. Click here for his article, “GOP Legally Barred From Fighting Vote Fraud”. But it’s still the sound of crickets from conservative talk radio, even though I’ve sent my post to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and a reader had also sent it to Mark Levin.

Just so you know: It makes no monetary difference to us how many people read this post. Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM) is an ad-free blog. We don’t make even a penny in revenue because we deliberately don’t have ads. In fact, I paid WordPress a $99 annual fee so WordPress can’t insert ads on FOTM either. All of our writers work our butts off, for no pay, as a labor of love for our country.

~Eowyn

Indiana Becomes a Police State: Supreme Court Overrules 4th Amendment

Indiana state flag

A man’s castle is no longer his own.

Once upon a time, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

The 4th Amendment was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the 4th Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Alas, all that is no more.

The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana just ruled that it is unlawful for you to resist an unlawful entry into your home.

Dan Carden reports for NWI.com, “Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home,” May 13, 2011:

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment. When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence. “It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling. But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home. On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.

For the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in pdf, click here.

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David

Justice Steven David, who wrote the majority opinion, was a military lawyer and colonel in the US Army.

H/t beloved fellow Will.

~Eowyn

REPEAL 14TH AMENDMENT – Crackdown on Birthing Tourism

~LTG

End Anchor Babies!

Birthright citizenship is conferred by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

As America becomes inundated with millions of illegal aliens (estimated to number 10.8 million in 2009 by the Dept. of Homeland Security), birthright citizenship becomes increasingly questionable because of its association with anchor babies.

“Anchor baby” refers to a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. By virtual of his birthright citizenship, the child, when he reaches the age of 21, may then file for a US visa for his parents — and eventually other family members –through the legal principle of jus soli and the policy of family reunification. But saying that an anchor child can apply for immigration for his parents when he reaches adulthood is deceptive because many feel it is inhumane to deport violators of immigration laws with minor children who are legally American citizens. In practice, therefore, anchor babies do ensure continuing residence and eventual citizenship for their illegal alien parents.

The Pew Hispanic Center says there are 3.8 million illegal aliens with anchor children. A recent survey of patients from a Dallas-era hospital indicated “70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland hospital in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.”

When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the United States did not limit immigration and, by definition, had no illegal immigrants. Thus, the issue of citizenship for children born here of parents who are illegal aliens was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment.

There have been legislative efforts in the past toward ending birthright citizenship. Now that the historic November 2 elections delivered a Republican majority to the House, renewed efforts will be made.

Jeremy Duda of Arizona Capitol Times reports on Dec 28, 2010:

The 2011 legislative session will begin a few days early for two Arizona lawmakers who will be in Washington D.C. for the unveiling of legislation intended to end birthright citizenship.

Immigration hawks Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, and Rep. John Kavanagh will attend a Jan. 5 press conference at the National Press Club to introduce model legislation that aims to force the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the longstanding interpretation of the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Lawmakers from 14 states who plan to introduce the bill will attend as well.

Despite worries from the business community, lawmakers and others that the controversial proposal will turn the Legislature’s attention from more important issues, such as the budget and the economy, Kavanagh said he doesn’t expect the birthright-citizenship bill to be a distraction. “The budget and jobs will be the No. 1 priority, but we’ll still be able to deal with a lot of other important issues like illegal immigration,” the Fountain Hills Republican said.

Legislators in Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah plan to introduce birthright citizenship bills in 2011.

~Eowyn