Home ›

Phyllis Schlafly

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Schlafly and Noebel: McCarthy was a 'Hero,' Communism Nearly Upon Us

Submitted by Miranda Blue on January 27, 2012 - 1:31pm

Pyllis Schlafly had David Noebel, founder of Summit Ministries, on her Eagle Forum Live radio program on Monday to talk about the ongoing threat of communism to America and the world. When a listener called in to complain that communist-hunter Joseph McCarthy is now “demonized” in schools, Schlafly and Noebel agreed that McCarthy was, in fact, a “hero”: 

Caller: I remember learning in school about McCarthyism, and they demonized him, essentially, is what they did. And probably he was more of a hero than he was a villain. So I just wanted to get you guys’ take on that. Thanks.

Schlafly: Well, plenty of us thought he was a hero. What about you, David Noebel?

Noebel: I think he was a hero. Now look, I was born in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Remember, he was from Appleton, Wisconsin, just 20 miles away. He was a hero.
 

Later in the program, Noebel warned that the central tenets of communism have been “nearly fulfilled” in the United States today:

Noebel: If you read the manifesto, the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, Marx and Engels come out with no God, no private property, no family – traditional family – no inheritance, graduated income tax, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. In fact, if you read the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, you’ll be surprised at how we have nearly moved into every one of those areas. And later on, about 1958, Cleon Skousen came out with a book called “The Naked Communist,” and he listed 45 goals in 1958 of the communists and today we have nearly fulfilled every one of them. So people say, ‘This can’t happen.’ But it’s happening right in front of us. Right in front of us, and we can’t even…we just don’t seem to see it.

PFAW Foundation
Filed under:

Phyllis Schlafly Inadvertently Debunks Her Own Argument Against Marriage Equality

Submitted by Brian Tashman on January 18, 2012 - 1:05pm

Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly today applauded a Canadian court for ruling that the government does not have to recognize polygamous marriages, which she used to make an argument against marriage equality for gays and lesbians:

The Canadian courts have legalized same-sex marriage. Will they legalize polygamy, too? After all, if consenting adults should be able to marry anybody they like, then why should same-sex marriage be allowed but not polygamy?

Many libertarians now insist that government should get out of the business of marriage, and not prohibit same-sex marriage. But if government lets everyone do what they like, then that would presumably include allowing polygamy. This issue was presented to an appellate court in British Columbia, a province of Canada. And it delivered a resoundingly pro-marriage decision, and upheld Canada’s 121-year ban on polygamy.

The Court held that “the institution of monogamous marriage [is] a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times.” Its 335-page opinion cited numerous ways in which polygamy causes harm to society, from higher rates of abuse to greater emotional problems, to underachievement by the children in schools. The Court traced the history of monogamous marriage between one man and one woman back to the ancient world, observing that from 600 B.C. to the 500s A.D. “marriage was understood as a union between a man and a woman presumptively for life” and that “by the ninth century, Byzantine emperors had decreed polygamy a capital offence.”

The Court pointed out that in the United States, in the mid-1800s, “Polygamy and slavery were considered to be among the ‘twin relics of barbarism,’” and that the American “Congress has ‘the right and the duty to prohibit’ this ‘odious institution.’” Those principles were established by the Republican Party platform of 1856. An appeal of this recent polygamy decision is expected eventually to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. That court previously established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage so no one knows what it will do.

But the decision Schlafly just praised actually makes the case why the legalization of same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy.

In the ruling, the judge answers Schlafly’s question “why should same-sex marriage be allowed but not polygamy?” He argues that monogamous same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy “because committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage” and dismisses Schlafly’s claim as an “alarmist view” that “misses the whole point,” as “the doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage”:

[M]ore importantly, this line reflects, again, the pre-eminent place that the institution of monogamous marriage takes in Western culture and, as we have seen, Western heritage over the millennia. When all is said, I suggest that the prohibition in s. 293 is directed in part at protecting the institution of monogamous marriage. And let me here recognize that we have come, in this century and in this country, to accept same-sex marriage as part of that institution. That is so, in part, because committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage.

The alarmist view expressed by some that the recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage will lead to the legitimization of polygamy misses the whole point. As Maura Strassberg, Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, points out in “Distinctions of Form or Substance: Monogamy, Polygamy and Same-Sex Marriage” (1997) North Carolina L.R. 1501 at 1594, the doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage as revised to conform to modern norms of gender equality. This counters, as well, the argument advanced by many, that “in this day and age” when we have adopted expansive views of acceptable marriage units and common law living arrangements, the acceptance of polygamy, or at least the abandonment of its criminal prohibition, is the next logical step. This is said in the context of the sentiment often expressed that the “State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation”. Here, I say it does when in defence of what it views is a critical institution - monogamous marriage - from attack by an institution - polygamy - which is said to be inevitably associated with serious harms.

PFAW
Filed under:

Bachmann Lauds Schlafly, LaHaye for Inspiring Her Political Career

Submitted by Brian Tashman on December 8, 2011 - 11:05am

After exalting James Dobson on his show Family Talk yesterday, today Michele Bachmann credited antifeminist luminaries Phyllis Schlafly and Beverly LaHaye, along with Dobson and his wife Shirley, for motivating her to become a conservative activist. Bachmann has previously called Schlafly, who has endorsed her presidential campaign, her “hero” and “the person that I hope to be someday,” and said that LaHaye is “an extraordinary woman of God.” In fact, Bachmann said that LaHaye’s warnings “on the threats to the family” riled her enough to join LaHaye’s organization Concerned Women for America:

Bachmann: As a young woman I read a lot, I was a big reader my whole life, and I loved reading Phyllis Schlafly, she is just smart as a whip.

Ryan Dobson: Who started off as a homemaker and a mom, and then had a law career.

Bachmann: And who also taught her children how to read at home, she did that, she was self-taught in many ways and she was very interested in national security, as I am, and defense issues, but also very cognizant on financial issues.

And also Bev LaHaye, Marcus and I were brand new newlyweds and I got in our mailbox a cassette tape back in the cassette tape days from Bev LaHaye, talking about where our nation was at. I listened to it, and she was trying to pull the alarm on the threats to the family, like Dr. Dobson was doing, so I joined Concerned Women for America, that was the inception, and started getting materials from her, from Phyllis Schlafly, from Dr. Dobson. Over the course of the years, I’ve poured all of these great women and Dr. and Shirley Dobson into my life, and they’ve really been my teachers.

LaHaye, whose husband Tim is best known for writing the Left Behind series and for his attacks on gays, Roman Catholics and “the Illuminati,” still chairs CWA and has a long history of Religious Right activism. She started CWA because she “knew the feminists’ anti-God, anti-family rhetoric did not represent her beliefs, nor those of the vast majority of women,” and also outlined the “biblical worldview” in politics that Bachmann often talks about: “America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.” According to LaHaye, conservative Christians need to enter politics in order to “stand up against the wiles of the devil.”

Not only does LaHaye have harsh words for feminists and people “who do not use the Bible to guide” their political lives, but also doesn’t take kindly to gays and lesbians, writing in a CWA mailer: “[Homosexuals] want their depraved ‘values’ to become our children’s values. Homosexuals expect society to embrace their immoral way of life. Worse yet, they are looking for new recruits!”

With her role models holding such extreme views, it is no wonder Bachmann turned out to be one of the most far-right figures in contemporary politics.

PFAW
Filed under:

Bachmann Picks Up the Support of Her "Dear Mentor," Phyllis Schlafly

Submitted by Brian Tashman on December 5, 2011 - 10:00am

Michele Bachmann yesterday picked up the support of the person she called “the most important woman in the United States in the last one hundred years,” Phyllis Schlafly. The Des Moines Register reports that the anti-feminist leader and head of Eagle Forum urged Iowa caucus-goers to back Bachmann:

In a written statement, Schlafly says: “Most important, Michele has the courage to be a leader among her peers. She is a real champion in speaking up for values we care about. Michele is a woman of faith and the mother of a beautiful family. She has a 100 percent pro-life record and is a strong supporter of traditional marriage.”

…

“If I were an Iowa voter, I would be making plans right now to cast my vote for Michele Bachmann for president on January 3. I hope you will take advantage of this golden opportunity to support a candidate we can all be proud of.”

Schlafly said conservatives don’t want the media to choose their candidate, “or tell us we must choose one of the two who currently lead in the polls.”

Bachmann praised Schalfly at the Eagle Forum Collegians 2011 Summit and even awarded her the Citizens United Lifetime Achievement Award at CPAC earlier this year. During a conference call with tea party members, Bachmann described Schlafly as “my heroine and my example as a forerunner” along with “my dear mentor and the person that I hope to be some day”:

Best known for leading the effort to stop the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, Schlafly has continued to work as an ardent Religious Right activist and commentator who in recent years blamed the Virginia Tech shooting on English professors, called President Obama an enemy of “real Americans” who wants to “take us into socialism,” and argued that married women cannot be raped by their husbands.

PFAW
Filed under:

Religious Right Reacts To DOMA Repeal Vote

Submitted by Brian Tashman on November 11, 2011 - 10:30am

Yesterday, the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that will repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 vote, naturally spurring outrage among Religious Right activists. The vote was not a surprise to conservative groups, who told activists to be ready to fight the bill on the floor of the Senate.

Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink blasted the “ironically labeled the ‘Respect for Marriage Act’” and the Thomas More Society warned of the “great legal problems, great confusion” and the “actual human beings who will be hurt” if DOMA is no more.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told activists that if the Respect for Marriage Act passes, “your tax dollars go to pay for the federal benefits and subsidies of gay couples” because liberals wanted to “award” marriage “to a small, vocal and already well off special interest group” and consequently cause “harm to society”:

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee passed S.598, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) bill that would completely eradicate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the protections it affords taxpayers and the majority of state’s voters who have decided to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The misnomer medal of the month might have to be awarded early! S.598, the misleadingly titled “Respect for Marriage Act” not only disrespects American’s across the country who want to protect traditional marriage--and have done as much in the 31 states which have passed statewide referendums in favor of marriage--it will also require your tax dollars go to pay for the federal benefits and subsidies of gay couples, irrespective of where they live, who have gotten “married” in 6 states that allow it.

Marriage is not some prize that liberals can award to a small, vocal and already well off special interest group. Marriage between one man and one woman was created prior to the formation of any governments and is given benefits by governments because it uniquely contributes to a productive society. Trying to change the definition to fit some misguided concept can only cause harm to society.

Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum lamented that if DOMA is repealed, states that don’t legalize same-sex marriage will be “forced to recognize and subsidize another state’s objectionable definition of marriage,” urging activists to make sure the Respect for Marriage Act isn’t another “item from the radical liberal wish list” that is attached to the National Defense Authorization Act:

As you might have heard, the liberal Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill shamefully misnamed the "Respect for Marriage Act" (H.R. 1116, S. 598), which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), today by a straight party line vote. All 10 Democrats voted Yes and all 8 Republicans voted No.

…

Now that six states have legalized same-sex marriage, in many cases by judicial or legislative fiat, overriding the express will of the people of those states, DOMA is more essential than ever to ensure that states choosing to protect traditional marriage are not forced to recognize and subsidize another state’s objectionable definition of marriage.

…

We are hearing some reports from Capitol Hill that liberals in the Senate are considering introducing the bill as an amendment to the Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization Bill.

As outrageous as this sounds, it is becoming a liberal tradition. This would be the third consecutive year that the liberal Senate has attached an item from the radical liberal wish list to this bill that is so important to our nation's defense, knowing that our legislators respect our military and don’t like to oppose defense-related authorization bills. Last year, they attempted to attach a repeal of the 1993 law prohibiting homosexuals from openly serving in the military, and the year before that, liberals attached a federal “hate crimes” bill to the DOD Authorization Bill.

William B. May of Catholics for the Common Good said that repealing DOMA will ultimately harm children:

It was disgusting to see adults trivialize marriage by bickering about benefits for gay couples while the rights and interests of children in the marriage of their mothers and fathers were being thrown under the bus.

Children have a right to know and be cared for by their mothers and fathers, and government has an obligation to promote the recognition of that right by encouraging men and women to marry before having children. But "marriage equality" says it should be discriminatory to promote marriage between a man and a woman as having any unique value or benefit for children and society. That is a lie.

Today, Senator Feinstein and the other 9 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee made a statement that the government has no interest in the only institution that not only unites a man and a woman with each other, but with any children born from their union.

…

But that can't happen unless we are willing to make sacrifices, change our personal priorities, and roll up our sleeves to build the army needed to take back marriage and family. This is not like any other army because this is an army of love, walking with Christ, in solidarity with the increasing number of children who are deprived of marriage mothers and fathers, and young people who are receiving a corrupted understanding of love and sexuality. This undermines their ability to form healthy stable relationships that lead to marriage as the foundation of the family. This is a crisis that is effecting almost every family.

PFAW
Filed under:

Schlafly: Obama's Goal Is To Break The Capitalist System

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on October 19, 2011 - 4:24pm

Phyllis Schlafly is absolutely convinced that City University of New York professor Frances Fox Piven is responsible for turning Barack Obama into a socialist, telling Newsmax that Obama is now attempting to implement a strategy "to load so many people on welfare that he breaks the capitalist system"  and turn America into a socialist nation. 

This is "the most dangerous presidency we've ever had," Schalfly asserted, adding that she just hopes that the nation can survive until the next election because Obama is so beholden to the feminist movement that he made sure that most of the jobs created by the Stimulus Legislation went to women:

PFAW
Filed under:

Eagle Forum Wants Phyllis Schlafly On A Stamp

Submitted by Brian Tashman on September 27, 2011 - 12:26pm

Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum today republished a blog post by Elwood Sanders of Virginia Right calling for an effort to put Schlafly on a U.S. postage stamp. Sanders’ proposal is in response to a new campaign by the U.S. Postal Service, which is soliciting suggestions for living people to put on postage stamps. Schlafly was instrumental in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and even today continues her role as a leading anti-feminist and ultraconservative activist. Michele Bachmann recently hailed Schlafly as “my heroine and my example” and “the most important woman in the United States in the last one hundred years.” Sanders says Schlafly deserves “the honor of being one of the first living persons on an American postage stamp” because she stopped “social engineering by liberals”:

Apparently in a furtive effort to save the Postal Service, they have removed the restriction on living persons being on postage stamps. I suppose I should protest – more opportunity for nonsense if we remove the ban: Kim and Khloe on a stamp in all their curvy glory? (On second thought, that might indeed save the USPS but the crowd of preteen and teenage boys might overwhelm the ability of the post offices to serve!) Of course Kim and Khloe might be preferable to the notorious communist Paul Robeson being placed on a postage stamp!

So I hereby suggest we nominate the great heroine of the social conservative movement: Phyllis Schlafly.

When I was a teenager, it looked like the ERA would become the law of the land. Do you remember, readers who are close to my age:

• 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.

Need I say more how pernicious that language would have been in our Constitution? Social Engineering by liberals and courts would have been the law of the land.

…

I would when the time comes formally nominate Schlafly for the honor of being one of the first living persons on an American postage stamp. She clearly deserves it. I’ll have to get a sheet of her stamps!

PFAW
Filed under:

Schlafly Mocks NEA for Opposing Discrimination in Schools

Submitted by Brian Tashman on September 8, 2011 - 1:18pm

Phyllis Schlafly is a longtime critic of the National Education Association and LGBT rights, and today in The Phyllis Schlafly Report she ridicules the teachers’ union’s endorsement of resolutions calling for a safe and diverse work environment and opposing discrimination against LGBT school employees, families and students. While Schlafly mainly lists excerpts from the NEA, she dubs their anti-discrimination policies as “radical” and leaves no confusion over where she stands:

Eagle Forum always sends an observer to the annual convention of the National Education Association to report on its radical resolutions. The NEA usually has about 20 resolutions endorsing the gay rights agenda, often using the code word "diversity." Here are some excerpts from pro-gay resolutions adopted this year by the National Education Association.

Resolution B-14, for example, states that "discrimination and stereotyping based on ... sexual orientation, [and] gender identification ... must be eliminated" and that these factors must not affect the legal rights of "partners in ... civil unions ... in regard to ... medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, and immigration." School "activities, and programs must increase respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity toward individuals and groups in a diverse society composed of ... gays, lesbians, bisexuals, [and] transgender persons." The NEA believes that "students who are struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identification" must be provided by the school with "counseling services." Another NEA resolution declared that hiring policies and practices must be nondiscriminatory and include provisions for the recruitment of a diverse teaching staff so that public schools "Offer ... diverse role models" among teachers, ... and education employees."

NEA Resolutions for the classroom demand that the schools "Eliminate ... stereotyping in curricula, textbooks, resource and instructional materials, [and activities" and "Integrate an accurate portrayal of the roles and contributions of all groups throughout history across curricula, particularly groups that have been under-represented historically." Another resolution urges the use of Multicultural education because it "should ... reduce ... homophobia ... and all other forms of prejudice, and discrimination."

Just so you will know -- these are the stated beliefs of the biggest teachers union.

PFAW
Filed under:

Bachmann Gushes, Says Schlafly "Most Important Woman In The United States In The Last 100 Years"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on September 6, 2011 - 1:24pm

A few weeks we wrote a post noting that, at her core, Michele Bachmann was just a Religious Right activist who got elected to Congress and now hopes to become president.  

In that post, we compared Bachmann to fringe right-wing activist Janet Porter but it would probably have been more accurate to compare her to Phyllis Schlafly, as that is what Bachmann herself did on a recent "Tea Party Cyber-Town Hall and Webcast" where she lauded Schlafly as her heroine, mentor and everything that Bachmann hopes to be while also calling her the most important woman in the US in the last century:

If I could just say a couple of words about Phyllis Schafly, she is my heroine and my example as a forerunner. As a young bride and a young mother, I read faithfully "The Phyllis Schlafly Report;" she was my lifeline to what was happening in the world.

She truly is the mother of the modern conservative movement ... I think she is the most important woman in the United States in the last one hundred years.

Whatever Phyllis Schlafly says, it's important that we listen because she's there on every issue, on every front. She is our hero, our heroine, our stalwart and I absolutely adore her. So God bless you, my dear mentor and the person that I hope to be some day. So thank you very much, Phyllis.

Really?  We should listen to whatever it is that Schlafly has to say?  You mean like how feminists are "bitter, unhappy and not successful women" and how men should not marry "career women" and how the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech was the fault of the English Department and how, by getting married, women have consented to sex and therefore cannot be raped by their husbands?

PFAW
Filed under:

Schlafly: Violence Against Women Act Protects Women Too Much

Submitted by Brian Tashman on July 12, 2011 - 11:03am

Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly wants Congress to hold up the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act until it is altered so that it doesn’t benefit women. Schlafly, a long-time critic of the landmark law who believes that married women cannot be raped by their husbands, contends that the Violence Against Women Act goes too far in protecting women from abusive spouses and that the law is merely a feminist plot to tear down men:

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for reauthorization, is in major need of revision. Its billion-dollar-a-year price tag spent by the radical feminists to pursue their ideology and goals (known as feminist pork) make it an embarrassment to members of Congress who voted for it.

For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: Men are naturally batterers, and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).

Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men.

…

Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty and in many cases are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.

Legal assistance is customarily provided to women but not to men. Men ought to be entitled to equal protection of the law because many charges are felonies and could result in prison and loss of money, job and reputation.

Feminist recipients of VAWA handouts lobby legislators, judges and prosecutors on the taxpayers' dime (which is contrary to Section 1913 of Title 18, U.S. Code), and the results are generally harmful to all concerned. This lobbying has resulted in laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone – guess who) of the predominant aggressor (i.e., ignore the facts and assume the man is the aggressor) and no-drop prosecution (i.e., prosecute the man even if the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).

PFAW
Filed under:
Syndicate content