Eagle Forum

Eagle Forum

316 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Ste. 203
Washington, DC 20003
www.eagleforum.org

President/Founder: Phyllis Schlafly
Executive Director: Lori (Cole) Waters
Date of founding: 1972
Place of founding: Alton, IL
Membership: 80,000
Finances: $2.3 million (2000)
Staff: 8
State Chapters: 30 listed on website.

Schlafly: Immigrants Will Destroy America If They Don't Vote Republican

In an interview with WorldNetDaily over the weekend, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said the immigrant “invasion” threatens the stability and future of America because it may undermine the electoral prospects of the Republican Party.

Warning that immigrants are liberals “who are not accustomed to our ideas of self-government and limited government” and “expect government to take care of them,” Schlafly said they will lead to the demise of the GOP, bringing America down with it: “Well, it might take 50 years, but meanwhile the Republican Party will be dead. Maybe so will the U.S.”

Even at the age of 90, she’s still not done; her latest book “Who Killed the American Family?” will be released by WND Books later this month.

In it, she finds the American family under attack from a range of forces, including feminists, judges, lawmakers, psychologists, universities, the media and illegal immigration.

She sees President Obama and other Democratic leaders as complicit in the importation of people who don’t share the American value of self-reliance.

“The Democrats know perfectly well that the people coming in are people who are not accustomed to our ideas of self-government and limited government, and they expect government to take care of them, and that’s what we’re doing,” Schlafly said in an interview.



The Eagle Forum in February issued a report called “How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party.”

The premise was that the vast majority of immigrants in the U.S. have liberal policy preferences, according to survey data from numerous sources. These liberal preferences cannot be overcome by better GOP messaging or Republican support of amnesty for the current illegal population.

According to the report, the only hope for the Republican Party to remain viable as a national conservative party is to restrict the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country each year.

The report dealt mostly with legal immigration, but since it came out, the southern U.S. border has seen a tremendous surge of illegal crossers, many of them children and teenagers. Schlafly is just as adamant about these illegal immigrants as she is about the others.

“I think they ought to be put on buses and sent back immediately,” she said. “There’s no reason to let them in. They say they have to go before some court. They don’t need to go before some court. It’s an invasion of people we don’t want in this country, and they ought to be sent back.”



“Well, it might take 50 years, but meanwhile the Republican Party will be dead. Maybe so will the U.S.,” she said.

Phyllis Schlafly: Women Can Avoid Sexual Assault By Focusing on Marriage, Not Career

In her radio address yesterday, Phyllis Schlafly took on the issue of domestic violence and sexual assault, which she said could be eliminated if women would just get married instead of focusing so much on their careers.

Noting that “marriage settles men down,” Schlafly asked, “So what’s the answer for women who worry about male violence? It’s not to fear all men. It’s to reject the lifestyle of frequent 'hookups,' which is so much promoted on college campuses today, while the women pursue a career and avoid marriage.”

We all know that married men can still be violent to their families, but they are far less likely to be violent against women than are live-in boyfriends.

Why is this? It’s true that women who have found men who are already better partners are more likely to marry them, but it’s also true that marriage settles men down. Being married makes a man care more about his family’s expectations and future because he sees his family as enduring. It also makes him more faithful and committed to his partner. Marriage makes men directly protective of their wives, and living in a home with their daughters gives them the opportunity to be directly protective of them as well. Marriage also creates indirect protection for wives and daughters, because married women and their children tend to live in safer neighborhoods.

So what’s the answer for women who worry about male violence? It’s not to fear all men. It’s to reject the lifestyle of frequent “hookups,” which is so much promoted on college campuses today, while the women pursue a career and avoid marriage.

Steve King Carries Phyllis Schlafly's Book Right Next To His Bible

On Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly hosted a very special 25th anniversary edition of “Eagle Forum Live,” in which she received laudatory messages from a number of fans, including Iowa Republican congressman Steve King.

King called in to congratulate Schlafly on her organization’s “wonderful success” and to tell her that he carries “in my jacket pocket every day” a copy of her 1964 book “A Choice Not An Echo”…right next to his Bible.

Schlafly returned the praise, saying, “We try to get good people like Steve King situated in Congress, where they can keep us faithful to the Constitution.”

Rick Santorum Angry That Marriage Equality Supporters 'Devalued' Marriage

While speaking over the weekend on “Eagle Forum Live,” Rick Santorum said that conservatives need to “reclaim” marriage from the left and “the folks who are trying to change the marriage laws to allow same-sex couples.”

The former senator and presidential candidate told host Anne Cori, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter, that supporters of marriage equality have “devalued marriage” and “divorced marriage from any meaning beyond a romantic relationship,” while Cori lamented the “celebration of single mothers.”

He also warned of polygamy: “If marriage is simply a romantic relationship between two people, and by the way, that’s what it’s devolved to the minds of a lot of Americans, if that’s all that marriage is well then it’s hard to make the argument that any two people or any three or four people shouldn’t be able to get married.”

Phyllis Schlafly Proud The GOP Has Not Been 'Swept Along In The Gay Tide'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is boasting of the Republican Party’s opposition to gay rights, which she says is proof that marriage equality is not “the wave of the future.”

On her Wednesday radio bulletin, Schlafly claimed that the Republican National Committee didn’t select Las Vegas to host its convention as “punishment” for the state party’s decision to drop anti-gay, anti-choice language from its platform. She added that she is optimistic that the party will recruit and elect “candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept along in the gay tide.”

If you get your news from the mainstream media, you may believe that the adoption of gay marriage is the wave of the future, that its momentum is so strong that it is unbeatable. But not so fast. That may not be true at all. All this so-called momentum is created by supremacist judges who are trying to impose their left-wing bias even on states where the voters have passed a referendum putting only traditional husband-wife marriage into their state constitution. Unfortunately, we are stuck with some supremacist judges who claim we have a "living" Constitution and pretend that they can rewrite our laws and even our Constitution. This marriage issue will probably go to the U.S. Supreme Court in about a year, and we don't know how the Court will rule.

Let's first look at the so-called momentum to abolish marriage as we have known it for centuries and what the public opinion polls tell us. A new poll by Wilson Research Strategies surveyed Republicans and Republican-leading Independents and found that 82% agree that marriage should be defined only as a union between "one man and one woman." It also found that 75% disagreed that "politicians should support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

The Republican National Platform adopted in Tampa in 2012 says: “We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

After Nevada Republicans dropped traditional marriage from their state platform, the Republican Party promptly punished Nevada by rejecting Las Vegas as a site for the 2016 Republican National Convention. It is unfortunate if marriage becomes a political issue between Republicans and Democrats, but it does look as if politics is going that way. We are looking for candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept along in the gay tide.

Eagle Forum: Government Is Constitutionally Required To Fight 'Homosexual Conduct'

Eagle Forum’s Virginia Armstrong, the head of the group’s Court Watch Project, today makes the novel argument that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect the rights of LGBT people but in fact requires the government to fight “homosexual conduct” in “every legitimate way possible.”

In an article published on Eagle Forum’s website, Armstrong argues that advances in LGBT equality prove “that America is indeed in the ‘danger zone’ and is in dire need of a massive ‘straightening up process.’”

She then argues that the AIDS epidemic shows that “homosexual conduct is what is harmful to gays and lesbians to the degree that governments are not only constitutionally allowed, but constitutionally required, to fight such conduct in every legitimate way possible.”

All emphasis is Armstrong’s:

Has America bent over so far backwards in our spiritual, moral, and constitutional life that we are in danger of “breaking”? This question is central to our current series of Court Watch Briefings. The question has been precipitated by America’s Culture War and echoes the anguished cry of the Father in the famous musical production, “Fiddler on the Roof,” who felt that revolutionary changes in his world were pushing him to the “breaking point.”

We are proving that America is indeed in the “danger zone” and is in dire need of a massive “straightening up process.” Nothing more clearly demonstrates this fact than the recentsame-sex marriage decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court - Perry v. Hollingsworth and Windsor v. U.S.

These statistics bring into bolder relief than ever the fatal flaws of Perry/Windsor . HIV and AIDS is a pandemic , far worse than other such health threats which have sent governments and media around the world into a veritable apoplexy, accompanied by demands for the most severe action possible to stem those threats. Yet, federal (and, now, state) judges are demanding constitutional protections for the conduct which is most responsible for the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Furthermore, Judge Vaughn Walker’s “Finding of Fact” that religious opposition to homosexual conduct “harms gays and lesbians” and is constitutionally protected is so incongruent with reality as to be laughable, if it were possible to laugh about such an adjudicative disaster. The reality, of course, is that the exact opposite is true –homosexual conduct is what is harmful to gays and lesbians to the degree that governments are not only constitutionally allowed, but constitutionally required , to fight such conduct in every legitimate way possible. This example alone illustrates how upside down is Walker’s blast that “harm to homosexuals” results from religious opposition. This falsehood converts a particularly pernicious value judgment into an adjudicative fact given great weight in pro-homosexual court decisions. One of the worst blows to reason, morality, and the Judeo-Christian worldview is the speed with which the Perry/Windsor poison has poured through America’s legal veins…

William Gheen: Immigration Reform Rooted In 'Anti-Christ Culture'

Mashable’s Gina Piccalo writes today about the split among evangelical conservatives on the issue of immigration reform. While some evangelical activists have cited biblical values to support comprehensive immigration reform, others — such as Phyllis SchlaflyDavid Barton and Bryan Fischer — are busily trawling through the Bible for passages to justify their opposition.

Piccalo interviews Americans for Legal Immigration’s William Gheen, who it turns out also takes a Christian nationalist view of his opposition to immigration reform. Gheen conveniently escapes any theological difficulty when it comes to dealing with the thousands of Central American child refugees on the southern border by claiming that the violence they are escaping is a hoax:

"Illegal immigration is the antithesis of Christianity,” says William Gheen, Raleigh, N.C.-based president of Americans For Legal Immigration. “It’s a gross mischaracterization of Christianity to apply it to tolerating the mass lawlessness, death and damages involved in illegal immigration.”

When asked about those children crossing the border in search of refuge from gang-related violence and death, Americans for Legal Immigration president Gheen said immigrant children are coached by money-hungry smugglers who give them “cheat sheets” with fabricated stories of woe, crafted to ensure their amnesty. “There’s no mass slaughter of children in any of the host countries,” Gheen said. “There’s no documentation of any mass slaughter...The children are reciting lines. This is being orchestrated.”

Gheen sounded the same note in an interview Tuesday with VCY America, linking immigration reform proponents with the “anti-Christ culture flooding up through the united states in our movies, in the TV shows, in the minds of people where they hate Duck Dynasty or anything associated with Christians.”

He said that immigrants’ rights groups are anti-Christian because “they don’t like laws, they don’t like borders”: “They like to equate Christians with Nazis and Klansmen and all sorts of stuff like that because Christians try to show any type of restraint on behavior. And they don’t want any restraint on any behaviors, whether it’s criminal or not. They don’t like laws, they don’t like borders. It’s anything goes, people do whatever they want.”

Richard Viguerie: Conservative Third Party Would Boost 'Evil' Democrats, Be 'Dangerous For America'

Republican direct-mail pioneer Richard Viguerie has a message for Tea Party Republicans considering forming a third party: The plan would be “dangerous for America” because it would result in the election of “evil” Democrats who would “rewrite the laws of this country so that people who that have our views and values may never win another election.”

In an interview with Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori on “Eagle Forum Live” this weekend, Viguerie said that the formation of a third party “does worse than just elect a Democrat.”

“If we have a strong third party movement, it would split the Republican vote and allow Democrats to win not only the presidency but govern most all states and the Congress,” he said. "And the Democrats being in many ways evil, I think, in their public policy approach, they would rewrite the laws of this country so that people who have our views and values may never win another election.”

“It would be so dangerous for America to split the Republican vote and allow Democrats to have super majorities that we may never win another election,” he said.

But Viguerie told Cori that he thinks the Tea Party faction is close to completely taking over the GOP: “Have faith, have heart, we are possibly within two or three years of taking over the Republican Party.”

One Year After Passage Of Gay Propaganda Ban, American Right Continues To Look To Russia As A Guide

The Human Rights Campaign released a report today to mark the first anniversary of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s signing of his infamous ban on “gay propaganda” and related anti-LGBT legislation. HRC reports “an uptick in violent attacks on LGBT people” since the bills’ passage that has accompanied a spike in “anti-LGBT sentiment” in the public square.

Yet despite the dangerous consequences of the increasing use of LGBT people as scapegoats — both in Russia and in neighboring Eastern European and Central Asian countries — and the place of anti-gay politics in Putin’s expansionist agenda, many on the American Religious Right continue to celebrate Putin’s crackdown on gay rights and even to hail it as a model for the United States.

The issue has been divisive on the Right. For instance, Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid — hardly a fan of gay people — got into a memorable shouting match earlier this year with World Congress of Families representatives, who he accused of cozying up to Putin.

It has also put some groups in tough positions. The World Congress of Families was forced to suspend its planned conference at the Kremlin, which was to be funded by a handful of people close to Putin, after Russia seized Crimea and groups including Concerned Women for America started backing out.

But we continue to hear right-wing activists heaping praise on Putin for his enthusiastic anti-gay politics and increasing embrace of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Just last week, Phyllis Schlafly praised Putin for “warming up to religious freedom” as “Americans are rejecting it”:

And earlier this week, WorldNetDaily announced that people around the world are “fleeing” to Russia to escape homosexuality in their own countries .

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer continues to push for the U.S. to adopt a “propaganda” ban like Russia’s:

Anti-gay activists including Pat Buchanan,Peter LaBarbera,Franklin Graham,Scott Lively,Keith Davies,Linda Harvey,Randall Terry,Gordon Klingenschmitt,Janice Shaw Crouse, Austin Ruse, Bob Vander Plaats , Rick Scarborough and, of course, the WorldCongress of Families have defended Russia’s anti-gay crackdown or called for similar laws in the U.S.

And, of course, some have directly lent their support to the passage of anti-gay laws in Russia: the World Congress of Families has an active network in Russia and Eastern Europe and just days before Putin signed the propaganda ban recruited the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown to warn Russian lawmakers about the risks of gay rights.

The support for laws that have dangerously scapegoated LGBT people in Russia is especially ironic coming from a movement that claims that the gay rights movement in the United States is persecuting them .

Phyllis Schlafly Claims 'Russians Are Warming Up To Religious Freedom Just As Americans Are Rejecting It'

It seems that Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly has gotten on board with the Religious Right’s admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s increasing merger of his government with the Russian Orthodox Church.

In her radio address this week, Schlafly laments that it “certainly was a shock when the president of Russia lectured Americans that we are ‘becoming godless.’”

“Russians are warming up to religious freedom just as Americans are rejecting it,” she warns, claiming that “that the atheists are trying to censor all mention of religion out of every public place and event.”

Schlafly might want to speak to a few Russian Protestants before she celebrate’s Putin’s embrace of religious freedom.

It certainly was a shock when the president of Russia lectured Americans that we are “becoming godless.” In his last “state of the nation” speech, Vladimir Putin told Russia that the United States was moving away from Christian values. Back in the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan was making similar comments about Russia!

So is the United States still one nation under God? In a recent article, Dr. Ben Carson says yes. Americans still live in a culture that operates under many of Christianity’s basic assumptions about life. But with increasing numbers of Americans becoming reluctant to mention God in public, we are in danger of forgetting our roots and discarding our rights. The liberals are trying to use the 1st Amendment as a weapon to silence religious speech. But to whom is the 1st Amendment directed? It says “Congress shall make no law.” The 1st Amendment binds the hands of Congress: it doesn’t restrict the rest of us.

...

So if Russians are warming up to religious freedom just as Americans are rejecting it, what does this mean for the United States? It’s clear that the atheists are trying to censor all mention of religion out of every public place and event. If we do nothing, if we allow the atheists to eliminate God from our culture, we will be rejecting the principles that made our nation so great. But if we embrace our heritage, the principles that launched America will guide us strong into the future.

Tillis Borrowed 'Traditional Population' Phrase From Anti-Immigrant Extremists

TPM has dug up a 2012 interview in which North Carolina House Speaker and Republican U.S. Senate candidate Thom Tillis contrasts the growing black and Latino populations with the more stagnant “traditional population of North Carolina and the United States.” (The exchange starts about 2:45 into this video.)

Tills made the remarks while discussing the need for the Republican Party to reach out to and appeal to non-white voters — but the phrase “traditional population” as a euphemism for white Americans was lifted right from the racist, anti-immigrant fringe.

The Social Contract, the journal founded by anti-immigrant movement godfather John Tanton frequently uses the phrasetraditional Americans” to mean non-immigrants, and specifically white non-immigrants. One example, from an essay by Brenda Walker in the Fall 2012 issue: “The idea of diversity has been used like a club, to force obedience to the utopian multicultural state, as traditional Americans are assailed by affirmative action and benefits for illegal aliens, which are not available to citizens.”

The white nationalist website VDARE is also known to use the formulation. The late white supremacist writer Sam Francis, who was a contributor to VDARE, has also used the phrase.

The phrase is also a favorite of William Gheen, the leader of the anti-immigrant hate group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, who warned earlier this year that immigration reform would “lead to a situation where traditional Americans, like those that have been here for hundreds of years in descendancy, will no longer govern our own nation.”

Eagle Forum, the group founded by Phyllis Schlafly, hinted at the same idea when it lamented that “non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds vote Democrat out of group identifications. That is, they see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture.”

Famously, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly made the same connection when he lamented that changing demographics mean "it’s not traditional America anymore.” Pat Buchanan’s 2009 column, “Traditional Americans Are Losing Their Nation,” got at the same point.

Even if Tillis meant what he said about reaching out to black and Latino voters, his use of the phrase “traditional Americans” as a euphemism for white people shows that he has a long way to go.

Cathie Adams Takes To Facebook To Insist 'Homosexuality Is NOT NORMAL Behavior'

Last week, we reported on the efforts of Cathie Adams, the former Texas GOP chairwoman who now leads the state’s Eagle Forum group, to preserve language in the state party platform that declared “the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit.”

While the party ultimately removed the “fabric of society language” — ignoring Adams’s warning that such a move would lead to society’s “demise” — it added language endorsing the discredited practice of “ex-gay” therapy.

Adams told Texas Public Radio that she had pushed for the therapy language at the request of a self-proclaimed “ex-gay” friend , who wrote the resolution.

Meanwhile, as Adams was championing the anti-gay resolutions at the GOP convention, she was also fighting a battle for hearts and minds on Facebook. When someone posted one of our articles on Adams’ wall, she responded, “Homosexuality is NOT NORMAL behavior,” and proceeded to debate with pro-LGBT commenters, telling them, “You are loved. Sinful behavior is not,” “When sin is flouted it cannot be ignored,” and “I love you! I want the BEST for you now and in eternity.”

“You are dissing our Founders and the Constitution they gave us,” she added.

Texas GOP Debates Whether To Remove Anti-Gay Language From Platform, Risk 'Demise' Of Society

Updated

While subcommittees at the Texas GOP’s convention today rebuffed hardliners by removing some especially vicious anti-gay language from the state party’s platform and keeping an endorsement of an immigrant guest worker program, the debate over both issues continues.

Brian wrote earlier today about the efforts of Texas conservatives to bring back the party platform’s previous hardline anti-immigration language , including those of Texas Eagle Forum leader and former state party chairwoman Cathie Adams, who has warned that immigration reform will bring about the End Times .

A similar battle is unfolding over gay rights. Two conservative LGBT groups that were denied permission to sponsor booths at the convention are now calling on the party to remove language from its platform that states:

Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.

While a subcommittee nixed the language today, the decision won’t be final until it’s approved by the full convention on Thursday night .

And in any case, the subcommittee appears to have kept the rest of the party’s anti-gay plank, which contains the actual policy prohibitions against equality, along with plenty of pointed scare quotes:

Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

One activist who will be fighting for the preservation of the platform’s original anti-gay language is Adams, who told the radio station KERA that backing down on gay rights would mean that the “society is well on its way to demise.”

Cathie Adams, executive director of Texas Eagle Forum, believes the platform currently reflects a position that’s biblical.

“When a culture descends to a point where homosexuality is openly accepted as a normal behavior, then a society is well on its way to demise," she said.

UPDATE: Adams might not have to worry too much. A draft platform leaked Thursday eliminated the "fabric of society" language but added an endorsement of the discredited practive of "ex-gay" therapy.

The 10 Most Absurd Arguments Against The Udall Citizens United Amendment

While good-government groups have been calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s dismantling of campaign finance laws since the day the Court handed down Citizens United in 2010, the issue has been largely off the radar of conservative activists – and has actually enjoyed broad bipartisan support in an array of polls and in state and municipal ballot measures.

It was largely off their radar, that is, until this week. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a proposal by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., to send a constitutional amendment to the states restoring to Congress and state governments the ability to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections. In response, Republican politicians and conservative activists have kicked into gear and are starting to try out new talking points to get their movement to oppose efforts to lessen the influence of big money in politics.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, launched the misleading campaign two weeks ago when he warned a group of pastors that the Udall proposal would “repeal the First Amendment” and allow Congress to “muzzle” the free speech of clergy. In advance of the hearing today, conservative groups including the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Tea Party Patriots and the Home School Legal Defense Association started to mobilize against the amendment. Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation held a panel discussion to test out arguments against the amendment, featuring Bobby Burchfield, the attorney who argued the McCutcheon case before the Supreme Court, controversial former FEC chairman Don McGahn, and infamous voter-fraud conspiracy theorist Hans van Spakovsky .

Here, we’ve collected some of the most deceptive arguments that have been launched so far against the Udall amendment.

1. Democrats want to repeal the First Amendment!

When we first heard Ted Cruz  tell a stunned group of pastors that Democrats in the Senate were planning to “repeal the First Amendment,” we knew that we would be hearing that line again and again.

And we were right. Tea Party Patriots adopted the line in mobilizing its activists, as did the Eagle Forum. The Family Research Council claimed the Udall amendment would “strip political speech out of the First Amendment,” and von Spakovsky told the Heritage panel that the amendment would “roll back” the Bill of Rights.

Burchfield and McGahn both argued that the introduction of the constitutional amendment means, in the words of McGahn, that campaign finance law advocates are “admitting” that campaign finance regulations are “unconstitutional.”

On the surface, this is the opposition’s strongest argument, because it sounds so scary. But it’s just not true. Whether you support the Udall amendment or not, it’s dishonest to suggest that it would amount to a “repeal of the First Amendment.” Instead, proponents argue that it strengthens the First Amendment by undoing the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence declaring that spending on elections, including from corporate treasuries, cannot be limited. Proponents of the Udall amendment hold that this jurisprudence, including recent decisions in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, represented a radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment; undoing them would simply re-establish the ability of Congress and the states to set reasonable regulations on the raising and spending of money to influence elections.

2. Amendment supporters want to ‘silence critics’ and ‘cling to power’!

The Heritage panelists repeatedly claimed that the Udall amendment is an attempt to protect incumbency by preventing challengers from raising enough money to win elections. McGahn insisted that it was an effort by Democratic incumbents “desperately clinging to power.”

“They want to change the rules of the game and prevent people from criticizing them, not unlike England did before our revolution, and which led to our revolution,” he added.

The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios also invoked the American Revolution in an interview with von Spakovsky yesterday, saying, “The First Amendment, the rights to free speech – particularly the right to political speech – were the right to criticize the king, criticize the authorities over you.”

In a later interview with Rios, Tea Party Patriots spokesman Scott Hogenson even managed to connect the Udall amendment with immigration reform, claiming that both are part of a “larger, concerted effort to maintain the Democratic Party’s control of American politics and eventually move to one-party rule.”

In reality, it’s unlimited campaign spending that tends to be a boon for incumbents, who on average are able to raise far more than challengers. For instance, in Texas, a state with few campaign finance limits, incumbents who win on average raise more than twelve times the average amount raised by challengers. By contrast, in Colorado, which has relatively low individual contribution limits, incumbents on average raise less than three times what challengers are able to raise [pdf].

3. Liberals just want to protect the lame-stream media!

In his speech to the pastors' group, Ted Cruz seized on the Udall proposal’s stipulation that “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press” to claim that the amendment carved out an exemption to protect the New York Times.

Von Spakovsky also played up conservative conspiracy theories about the “liberal media,” telling Rios, “No surprise, there’s a glaring exception in this proposed amendment for the press. And that means that MSNBC or the New York Times Company, which are big corporations, they could spend as much newsprint or airtime as they wanted going after and criticizing candidates or talking about political issues.”

These arguments fail to recognize one key distinction, which is that there is a difference between the New York Times publishing an editorial (which would be protected under the proposed amendment, as it is now) and the corporate managers of the New York Times taking $50 million out of their corporate treasury to buy ads to influence an election (which would not be protected).

4. They’ll go after pastors!

Opponents of the constitutional amendment have also been trying to tie the proposal to the right-wing paranoia about the impending persecution of America’s Christian majority .

It’s no coincidence that Cruz rolled out his criticism of the Udall proposal at a pastors’ event organized by the Family Research Council, a main theme of which was the supposed assault on the religious liberty of Christians in America. Cruz told the pastors that the Udall measure would “muzzle” clergy and was being proposed because “they don’t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth.”

Likewise, McGahn said at the Heritage event that the amendment would endanger the religious liberty of clergy: “What about pastors and churches? This is an issue that comes up once in a while. Can the government get in there and tell a priest he can’t talk to his congregation because it may somehow have something to do with politics?”

This might be true if the proposal would, in fact, “repeal the First Amendment.” In fact, the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty would remain in place.

Of course, that didn’t stop the FRC’s Tony Perkins from somehow linking the Udall amendment to the imprisonment of a Christian woman in Sudan:

5. It’s like the Alien & Sedition Acts!

Along with comparisons to British control before the American Revolution, amendment opponents are trying to link the Udall proposal to the 18th century Alien & Sedition Acts.

In his interview with Rios yesterday, van Spakovsky claimed that “the last time Congress tried to do something like this was when they passed the Alien & Sedition Act in 1798 that criminalized criticism of the government.” Multiple GOP senators at today’s hearing, including Judiciary Committeee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, repeated the talking point.

Of course, the amendment does nothing to reduce the right of individuals to criticize the government or politicians.

6. The polls are skewed!

When an audience member at yesterday’s Heritage Foundation panel asked about polls showing overwhelming opposition to the Citizens United decision, McGahn replied that the questions in the polls were “skewed.”

You can judge for yourself whether this question from a recent Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll  – which found 80 percent opposition to the Citizens United decision  – is “skewed” on behalf of campaign finance law proponents:

(image via Buzzfeed)

7. What about disclosure?

In one of the least self-aware moments we’ve witnessed in the last few days, McGahn told the Heritage audience that campaign finance reform proponents could have just worked for tougher disclosure requirements, which the Supreme Court’s majority has consistently endorsed as a way to prevent corruption:

What’s interesting is the courts have upheld some disclosure of independent speech, which six months ago was supposed to be the answer, a year ago was supposed to be the answer – remember the DISCLOSE Act, Part 1 and Part 2? Well, that was supposed to cure all the ills in our democracy, but unfortunately I guess they’ve given up on that and they’ve moved to the more radical change, which is the constitutional amendment.

Of course, the DISCLOSE Act – which would have exposed the source of some of the “dark money” behind large campaign expenditures – was blocked by Senate Republicans. And McGahn, when he was at the FEC, fought hard against disclosure requirements proposed in the wake of the Citizens United decision, even though the decision explicitly sanctioned such requirements.

8. The poor don’t participate anyway!

Speaking to the Heritage audience, Burchfield  presented the curious argument that the Udall amendment would demand to "equalize debate among the haves and have-nots,” and since “the portion is small” of “those with limited means” who participate in electoral debates, this would require “severe restrictions.”

The rich do not advocate a single viewpoint. Think of Sheldon Adelson and George Soros, they don’t agree on anything. There are strong voices on the left and on the right, not just in privately funded campaign advertisements, but also in the broadcast and print media. Only a small portion of those with significant resources even bother to participate in the debate. And among those with limited means, the portion is small indeed. In order to equalize debate among the haves and the have-nots, severe restrictions would be necessary. The quantity and quality of discourse would certainly suffer.

The amendment under consideration doesn’t require that everybody be heard an equal amount; instead, it gives Congress and the states the ability to create a more even platform for those who wish to be heard, regardless of their financial means.  

Burchfield's reasoning echoes the arguments of voter-suppression proponents who claim that their laws only inconvenience people who don’t really care about voting anyway.

9. It’s voter suppression!

Although many of the advocates of unlimited, undisclosed money in politics are the same people pushing harmful voter suppression laws, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas yesterday insisted that it’s actually amendment proponents who are advocating “voter suppression” and want to “silence” critics.

10. Blame Saul Alinsky!

Inevitably, anti-amendment activists have begun invoking the right-wing bogey-man Saul Alinsky.

Hogenson told Rios that the Udall amendment is “just taken right out of Saul Alinksy’s book, ‘Rules for Radicals,’ it just makes up a gigantic lie and perpetuates it, that somehow democracy needs to be restored.”

Von Spakovsky also invoked Alinsky in his interview with Rios, claiming that criticism of the enormous political spending of the Koch brothers is an Alinskyite plot: “What’s really going on here is, look, if you look at Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals,’ one of the rules that he sets out is you pick a villain and you basically blame those villains for all of the problems. It’s a way of distracting the public, it’s a way of diverting attention, and that’s exactly what Harry Reid and the Democrats are doing here.”

After Complaining Women's Museum Will 'Indoctrinate' Visitors Into Feminism, CWA's Nance Demands To Chair Museum's Board

The House voted 383-33 last night to move forward with a plan to build a National Women’s History Museum on the Mall, despite an effort by Religious Right groups to prevent the museum from going forward.

Now, we learn that Concerned Women for America's Penny Nance, the activist leading the fight against the museum, was offered a spot on its planning board but refused to participate unless an anti-feminist activist like herself was allowed to head the planning effort.

The Daily Caller reports that in an effort to shore up support for a bill authorizing a planning study for the museum, the museum’s chief Republican supporter, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, offered Nance a spot on the museum’s board. Nance refused, saying that she would only accept an offer to lead the museum as the board’s chair or to pick another right-wing activist for the job.

“Regardless of that effort some critics of this legislation have, incorrectly, said that the bill would create a museum that would portray women as monolithic in their views on abortion as well as other issues of concern to women,” said Blackburn, adding that she asked Nance to serve as a member of the commission.

Nance said that the offer — sent by Blackburn’s chief of staff on Tuesday night — is “an exercise in futility and frustration without the chairman being someone who at least is impartial on our views.”

“One seat would not change anything,” said Nance, adding “I am happy to either serve or find someone else to serve as chairman.”

Religious Right groups came out against the plan because, they said, it would place too much emphases on women who had fought for women’s rights. CWA complained that the museum would “indoctrinate” visitors into “a jaundiced view of women’s history” because the museum’s website mentioned pioneering abortion rights advocates but didn’t mention CWA’s founder Beverly LaHaye or fringe right-wing activist Star Parker.

Eagle Forum urged its members to oppose the creation of the museum, saying, “Long sought by feminists, this project would enshrine their warped view of American history on the National Mall” and added that the museum wasn’t needed anyway: “Women's history is American history, and there is already a National Museum of American History on the Mall.”

The Family Research Council warned that the museum would become “a permanent monument to radical feminism and abortion.”

Writing for RedState, David Horowitz called the museum proposal an “interesting endeavor,” but warned that it would “promote leftwing propaganda”:

One of the biggest obstacles to restoring our constitutional Republic is the inherent advantage the progressives enjoy inside of our culture. Their monopoly on media, entertainment, and education has given radicals the opportunity to slowly, yet relentlessly, introduce extreme ideas into the mainstream with a high degree of success. The least we can do as conservatives is not use our majority to gratuitously grant the feminist movement more leverage to promote leftwing propaganda in our nation’s capitol under the guise of celebrating famous women.

In the end, yesterday, activists were only able to persuade 33 Republican House members to vote against a bill that “authorizes a study to find a location for the museum and establish its mission.” Only two of the eighteen Republican women in the House voted against the bill – Rep. Michele Bachmann, who said it would “enshrine the radical feminist movement” and Rep. Vicky Hartzler.

But despite her attempted concession to Nance, Blackburn told National Journal that she could not figure out what all the fuss was about: "Look, I'm a pretty conservative person. I can't even follow that train of thought. It's too convoluted for me."

Phyllis Schlafly & Mallory Factor Lament That Single Women Lack 'Cultural Beliefs' For 'A Good And Productive Life'

Right-wing pundit and Fox News contributor Mallory Factor joined Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live this weekend to discuss his new book on the history of the conservative movement, to which Schlafly contributed a chapter.

When a listener asked whether conservatives are winning or losing “our culture,” Factor replied that “we’re losing because government has grown so big and government has built up people’s dependency” to the extent that “they put aside their values” and “they even put aside God.”

This reminded Schlafly of the Obama campaign’s Life of Julia ad, which charted the importance of a number of federal programs for an average American woman as she moves through her education and career, building a family and retirement. “This woman lived her whole life from birth to Social Security and having a baby and everything, and the government is the only factor in her life,” despaired Schlafly. “She doesn’t have a husband.”

And because of that, she probably puts aside some of the cultural beliefs that are so necessary for a good and productive life,” Factor added.

Schlafly: Here’s a question that came in over the email. Do you think that conservative ideas are getting stronger or weaker in our culture? In other words, are we winning or are we losing? Or maybe I don’t want to hear the answer to that question!

Factor: I think that we’re losing. And we’re losing because government has grown so big and government has built up people’s dependency upon it that they put aside almost everything else. They put aside their values, they even put aside God for government because they are so dependent upon it. And we do this more and more and more.

Schlafly: Well, that was really the point of Obama’s little TV spot, ‘The Life of Julia’ that he put on before the election, where this woman lived her whole life from birth to Social Security and having a baby and everything, and the government is the only factor in her life. She doesn’t have a husband.

Factor: And because of that, she probably puts aside some of the cultural beliefs that are so necessary for a good and productive life.

Eagle Forum Goes After Feminism & Diversity On Campus: 'College Is A Dangerous Place For Men'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly has never been a fan of the country’s institutes of higher education, which she sees as running rampant with the evils of feminism, Marxism and multiculturalism.

So it makes sense that this month’s edition of the Phyllis Schlafly Report is devoted entirely to “confronting campus radicals” including “feminist propaganda,” “multiculturalism” and “diversity.”

Most of Schlafly’s argument is summed up in a section called “Definition of ‘Politically Correct,’” which goes after multiculturalism, which she defines as “the false notion that Western Civilization is bad and every other group, whether civilized or not, is superior,” the notion that “having sex with anybody, anytime, is OK” and the practice of using B.C.E and C.E for dates, rather than B.C. and A.D.

Definition of 'Politically Correct'

The prevailing environment on most college campuses is what is called Political Correctness — in faculty bias, course content, visiting speakers, and organizations and events funded by student fees. Here are the principal tenets of the campus dogma known as Political Correctness:

1. Everything is political. All academic subjects must be seen through the prism of gender and race oppression, including history, literature, social relationships, and even private conversation. Most students encounter this immediately in their freshman English class. The writings of the DWEMs (Dead White European Males) have been censored out and replaced with Oppression Studies: writings by third-rate authors who whine about America’s oppressive society.

2. Victimology. Every group is entitled to claim minority status as victims except white males and Christians.

3. Multiculturalism. That’s a code word for the false notion that Western Civilization is bad and every other group, whether civilized or not, is superior.

4. Radical feminism. The entire world must be seen as one big conspiracy against women, and all men are guilty, both individually and as a group. Joking about this doctrine is not permitted; several colleges have even banned jokes. At Arizona State University, drama professor Jared Sakren was fired for producing Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew; Shakespeare is not Politically Correct.

5. Affirmative action. Reverse discrimination in admissions, grading, and employment for groups that proclaim their status as “victims” is not only mandatory, it is non-debatable.

6. Having sex with anybody, anytime, is OK and may not be criticized. Dating is out; “hooking up” is in. The social acceptance of pre-marital and homosexual sex and activism is non-debatable.

7. Tolerance. That’s a code word meaning tolerance for Politically Correct views, but not for the Politically Incorrect. Tolerance requires conformity to P.C. views, and hundreds of colleges have speech codes.

8. Christianity is Politically Incorrect. In some colleges, students are not permitted to turn in papers that identify historic dates as B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini), but must use B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era).

In a section titled “Feminist Propaganda In Textbooks,” Schlafly analyzes a women's and gender studies textbook she came across, which she asserts is “anti-marriage, anti-homemaker, pro-abortion, and pro-lesbian.”

The authors teach that the roles of male and female are merely learned behaviors and you can change to the other gender if you want to. Bisexuality and trans-sexuality are presented as normal. The textbook includes personal stories of adults who changed their gender. The book explains that heterosexuality exists only because of socially imposed stereotypes and homophobia, and has nothing to do with nature or morality. Students are encouraged to organize a National Coming Out Day on their campus.

A couple of articles in this textbook discuss that it is common for women to be bisexual. Of course, the book endorses abortion. The traditional model of the family is presented as only one of many forms of family. The book teaches that married women should be liberated from marriage and turn their children over to the state to be raised. This college textbook has a radical feminist political agenda: anti-marriage, anti-homemaker, pro-abortion, and pro-lesbian. College students should not waste their tuition dollars taking women’s studies courses.

In a section on diversity, Schlafly criticizes colleges for promoting the “offbeat concepts” of multiculturalism, which she insists is “just another college fad to put down Western civilization.”

It’s important for students to know before they go to college that diversity doesn’t mean allowing conservatives to speak on campus, either as visiting lecturers or professors, except for occasional tokenism. Diversity on college campuses doesn’t mean giving fair coverage to the ideas and achievements of Western civilization, but it does mean featuring a lot of offbeat concepts. It’s important for students to know that multiculturalism doesn’t mean tolerance and respect for all cultures. It’s just another college fad to put down Western civilization.

Schlafly, citing sexual assault prevention policies, concludes that “college is a dangerous place for men.”

Cathie Adams Claims Muslim-Americans Are Waging 'Stealth Jihad,' Will Shoot You 'In The Back'

Cathie Adams, the president of the Texas Eagle Forum and former chairwoman of the Texas GOP, claimed in speech to a Tea Party group this week that Muslim-Americans practice a “warring religion” and are waging a “stealth jihad.” She warned that you can never know if a Muslim is “going to turn radical,” if they are telling you the truth, or if “when you walk out of their home” you will be “shot in the back.”

The Cleburne Times-Review reports that Adams made the remarks at a meeting of the Texas Patriots Tea Party on Tuesday.

Adams also went after pastors who allow Muslims to speak to their congregations and attacked Republican leaders, including anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and President George W. Bush, who she sees as too friendly to Muslims. Last year, Adams speculated that Norquist is a Muslim himself because he has a beard.

The government and the culture of the United States are being infiltrated and undermined by “a warring religion,” and the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the drive, conservative political activist Cathie Adams warned those attending Tuesday’s meeting of the Texas Patriot Tea Party.

But Adams said that the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda includes creating a worldwide Islamic state, including the U.S., by overturning the laws and constitutions of other countries and replacing them all with Sharia law.

It’s motto, she said, is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Adams told her audience on Tuesday not to be taken in by claims that Islam is a peaceful religion, adding that just listening to public statements by Muslim leaders and reading the tenets of Islam provides ample evidence to the contrary.

Sharia law, Adams said, tells Muslims everything on how to live, and that it is “held by every Muslim,” not just extremists. “How do you know who is going to turn radical when every Muslim embraces Sharia law” she said.

Adams said that while Islam teaches Muslims not to lie to other Muslims, on the other hand it demands that Muslims lie to non-Muslims when necessary to protect and promote Islam.

“If it’s a Muslim telling you something, you really don’t know if it’s the truth or a lie,” she said.

And while Muslims are “extremely hospitable when you are under their roof,” as required by their religion, that hospitality ends as soon as you leave their home. “Walk out of their home and you can be shot in the back,” Adams said.

Adams quoted conservative author and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, who wrote in his book “Infiltration” that in Islam, America is fighting “a perfect enemy” that exploits America’s own culture and its tax laws to undermine the government and culture. She said Muslims in the U.S. are staging a “stealth jihad” and waging political and psychological warfare on this country.

Political leaders are being manipulated and Muslim forces are using the schools to indoctrinate young people, Adams said. Even some churches are being taken in, she said, adding that some Christian pastors have allowed Muslims to speak from their pulpits.

“They say, ‘We all worship the same God.’ No, we do not,” Adams said. “Ultimately their god is represented by a black stone. Their prophet is dead and buried in the grave, and he did not rise on Easter. If you want to be kind to Muslims, be kind with the gospel.”

Even some people seen as conservative leaders are playing into the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda, Adams said, including Americans for Tax Reform founder Grover Norquist and former President George W. Bush.

“We’ve got trouble brewing,” Adams said. But, she added, “I am not discouraged, because he is still on his throne and he will overcome and we will be victorious.”

Deace Implies Same-Sex Marriage Is As Impossible As Human Flight

Speaking with Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live this weekend, Iowa talk show host Steve Deace implied that same-sex couples who want to get married are like people who want to be able to fly.

Responding to a caller who asked what he should say to a friend who says “it’s not government’s job to legislate morality,” Deace responded that the friend has “bought into some postmodern thinking” where he doesn’t want to impose his idea of what’s “wrong and icky” on other people.

Deace compared this to fighting the law of gravity, implying that a gay person who wants to get married is like someone who jumps off a skyscraper because they think they can fly.

“I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly,” he said. “But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity.”

“It didn’t change because some judge said so,” he added.
 

Caller: I’ve got a buddy who’s semi-liberal and he says, his main premise is that it’s not government’s job to legislate morality. And I was wondering what you’ve got to say about that.

Schlafly: Well, practically ever law is legislating morality.

Deace: Phyllis is correct. Everything is morality. That’s a false objection. Question him further to find exactly out what that means. And I’m telling you, what I’m 99 percent positive that it will mean is that he’s bought into some postmodern thinking that says, ‘Well, yeah, I think this stuff is wrong and icky for me but I can’t impose my value system on somebody else.’

But of course, that’s a very slippery slope as well. I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly. But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity. It didn’t change because some judge said so. It still exists. So, chances are that’s a false objection from your friend because he’s bought into some postmodern thinking about over-judgementalism.

Syndicate content

Eagle Forum Top Posts

316 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Ste. 203 Washington, DC 20003 www.eagleforum.org President/Founder: Phyllis Schlafly Executive Director: Lori (Cole) Waters Date of founding: 1972 Place of founding: Alton, IL Membership: 80,000 Finances: $2.3 million (2000) Staff: 8 State Chapters: 30 listed on website. MORE >

Eagle Forum Posts Archive

Brian Tashman, Monday 09/08/2014, 12:00pm
In an interview with WorldNetDaily over the weekend, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said the immigrant “invasion” threatens the stability and future of America because it may undermine the electoral prospects of the Republican Party. Warning that immigrants are liberals “who are not accustomed to our ideas of self-government and limited government” and “expect government to take care of them,” Schlafly said they will lead to the demise of the GOP, bringing America down with it: “Well, it might take 50 years, but meanwhile the Republican Party... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Friday 08/29/2014, 3:20pm
In her radio address yesterday, Phyllis Schlafly took on the issue of domestic violence and sexual assault, which she said could be eliminated if women would just get married instead of focusing so much on their careers. Noting that “marriage settles men down,” Schlafly asked, “So what’s the answer for women who worry about male violence? It’s not to fear all men. It’s to reject the lifestyle of frequent 'hookups,' which is so much promoted on college campuses today, while the women pursue a career and avoid marriage.” We all know that... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 08/19/2014, 5:10pm
On Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly hosted a very special 25th anniversary edition of “Eagle Forum Live,” in which she received laudatory messages from a number of fans, including Iowa Republican congressman Steve King. King called in to congratulate Schlafly on her organization’s “wonderful success” and to tell her that he carries “in my jacket pocket every day” a copy of her 1964 book “A Choice Not An Echo”…right next to his Bible. Schlafly returned the praise, saying, “We try to get good people like Steve King situated in... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Wednesday 07/30/2014, 11:40am
While speaking over the weekend on “Eagle Forum Live,” Rick Santorum said that conservatives need to “reclaim” marriage from the left and “the folks who are trying to change the marriage laws to allow same-sex couples.” The former senator and presidential candidate told host Anne Cori, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter, that supporters of marriage equality have “devalued marriage” and “divorced marriage from any meaning beyond a romantic relationship,” while Cori lamented the “celebration of single mothers.... MORE >
Brian Tashman, Friday 07/25/2014, 12:40pm
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is boasting of the Republican Party’s opposition to gay rights, which she says is proof that marriage equality is not “the wave of the future.” On her Wednesday radio bulletin, Schlafly claimed that the Republican National Committee didn’t select Las Vegas to host its convention as “punishment” for the state party’s decision to drop anti-gay, anti-choice language from its platform. She added that she is optimistic that the party will recruit and elect “candidates who will defend marriage and not be swept... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 07/22/2014, 12:41pm
Eagle Forum’s Virginia Armstrong, the head of the group’s Court Watch Project, today makes the novel argument that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect the rights of LGBT people but in fact requires the government to fight “homosexual conduct” in “every legitimate way possible.” In an article published on Eagle Forum’s website, Armstrong argues that advances in LGBT equality prove “that America is indeed in the ‘danger zone’ and is in dire need of a massive ‘straightening up process.’” She then argues that... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Thursday 07/10/2014, 3:01pm
Mashable’s Gina Piccalo writes today about the split among evangelical conservatives on the issue of immigration reform. While some evangelical activists have cited biblical values to support comprehensive immigration reform, others — such as Phyllis Schlafly, David Barton and Bryan Fischer — are busily trawling through the Bible for passages to justify their opposition. Piccalo interviews Americans for Legal Immigration’s William Gheen, who it turns out also takes a Christian nationalist view of his opposition to immigration reform. Gheen conveniently... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Wednesday 07/02/2014, 1:22pm
Republican direct-mail pioneer Richard Viguerie has a message for Tea Party Republicans considering forming a third party: The plan would be “dangerous for America” because it would result in the election of “evil” Democrats who would “rewrite the laws of this country so that people who that have our views and values may never win another election.” In an interview with Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori on “Eagle Forum Live” this weekend, Viguerie said that the formation of a third party “does worse than just elect a Democrat.... MORE >