Eagle Forum

Todd Akin isn’t the only one urging the Republican Party to move even further to the right. In an interview with Policy Mic, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum says the GOP should put more of an emphasis on social issues and look to conservative firebrands Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee as their role models. She blamed Mitt Romney’s loss on a “tremendous” drop-off in white voters, even though according to exit poll data white voter turnout was about the same as the last presidential election and Romney out-performed John McCain among white voters.

Schlafly, who also revealed that she is writing a book entitled Who Killed the American Family?, called feminism “the most destructive element in our society” and claimed feminists would “really like to get rid of” all men, while insisting that the Constitution has never been a sexist document and people should “stop complaining” about a lack of female candidates for office.

She also made the absurd claim that the government didn’t play a role in fighting the Great Depression and that Mexican immigrants aren’t becoming Americans because they are too comfortable with the welfare state and not voting Republican. Schlafly called the Senate immigration reform bill “suicide for our country” and said Mexico will use it to take over US territory.

On the topic of gay rights, Schlafly said that she continues to oppose marriage equality despite having a gay son, but also seems to be under the impression that same-sex couples can already get married: “Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There’s no law against that.”

She maintained that gay rights advocates are really pushing “an interference with our free speech rights” and warned that “homosexuals are teaching their ideology in the schools, and kids are learning it.”

When asked if President Obama should be impeached, Schlafly claimed that the recent IRS controversy is far worse than Watergate, which she called “just an ordinary little break in to an office,” and added that Obama could also be impeached over his opposition to the Defense Of Marriage Act.

Sagar Jethani: Reflecting on Mitt Romney's defeat in November, Senator Lindsey Graham said "If I hear anybody say it was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts. We're not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we're not being hard-ass enough." You disagree.

Phyllis Schlafly: Lindsey Graham is one of the establishment Republicans. They picked Romney, and they have to defend him. There were many, many things wrong with the election and the campaign in 2012. One of them was that establishment Republicans really don't have a ground game. They really don't know how to relate to grassroots Americans. Romney appealed to the people who are well-to-do and traditionally Republican, but there wasn't any outreach from that. And the real block that he failed to get was the white voters — his drop-off from white voters was tremendous.

…

Who represents the future of the GOP?

People like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee who are not establishment candidates.

What about Marco Rubio? Wasn't he a grassroots candidate?

Originally, Marco Rubio was until he went over and joined the establishment and became their salesman for unlimited amnesty.

…

Republicans are often criticized for wanting to dismantle the safety nets people depend on. Do you think the government has a role to play in helping those who struggle to get by?

I grew up during the Great Depression, and didn't have any of these government handouts, and we grew up to be what was called the Greatest Generation. The idea of an enormous number of people getting food stamps? Nobody's hungry in the United States. I think we need to build more self-reliance. We need to build the nuclear family, in which the father is the provider and the mother is a mother.

…

You recently argued against amnesty for undocumented immigrants, saying it would be suicide for the Republican Party because they would all vote Democratic. You don't think that Hispanics resonate with Republican values?

I don't see any evidence that Hispanics resonate with Republican values. They have no experience or knowledge of the whole idea of limited government and keeping government out of our private lives. They come from a country where the government has to decide everything. I don't know where you get the idea that the Mexicans coming in resonate with Republican values. They're running an illegitimacy rate that is extremely high. I think it's the highest of any ethnic group. We welcome people who want to be Americans. And then you hear many of them talk about wanting Mexico to reclaim several of our Southwestern states, because they think Mexico should really own some of those states. Well, that's unacceptable. We don't want people like that.

What do you make of the Gang of Eight's bill on comprehensive immigration reform now making its way through Congress?

It is suicide for our country, and not just for the Republican Party.

...

According to Gallup, the number of Americans who consider gay or lesbian relationships morally acceptable has shot up from 38% in 2002 to 54% today. Is it time for conservatives to get with the program and start supporting gay rights?

No, it certainly isn't. The polls are very defective. If you look at the polls, most of them ask the question: Are you in favor of banning same-sex marriage? Now, we have no law that bans same-sex marriage. Any gay couple can get married— all they have to do is find a preacher or justice of the peace who will perform the ceremony. There's no law against that. What they are demanding is that we respect them as being OK, and that's an interference with our free speech rights. There's no obligation that we have to respect something we think is morally wrong.

Republicans oppose gay marriage by a large margin, with only about 25% supporting it. But if you break down the results by age, you find that young Republicans are much more accepting of gay marriage, with about 40% supporting it.

What you say is certainly substantially true, but I think it's a result of what they're taught in the schools. They've been teaching in the schools that homosexuality is OK for years. So the kids who have been taught that have grown up, and they've been made to believe it. The homosexuals are teaching their ideology in the schools, and kids are learning it.

Your own son, John, is gay. What do you say to those who argue that your view on gay rights prevents people like him from enjoying the same rights that heterosexual Americans possess?

In the first place, I'd say it's really none of their business. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. My son is very supportive of my work. In fact, he works for me in the Eagle Forum. He's a fine, honorable man. It does not cause any problems in our family.

…

You don't think feminism has done some good in raising the status of women?

The feminist movement is the most destructive element in our society. It has done nothing but damage. It has not done anything good for women, whatsoever. The worst part of it is the attitude that breeds in young women in making them think that they are the victims of the oppressive patriarchy. That is so false. If you wake up in the morning thinking you're a victim, you're probably not going to be happy or accomplish anything.

Don't women in this country still have a long way to go in terms of enjoying the same rights that men have held from the beginning?

American women are the most fortunate class of people who ever lived on the face of the earth. We should rejoice in the great, wonderful country we have. Women have always been in the Constitution. There is no sexist word in the Constitution. It is written for We, the people and every word in it is sex-neutral, like person, citizen, elector, and Senator. I don't know what they're complaining about. You can do whatever you want.

Yesterday, Chris Jankowski, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, said that it's hard to recruit women to run for office because Republicans don't value women as much as men.

What you said is ridiculous, and the guy who said it has been influenced by feminist propaganda. I can tell you why it's hard to recruit women. I have run for office. I ran twice for Congress. Women don't like to do what you have to do to get elected in the same proportion that men do. It's just plain tough: eat all those bad chicken dinners, travel all the time, expose yourself to attack by the other side all the time. And if you get elected to Congress, you may live a couple of thousand miles away from home. There will never be a large proportion of women who choose that lifestyle as compared to men. So stop complaining.

You argue that radical feminists have pushed for easier divorce laws to destroy the traditional family unit.

Of course, radical feminists push for divorce. They think men are not necessary, and they'd really like to get rid of them. The easy divorce law should be called unilateral divorce: it means one spouse can break a contract, and get out of solemn promises made in public before witnesses without the consent of the other party — without any fault on the side of the other party. That is so contrary to American constitutional law. Our Constitution is supposed to uphold the sanctity of contracts, but it doesn't.

…

We've seen a few scandals unfold in the past couple of weeks — the IRS targeting conservative groups, and the Justice Department secretly monitoring private communications at the Associated Press, Fox, and other news organizations. Do you agree with Steve King and Michele Bachmann that these scandals are worse than Watergate?

Well, of course the IRS scandal is much worse than Watergate. Watergate was just an ordinary little break in to an office. The harassment by the IRS, particularly of those who use Tea Party or Patriot in their titles, is just a total outrage. These groups had every right to get their status approved in a couple of weeks. Instead, they were harassed for years.

…

Do you agree with those on the right who say the recent scandals merit impeachment proceedings?

I think there are many reasons why Obama could be impeached, but I'm not leading that battle. I think the best way is for Congress to stand up and stop a lot of the mischief that he's doing which may be illegal. The Constitution makes it the duty of the president to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. He's got Eric Holder trying to overturn a law that was duly passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses and signed by Bill Clinton — namely, the Defense of Marriage Act. He's not taking care to see that the laws are faithfully executed. That's just one of his offenses.

Phyllis Schlafly has been going all out in opposition to comprehensive immigration reform, warning that would be “suicide for the GOP” and that it’s all part of President Obama’s plan to “destroy our system.”

So it makes sense that this month’s "Phyllis Schlafly Report" is devoted entirely to opposing immigration reform. In particular, Schlafly is worried that immigration authorities aren’t “vetting” immigration applicants to “make sure that the applicant really wants to become an American.” This, she claims, is more necessary than in the past because “the immigrants of earlier generations, Irish, Italian, Jewish, etc., certainly did want to be Americans; like Irving Berlin, their attitude was God Bless America.”

Schlafly is concerned as well that immigrants be made to “accept the rule that disputes in our courts must be decided according to U.S. law, not any foreign law,” a nod to the Right’s bogus “Sharia law” conspiracy theory.

But don’t read too much into this. After all, Schlafly has explicitly assured us that her opposition to immigration reform is “not racist, isolationist, nativist, or xenophobic.”

The vetting of immigrants should make sure that the applicant really wants to become an American. The immigrants of earlier generations, Irish, Italian, Jewish, etc., certainly did want to be Americans; like Irving Berlin, their attitude was God Bless America.

There is plenty of evidence that legal and illegal immigrants of various nationalities, in contravention of our citizenship pledge, retain their loyalty to the land they came from. Brian Fishman, who studies terrorism at the New America Foundation in Washington, says, “I think there’s often a sense of divided loyalties in these cases where Americans turn to violent jihad — are you American first or are you Muslim first?”

Our government should investigate thoroughly and reject those who do not want to become Americans, obey our Constitution and laws, speak our language, and salute our Flag. And they have to accept the rule that disputes in our courts must be decided according to U.S. law, not any foreign law.

Conservative columnist Sher Zieve posts an interview today with Christina Michas, head of the Palm Springs chapter of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum.

Michas, it turns out, is an expert in the sinister connection between Common Core education standards, Agenda 21 and Obamacare, the proponents of which, she has discovered, have the “ultimate goal” of setting up “internment or re-education camps for those that will not comply with their sick agenda.”

In particular, Michas tells Sher, “the comparison of Nazism and Common Core are uncanny.” In fact, she says, “If this isn’t Nazism, Communism, Marxism and all the ‘ism’s,’ I don’t know what is.”

“I know this sounds insane,” Michas adds,  “but sadly, it is a reality we are facing today.”

It’s difficult to summarize her arguments, but here are some excerpts:

Sher: Christina, thanks so much for being here with me, today. You are doing an extraordinary job of bringing the truth about what is happening in the government public school system in the USA…and it isn’t pretty.

During his brutal reign in Russia, in which he established the Soviet Union or USSR, created the Secret Police, established Siberian prison camps, killed thousands of peasants when they did not work as hard as the ruling Communist elites demanded or if they questioned anything these same Communists did, Vladimir Lenin also, said: “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” He was referring to the Luciferian Communist Party’s child education--aka indoctrination--system.

“Common Core” appears to have all of the earmarks of the old USSR’s programming system for children with several new innovative and chilling twists. It is also firmly tied to Agenda 21--the land-grabbing and human suppression and depopulation program.

…

Christina: The comparison of Nazism and Common Core (CC) are uncanny. One such comparison is that Nazism had Leaders and Master Teachers in the National Socialists Teachers League that visited schools and kept data files on Teachers. The Obama Administration funded 10,000 Master Teachers (MT’S) to train Teachers on CC and the MT’s will keep data files on students and Teachers. Students were taught to spy on parents and teachers. CC will have students as young as 5 participating in the evaluation of Teachers.

In Nazism, the curriculum was rewritten to provide a Nazi (government) approved curriculum. Common Core curriculum is being rewritten to provide a global approved curriculum. Nazism kept huge data files on students and teachers and Common Core will data mine the students with over 400 different data points on each child, their family and teachers from pre-kindergarten to workforce…

And one final comparison is Nazism had strong Teachers’ Unions (NSTL). We have but to look at how powerful the Teacher’s unions are in our country and only growing stronger in power and influence under this current Obama Administration’s unholy alliance with them at America’s expense and the expense of the education of our children.. The quality of the educational standards of our children has suffered at the hands of these Teachers’ Unions. Common Core is no different. Our children will suffer at the hand of a government controlled education system. They will no longer be able to have dreams and goals but only those that the government wishes them to have (UNESCO –A21). If this isn’t Nazism, Communism, Marxism and all the “ism’s”, I don’t know what is.

The worst part is they are lying to parents and teachers about what Common Core really is and the effects it will have. Teachers don’t even realize that their jobs are in jeopardy for, if they do not conform, they will be removed. But, then again, were not the people of Russia, Germany etc. all deceived until it was too late??

…

From reading these quotes and excerpts, we can see how Common Core ties into Agenda 21’s global goals for the New World Order. Control!! Control!!

The ultimate goal of UNESCO, via the nationalization of our education system is to create “ good global, sustainable citizens who will be “managed” by a Global Government. The ultimate goal is to have a “managed citizenry”, a managed economy, and a managed environment once again returning to Mother Earth worship.

This is where eugenics and William (Bill) Ayers, Obamacare, the Nationalization of our Economy, Energy, Health and Education systems comes into play. Ayers is a major driver behind Common Core and sadly is a very radical Professor today that has had much influence on students thinking … He and other key players including the Clinton’s, Bushes’, Gore, Gates, Soros, Rockefeller, Warren Buffet, Obama and his minions, etc. Understand that one cannot “manage” most of adult America today. The ultimate goal of these radicals from the UN, the US and other nations is to set up Internment or Re-education camps for those that will not comply with their sick agenda. You either are “retrained” or you will have to be eliminated.

The Healthcare Bill will take care of the “useless” senior population via “managed care”. The government will have free reign with the youth. You cannot change a nation unless you change how it thinks and operates…Hence, the lesson learned from Lenin, Stalin, Marx et al, “get the children and you change generations”…

I know this sounds insane, but sadly, it is a reality we are facing today. Don’t take my word for it, do your research.

 

Phyllis Schlafly has been on a tear after the Boston Marathon bombings, using the tragedy to call for the reinstatement of the House Un-American Activities Committee and a hold on comprehensive immigration reform.

In a syndicated column today, the Eagle Forum founder seizes on a report that some of the bombing suspects’ family members – all legal immigrants – received occasional welfare and food stamp assistance. “Tamerlan [Tsarnaev] can be said to have financed his radicalization with welfare handouts from our taxpayers,” she charges. She is also shocked that Tamerlan received a court-appointed attorney when he was charged with domestic violence in 2009.

Later in the column, Schlafly demands to know what immigration officials did when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was taking his citizenship oath “to assure that Dzhokhar was not using the Koran-authorized practice of taqiyya, i.e., tell a lie in order to advance Muslim objectives.” Officials should have been tipped off, she says, by the first name of his older brother, which is common in Central Asia.

Once admitted into the United States, the entire family cashed in on generous U.S. welfare benefits, cash and food stamps. Those receiving taxpayer handouts included the two criminal sons, both of their parents and, ultimately, Tamerlan's wife and child.

Tamerlan can be said to have financed his radicalization with welfare handouts from our taxpayers. Those were the years when Tamerlan became a more devout Muslim, gave up drinking in order to devote himself to "God's business" and sought out jihadist websites.

When accused of domestic violence against a girlfriend in 2009, he had the benefit of a taxpayer-funded attorney to get his case dismissed. Welfare was terminated only in 2012 when his wife's salary pushed their income outside of eligibility limits.

…

When the younger brother, Dzhokhar, was naturalized as a citizen. He would have been required to swear that he renounces "all allegiance" to any previous country and that "I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." What did our naturalization bureaucrats do to assure that Dzhokhar was not using the Koran-authorized practice of taqiyya, i.e., tell a lie in order to advance Muslim objectives?

Why didn't our FBI recognize the signal that the older boy was named for one of the most brutal murderers in all history? The name Tamerlan is known throughout Asia as a 14th-century Muslim who called himself the "Sword of Islam" and murdered 17 million people, beheaded many and displayed their heads to showcase his brutality.

On her Eagle Forum Live radio program last weekend, Phyllis Schlafly was joined by eminent conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi. Corsi, who is promoting his new book on the American Civil Liberties Union, told Schalfly that the ACLU and progressives are using the Supreme Court marriage cases as a way to enact hate speech laws and shut down churches. Schlafly agreed, saying, “I do think that the main goal of the homosexuals is to silence any criticism. Most of them aren’t interested in getting married.”

Later in the conversation, Schlafly compared a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality to the infamous Dred Scott decision.

Corsi: The ACLU has been very strong behind the same-sex marriage. They have a whole section of the ACLU devoted to the LGBT agenda, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. And, Phyllis, if we get the Supreme Court saying that there’s a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, I think the next thing that’s going to happen is that we’re going to see an attempt to define hate speech, any minister or priest who from the pulpit condemns homosexual behavior from a scriptural basis or on principles of Judeo-Christian faith. And following that, the left will not only try to close that church down, but they’ll do it through pressing to take the tax-exempt status away from the church because the priest or the minister doesn’t agree with their agenda and is now engaged in ‘hate speech.’

Schlafly: Well, I do think that the main goal of the homosexuals is to silence any criticism. Most of them aren’t interested in getting married. But I think that’s what they want to do, and they’re starting out by trying it in the schools.

…

Schlafly: If five people on the Supreme Court are able to overturn our definition of marriage, which we’ve had for centuries, we had even before the Pilgrims landed on the Atlantic coast, there’s something wrong with our system. As Abraham Lincoln said in a famous, in his First Inaugural, in describing the Dred Scott case, probably the worst decision in history, and he said, okay, we have to accept what they decided for poor old Dred Scott. But we don’t have to accept it as a precedent and as something that will rule us forever, and we’re going to get this overturned. And if we don’t, we will be just simply subjects of what he called ‘that imminent tribunal.’ And we need to speak out. And before they hand down that decision, you need to pray that they come to the right decision and you all need to get your pastor to tell his congregation to pray for it.

Earlier this week, we reported that Schlafly is calling for a reinstatement of the House Un-American Activities Committee in response to the Boston Marathon bombings. When a caller asked why the ACLU couldn’t be tried for “subversive activity,” Schlafly repeated her demand to reinstate HUAC, and Corsi agreed.

Caller: The question I have is, how is it that no one has taken the ACLU to task in the courtroom and basically charged them with subversive activity?

Schlafly: Well, personally, Dr. Corsi, I think we need a new House Un-American Activities Committee, but I’ll let you answer your way.

Corsi: I’m in favor of it.

Phyllis Schlafly wants America to get “back to basics.” And when it comes to preventing “marriage mayhem,” that means talking about sodomy, which is “a central feature of same-sex marriage.”

Specifically, it means talking about sodomy in the “Anglo American legal tradition,” from its criminalization in English common law as early as 1533 through the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v Hardwick upholding state sodomy laws.  In Schlafly’s April 15 Eagle Forum missive she admiringly quotes from Chief Justice Warren Burger’s concurrence in Bowers, in which he quotes 18^th Century commentator William Blackstone to the effect that sodomy is worse than rape:

English Common Law’s opposition to sodomy goes to the bottom of the tradition’s taproot. This progenitor of American law criminalized sodomy as early as 1533. And Sir William Blackstone, the late Eighteenth Century commentator foundational to American law, was quoted by Chief Justice Warren Burger in his concurrence in the Court’s Bowers decision: “[sodomy is] ‘the infamous crime against nature,’ an offense of ‘deeper malignity’ than rape, an heinous act ‘the very nature of which is a disgrace to human nature,’ and ‘a crime not fit to be named.’”

Schlafly doesn’t say that sodomy was punishable by death in Blackstone’s time; Burger's concurrence did note that it was a capital offence under Roman law.  But all this grand history was upended, Schlafly complains, with the Supreme Court’s “anti-tradition” decision in Lawrence v Texas, which overturned state sodomy laws and upheld the privacy and sexual freedom of consenting adults.  And that, she says, has led to the marriage equality cases currently being considered by the Court. Not surprisingly, Schlafly has strong opinions on those cases:

If the pro-homosexual rights forces win, that which is natural to the human race —marriage — is destroyed, and our venerable Constitution and legal tradition are slammed by Humanistic forces wanting to reconstruct American law and society on an anti-Judeo-Christian foundation.

Of course, Schlafly has her own “traditional” views about rape.  She has repeatedly denounced the concept of marital rape, saying that “when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about.” Last year Schlafly helped rally Religious Right support for Todd Akin when his remarks about “legitimate rape” were dooming his Senate campaign. 

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) appeared Saturday on Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly and criticized the Republican National Committee’s endorsement of comprehensive immigration reform. King said that the GOP instead should focus on pushing for a contiguous border fence along the US-Mexico border, saying that “our public policy people” have no excuse since the Chinese built the Great Wall of China.

Later, while speaking to a caller named Meryl who complained that undocumented immigrants have trespassed on her property in Missouri, King said that if the US gives up on the rule of law in favor of “open borders” then we will become like “Third World countries” where the rich will construct fences and walls around their houses and install panic rooms.

Of course I supported the fence and we heard the arguments against the fence, people said, ‘well you can’t build a 2,000 mile long fence,’ as if somehow that would be too much of an engineering marvel. Well we can do the Panama Canal 100 years-plus ago and I’ve been over there to take a look at the Great Wall of China that was built more than 2,000 years ago, and that’s 5,500 miles long and you can march armies down the top of it, the Japanese did that. So building a fence is not that hard; I’ll just show you how to do it if it’s too complicated for our public policy people to get their mind around.

…

What occurs to me is that you say you need a fence around your own property, if you go to Third World countries and look around you see that is what they do. If they don’t have the rule of law, if they don’t have law and order, if lawlessness prevails then the more wealthy build a better, more effective barrier around their own compounds. In Mexico, there are plenty of fences that go around people’s homes to protect them from lawlessness, but if we’d line them up around the border we could easily build the border fence that we need. I’m thinking in places in the Caribbean or in Africa where there’s no law or very little law, they build a fence, sometimes a fence and a wall, and the wall will often have broken glass in the border on top and they’ll have an alarm system and inside that they’ll even have a safe room that they can go into to wait for people to rob them so maybe they don’t get killed. That’s what happens if you give up the rule of law and we have the rule of law still in this country but in these areas, in your neighborhood Meryl, that gives us a precursor, a look into what’s to come if we have a nation with open borders.

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly spoke earlier this week to Sandy Rios of the American Family Association about the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which Schlafly called a “terrible” law that “would have been an excellent place to cut” spending. She lamented that “Republicans are just scared by the feminists” when “they ought to stand up and show how really vicious they are.”

Schlafly: It’s a terrible bill. At this time when we’re talking about the sequester and trying to cut here and there, that would have been an excellent place to cut.

Rios: You know I’m sure that you’ve heard Phyllis that Eric Cantor, it’s been reported by conservative Republican aides that in a private meeting he threatened conservatives that there would be civil war if they didn’t allow this to be brought out on the floor for a vote. They are so concerned that the press and the country is going to think they don’t like women because they’ve been so burned through the last campaign. If they had listened to you what would you have said to them about that?

Schlafly: Well the Violence Against Women Act was a payoff to the feminists for endorsing Bill Clinton and the Republicans are just scared by the feminists, which is very unfortunate, they ought to stand up and show how really vicious they are.

At the end of the interview, she told Rios that “we need to train the men” how to fight feminists: “It isn’t natural for men to fight women and it’s just very hard for the men to stand up to the feminists” and their “many nutty ideas.”

Schlafly: We need to train the men. It isn’t natural for men to fight women and it’s just very hard for the men to stand up to the feminists. But the feminists control the Obama administration and they have so many nutty ideas. They’ve been trying to tell us that there really isn’t any difference between the genders, they are interchangeable, but then when it comes to the matter of domestic violence they enforce all these stereotypes and it’s just so wrong.

Apparently, President Obama and John Brennan aren’t the only secret Muslim agents in the administration.

Yesterday, Vic Eliason of Voice of Christian Youth America interviewed Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly about Chuck Hagel, who is set to be confirmed as secretary of defense later today. Adding to the other ridiculous, last-ditch efforts to sink Hagel’s nomination, Eliason asked Schlafly about wild allegations “that Mr. Hagel has become or has been a part of Islam, he’s Islamic.” Rather than specifically address Eliason’s question, Schlafly said that since Obama “gives a pass to Islam” in “his attack on religion,” Americans “have to be on guard on that all the time.”

The two then went on to praise Hagel-critic Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily, who must be taking a break from his usual endeavors of exposing Obama’s foreign birthplace, secret Muslim faith and gay past.

Eliason: Phyllis, there have been those that allege that Mr. Hagel has become or has been a part of Islam, he’s Islamic. What substance is on this thing?

Schlafly: Hagel is the most dangerous appointee for secretary of defense we’ve ever had, he’s got so many things wrong with him. He’s for getting rid of our nuclear weapons, he’s for downplaying our anti-missile defense and he’s even for signing onto the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would give some more foreign people the opportunity to make decisions about our policies. Whereas we know the whole world is better off if we have military superiority. Well, when we talk about Obama and his attack on religion he gives a pass to Islam. So, we have to be on guard on that all the time.

Eliason: Well our good friend Jerry Corsi from over at WND had an interesting statement here, of course he refers to Mr. Hagel: ‘A former Nobel Peace Prize nominee warns that Senate confirmation of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense would send a message to Iran of weakened U.S. resolve, making it less likely America’s military might would in any way deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions.’

Schlafly: Well Jerry Corsi is very reliable and I would take his words very seriously, that’s absolutely true. I think it so dangerous to have Hagel as secretary of defense, who is trying to implement all of the pacifist ideas that Obama has.

She also agreed with a caller who claimed that officials like Hagel need to identify President Obama as “the enemy” of America.

Later, Schlafly compared the American policy of Cold War deterrence to the current policy for “dealing with the Islam,” while noting that “the Muslims are different” than the Soviets as “they seem to like to commit suicide.”

Schlafly’s classification of all Muslims as terrorists was part of a bizarre argument that criticized Hagel for supposedly seeking to do away with America’s nuclear arsenal that she claims we need to scare terrorists who also are not at all afraid of our nuclear weapons.

Schlafly: I want to point out one difference between dealing with the Communists and dealing with the Islam. When the Communists in Russia were in charge we had a policy called mutually assured destruction which we called MAD and it was that they knew that if they dropped a bomb on New York City we’d hit back and wipe them out and that was supposed to deter them from doing any bad attack. But the Muslims are different; they seem to like to commit suicide. I don’t think they are going to be deterred by that type of an attitude and we have to make sure that we have the weapons that are enough to scare them that they never attack in the first place.