Eagle Forum

Yesterday, Phyllis Schlafly traveled to South Carolina to speak to at The Citadel, which now offers a course entitled the "Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America."

Speaking to an all-male audience, Schlafly assured them that women don't care about the issue of contraception and warned them not to date feminists:

The recent political flap about contraception being an important issue for women is completely contrived by Democrats and the media to divert attention from abortion and other important issues, said conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly.

“Contraception is not controversial,” she said. “The issue is not access. It’s who’s going to pay for it.”

...

Most women are concerned about issues such as jobs and religious liberty, Schlafly said, not issues being drummed up by feminists to foster support for President Barack Obama.

And feminists are working through the media and other channels because the American public no longer seems to strongly support their agenda, Schlafly said. “Feminists are having a hard time being elected because they essentially are unlikable,” she said.

Schlafly talked to a group of Citadel students about the culture of conservatism and the history of the religious right. She told the all-male group that “feminist is a bad word and everything they stand for is bad.”

And she warned them about having personal relationships with feminists. “Find out if your girlfriend is a feminist before you get too far into it,” she said. “Some of them are pretty. They don’t all look like Bella Abzug.”

Yesterday the US Senate voted 51-48 to kill the Blunt Amendment to the transportation bill that would have given employers the right to deny insurance coverage for any treatment that they objected to for any reason, representing a major setback for Religious Right groups who urged passage of the extreme amendment.

Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink called the vote an affront to the First Amendment, although it is hard to see how anyone’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is being violated:

“Today the government, this time via Congress, again told Americans they must ‘conform or pay a price’ when it comes to their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion,” he said. “Americans are speaking out because they understand that they should not be forced to fight to protect what the Constitution already grants them under the First Amendment.”

National Right to Life Committee claimed that the mandate was part of an “abortion-expansionist agenda, even though neither abortions nor abortifacients are included in the new rule:

The Obama Administration has issued an initial mandate that requires nearly all employers to purchase plans that cover all FDA-approved methods of birth control. NRLC has pointed out that the same authority could be employed by the Administration in the future to order virtually all health plans to cover all abortions. The focus now shifts to the House, where the same legislation, introduced as H.R. 1179 by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Ne.), currently has 220 cosponsors (more than half of all House members). In addition, numerous lawsuits have been filed by religiously affiliated employers, challenging the Obama mandate as a violation of constitutional rights and of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

"National Right to Life will continue to challenge the Obama Administration's abortion-expansionist agenda on Capitol Hill, and we will encourage millions of like-minded Americans to remember this issue when they cast their ballots in November," said Carol Tobias, National Right to Life president.

Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly said that contraceptives “are not really medical care”:

"The contraceptive mandate is an introduction to the real ObamaCare, whereby a handful of leftists in D.C. impose the views of their big-money donors on more than 300 million Americans," said Schlafly. "If the Obama Administration's contraceptive mandate remains intact, then liberals will continue to demand that Americans pay for objectionable items and services that are not really medical care."

Tony Perkins of FRCAction warned that the Constitution has been “sacrificed”:

"Today, 51 senators, led by Sen. Harry Reid, sacrificed the Constitutional right of religious liberty on the altar of the Obama administration's radical big-government agenda. They turned a deaf ear to the very real religious and moral objections of millions of Americans and the First Amendment rights of all.

Concerned Women for America’s Penny Nance maintained that the mandate was part of a growing “oppressive federal bureaucracy”:

"America's women refuse to accept this unconstitutional government order," said Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America. The Obama Administration's HHS Mandate demolishes our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and conscience rights."

"Churches, religious organizations, and people of faith and conscience must have the right to choose their own health care and make their own moral decisions without having to submit to the one size fits all policies of President Obama and Secretary Sebelius' oppressive federal bureaucracy," Nance said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last week on Eagle Forum Live, Phyllis Schlafly’s guest host Bill Borst had WorldNetDaily researcher Brenda J. Elliott on to discuss her new book written with WND’s Aaron Klein. The book, Red Army, is the sequel to their book The Manchurian President. Red Army purportedly exposes “a radical socialist movement has been quietly infiltrating the major institutions of American power” and “the multipronged policy offensive aimed at disarming America.” Elliott told Borst that President Obama is merely a “useful idiot” of this shadowy, socialist network and didn’t hold back on the book’s conspiratorial nature, exclaiming, “it is a conspiracy!” “The word conspiracy theory has been really distorted,” Elliott said, “it’s been made to sound like something loony, and it’s not loony, it’s not loony!”

Borst: Brenda we were talking about President Barack Obama and the “Red Army,” how important is he to this army? Is he like the leader? Or is he a mere commissar or just a peon, so to speak?

Elliott: He’s a useful idiot. He doesn’t bring anything to the table except for a willingness to go along with the agenda. You could’ve plugged in somebody else but he’s just a guy who was in the right place at the right time.

…

Borst: They want to cripple America I guess, right?

Elliott: Absolutely. America, you know, is just too good of a country, we’re just too arrogant and we need to lower our standards to help out other country so they can prosper as well. Barack Obama has set back American history and American exceptionalism to almost day one, it’s very frightening. Do we have an absolute reason for why they want to do this? Stupidity is my answer. Honestly folks it is a conspiracy, two people is all it takes for a conspiracy and an intent to make something happen, that’s a conspiracy. The word conspiracy theory has been really distorted, it’s been made to sound like something loony, and it’s not loony, it’s not loony!

Yesterday Eagle Forum’s Court Watch released yet another attack on “Reconstructionist (i.e., ‘activist/liberal’) judges,” who, they claim, “are leading the assault on America's Judeo-Christian foundations in our nation's Culture War.” Eagle Forum put together a Sample Resolution for members which the group said can be used as a “weapon” in “an election and at other times when petition-type expressions of our views and values are appropriate.” The resolution begins:

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is, and must be, the Supreme Law of the Land, superior to all court decisions;
WHEREAS, the Constitution must be interpreted in the light of its text, constitutional tradition, and its Judeo-Christian foundation;
WHEREAS, the Constitution contains nothing that requires a "wall of separation between church and state";
WHEREAS, a total separation of religion and law/government is impossible;
WHEREAS, the Framers of the Constitution did not intend that a total separation be attempted;
WHEREAS, the English Common Law in which American law is rooted was Christianized;
WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court does not require a total separation between "church and state";
WHEREAS, Reconstructionist (activist/liberal) federal judges have blatantly assaulted these fundamental Constitutional principles and have re-written them under the guise of interpreting them;
AND WHEREAS, We, the people, still possess the ultimate human political power in this nation and have delegated to the President and Congress in the Constitution very broad powers to establish and empower national courts;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT ________ actively supports
1. the Congressional denial of jurisdiction to courts to hear challenges to either the verbal or non-verbal acknowledgement of God — i.e., "God" meaning the Deity central to the Ten Commandments - on public property and in official utterances such as (but not limited to) the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto.
2. Congressional refusal to recognize, fund, or otherwise enforce court decisions that prohibit either the verbal or non-verbal acknowledgement of God — i.e., "God" meaning the Deity central to the Ten Commandments — on public property and in official utterances such as (but not limited to) the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto.

Eagle Forum’s assertion that the Constitution has a “Judeo-Christian foundation” because “the English Common Law in which American law is rooted was Christianized,” appears to challenge the beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, whose “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” is widely considered the basis for the First Amendment.

Professor Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College on Tuesday pointed to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Thomas Cooper, in which Jefferson dissects and debunks claims that British common law is based in Christianity. “But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686,” Jefferson writes, referring to the common law introduced by the Saxon settlers of England. “Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.” He goes on to say:

But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

In fact, Jefferson skewers those in England who tried to implement biblical law, much like many on the Religious Right attempt to do today, arguing that the gospel was “intended by their benevolent author as obligatory only in foro concientiae” (obligations of conscience, not law), and that the Ten Commandments were never incorporated into common law:

In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has ever made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law; ante 873: the first judicial declaration of which was by this same Sir Matthew Hale. And thus they incorporate into the English code laws made for the Jews alone, and the precepts of the gospel, intended by their benevolent author as obligatory only in foro concientiae; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them; but they swallow the yea and nay together. Finally, in answer to Fortescue Aland’s question why the ten commandments should not now be a part of the common law of England? we may say they are not because they never were made so by legislative authority, the document which has imposed that doubt on him being a manifest forgery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

Yesterday on Eagle Forum Live, Phyllis Schlafly’s guest host Bill Borst and author J. R. Dunn discussed how liberalism is responsible for millions upon millions of deaths throughout the world and that because of the election of Barack Obama, the lethal ideology is going to take over America. Dunn was promoting his book “Death by Liberalism,” arguing that Rachel Carson, one of the forerunners of the modern environmental movement who has been demonized by the chemical industry, is “one of the few people along with Karl Marx who’s responsible for millions of deaths by writing a book alone.” Dunn and Borst agreed that liberals have no problem with the millions of people supposedly dying from their policies because it is simply “collateral damage”:

Borst: And they don’t seem to get bothered by that, it’s sort of like collateral damage in a war?

Dunn: It doesn’t impact. You can even bring this up to them and it’s kind of a shrug, like, so what?

Borst: Right, they treat life, you said, ‘malleable,’ right. I don’t think they really think people are important. It’s a form of socialism, that people exist for the good of the state, am I right?

Dunn: I would say so, it’s not even so much the state as for the good of the idea, liberalism has to survive. Everything else can go out the window.

Borst: You talk about Rachel Carlson in your book and ‘Silent Spring,’ I think that woman probably has more blood on her hands that any woman I can name, do you agree with that?

Dunn: The way I put it in the book is that she’s one of the few people along with Karl Marx who’s responsible for millions of deaths by writing a book alone.

Borst: Americans are taught not to judge, right? Does that help liberalism? Does that help advance the liberal cause? In other words, we’re taught not to search for motivations, don’t judge motivations

Dunn: I would say it does.

Borst: See what I’m working I think these people know exactly what they’re doing, I think they know people will die, and as you said before I think they’re very cavalier and don’t really care.

Dunn: Collateral damage.

Borst: Exactly.

Dunn: Collateral damage. It’s something we can live with. One of the saying that they like that they don’t speak too loudly in public is, ‘you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.’

Borst: So I guess my point is, have we crossed that line? With these people working actively.

Dunn: That’s a good question. That’s one thing that we wouldn’t find out about until its twenty years on.

Only a few years ago Religious Right groups and Republicans were running as far as possible away from the Personhood Colorado campaign, the effort to pass an extreme anti-choice measure that was twice handily defeated by Colorado voters. Last year, the National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, Colorado Citizens for Life all refused to back the Colorado personhood amendment, and the Colorado Eagle Forum called the personhood campaign a “disaster.”

But now, the Personhood Mississippi campaign –which is nearly identical to the Colorado effort – has received the support of prominent Republican leaders including Mike Huckabee and anti-choice groups such as the American Family Association, Liberty Counsel and the Family Research Council.

The campaign to pass the personhood amendment, called Amendment 26, is led by the head of the extreme Mississippi Constitution Party and a member of Christian Exodus, which wanted to have states secede from the U.S. in order to form a new theocratic system of government. Designed to challenge Roe v. Wade, the amendment would criminalize abortion in all cases and also ban the treatment of ectopic pregnancies, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research and certain forms of birth control.

Huckabee addressed a fundraiser for the personhood campaign and urged activists to give money because pro-choice activists only want to “make people rich” by keeping abortion legal. “This isn’t about elevating women,” Huckabee said, “this is about elevating wealth on behalf of those who profit from the sale of death.”

Watch:

But here’s what I don’t assume. I do not assume that you comprehend the battle you’re gonna face over the next couple of months in this fight for Amendment 26. You have no idea how many millions of dollars are likely to be poured into your state and it’s not stimulus money and economic development and job creation, it is hardcore political money that is designed to preserve the abortion industry which is a multimillion dollar industry specifically designed in order to terminate life and make people rich. Let’s not kid ourselves; this is not about elevating women this is about elevating wealth on behalf of those who profit from the sale of death.

…

The reason that America is more pro-life than it ever has been is because the younger generation of Americans are more pro-life than their mothers and their grandmothers. And do you know why? Because science has affirmed what God has been trying to scream to us all along: that is a human life! Thank God for the science that’s affirmed it.

• Rick Perry is on a bit of a pledge-signing binge lately.
• Bryan Fischer debunks evolution in four easy steps.
• I think the fact that IWF is upset about this is itself proof that "we have reached the point of insanity."
• Note to Frank Turek: that is not actually the definition of bigotry. In fact, the definition you give is, ironically, kind of the definition of ignorance.
• The Eagle Forum has released its candidate questionnaire [PDF].
• It seems that any government official who thinks nonreligious views should be equally recognized "should be removed from office."