Phyllis Schlafly

Schlafly Speculates that Obama Wants to Remove all the Crosses from Arlington National Cemetery

On AFA's "Today's Issues" program this morning, host Tim Wildmon interviewed Phyllis Schlafly about her new book "No Higher Power: Obama's War on Religious Freedom," which seems to basically be a catalog of the Religious Right's various complaints and allegations about President Obama's supposed hatred of Christianity and Christian values.

During the discussion, Schlafly and Wildmon falsely claimed that Obama removed the word "Creator" whenever he quotes from the Declaration of Independence and that he was the only President in history not to celebrate the National Day of Prayer before Schlafly speculated that Obama might eventually order the removal of all the crosses from Arlington Memorial Cemetery:

Schlafly: For example, every time he quotes from the Declaration of Independence, he omits the word "Creator." That's very strange; we all know what the Declaration says and he just omits that.

Wildmon: I remember the first year he was in the office, he did not recognize the National Day of Prayer in a proclamation - oh, excuse me, he didn't have any kind of public ceremony ...

Schlafly: That's right, he didn't have anything at the White House, which all the other presidents have done and he said he would pray in private.

Wildmon: So he didn't want to publicly acknowledge the God of our fathers, which has always been done by all presidents in the White House up until President Obama. President Obama says "I'm not going to recognize God, the Christian God, I'll pray in private." Well, that's not a leader!

...

Schlafly: You were talking a minute ago about Arlington Cemetery; if you haven't been there, I'm sure you've seen pictures of all the crosses there and I just wonder if the day is going to come when they want to take down all those crosses.

As we have noted before, Obama has included the word "Creator" when citing the Declaration dozens of times, so Schlafly is flat-out wrong.  

As for the National Day of Prayer, it didn't even exist until 1952, and President George W. Bush was the only president to organize regular White House events, so it is also false to claim that events were hosted "by all presidents in the White House up until President Obama." 

Radio Host Mason Weaver: Liberal Mindset Legitimizes Criminal Activity

During a recent appearance on Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum Live radio show, conservative radio talk show host Mason Weaver, whom Schlafly introduced as “a very articulate black” who is urging African Americans to “get a life” and “get off the plantation.”

Schlafly: Our guest today is Mason Weaver, who is a very articulate black, he is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, and he’s trying to encourage blacks to get a life, get off the plantation, make something of yourself and stop depending on Uncle Sam to give you everything from food to childcare for your kids.

He described the feminist movement as “anti-God”, and insisted that liberal social policy, (in this case referred to euphemistically as ‘the other man’) breeds dependency and thus promotes and justifies criminal activity. Schlafly’s organization recently lamented the downward trend in the white birth rate, and Schalfly herself has said wistfully that the United States “was a lot better off before 1962,” before the civil rights movement had made major gains.

Schlafly: And you realize the disaster the feminist movement has been in this country because they’re anti-men, and anti-husbands, and anti-masculine, and when they talk about liberation…

Weaver: They’re anti-God, that’s all it is.

Schlafly: Yeah.

Weaver: They’re anti-God. The feminist movement was created to have another front on the attack on masculinity. It’s an attack on the culture in the family, it’s an attack on success. They want dependency, they want failure, they want themselves to be in charge, it’s just simply agreed on their part.

Schlafly: And they want everybody, blacks and women, to believe they’re victims of society. And of course if you wake up in the morning and you think you’re a victim, how far are you going to get?

Weaver: Well think about the male ego. If you convince a 20 year old man, black or white, that another man controls his family, his health, his income, his job, why go get a job? The other man controls it. Why go out and try to earn something? He’s going to take it from you. But you also feel justified in criminal activity, in not respecting your family. If you buy the liberal mindset of yourself, as a black man, you are by definition depressed.

Schlafly: That's right.

Schlafly Screed on Obama's 'Hostility'

As RWW readers know, there is no end to the Religious Right’s dishonest campaign to portray Barack Obama as an enemy of faith and freedom.  The latest salvo from Phyllis Schlafly on the president’s “record of hostility to religion” is a litany of the Religious Right’s favorite horror stories, half-truths, distortions, and outright falsehoods, wrapped up in a sweeping assertion:
When Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally transform the United States” we could not have anticipated the extreme transformations he would seek. The evidence is rolling in that he is determined to transform America into a totally secular land where religion is permitted only within the walls of a church, but is banned in every public place, public gathering and public school….
Barack Obama is trying to morph our traditional religious liberty to the lesser scope of freedom of worship. That means worship only inside a church, or maybe a synagogue, but not any public affirmation of belief in God.
Schlafly must have missed Obama’s inauguration, not to mention the administration’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and ongoing federal funding of religiously affiliated social service organizations.   Or perhaps she cares less about the truth than about convincing conservative Christians that Obama is their enemy.

New Religious Right Film Warns Judges will 'Destroy the Country'

Many conservatives took a break over the summer from their typical screeds against so-called judicial activism as they demanded the Supreme Court step in and overturn the 2010 health care reform law. After the court upheld the law, they simply decried the ruling as “activism” anyway, further proving that right-wing activists see cases of judicial activism as really just decisions they disagree with.

Now, Truth in Action Ministries has released a new film, Freedom on Trial, featuring Robert Bork, the failed Supreme Court nominee and a senior adviser to Mitt Romney, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, Christian Reconstructionist attorney Herb Titus and Heritage Foundation vice president Genevieve Wood, among other conservative speakers who denounce the judiciary for “circumventing the Constitution and legislating from the bench.” Freedom on Trial focuses on the usual conservative criticisms of Supreme Court decisions regarding organized prayer in public schools, reproductive rights and LGBT equality. Bork warns that courts are “teaching the people that religion is evil” and Titus claims that decisions that go against the Ten Commandments will “destroy the country” while rulings in favor of LGBT rights are “making a certain sexual behavior straight when it is crooked and the nation will self-destruct.”

Watch highlights here:

Talk Show Host: Karl Marx Created Climate Change to Destroy Capitalism

Earlier we reported that James Dobson warned that the environmental movement is a “Satanic” effort to help radical Islamists and Cal Beisner claimed that the movement is modeling itself after Satan. Conservative talk show host and Eco-Tyranny author Brian Sussman appeared yesterday on Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly and identified yet another sinister force behind the environmental movement. Sussman claims that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels not only created the environmental movement but also the nefarious, anti-capitalist and anti-Christian notion of man-influenced climate change. And now, Sussman says, they have a powerful disciple in the White House:

1883, you had two well-known left-wing thinkers who had a pretty big audience, these were people who hated capitalism and hated Christianity as well, they wanted to liquidate Christianity, they came up with a scenario, they said, ‘capitalism produces pollution and that pollution could change the climate and bring us into an ice age that would destroy all species.’

That was 1883, they put together this wild theory to destroy capitalism by scaring people of the coming ice age. Those two thinkers were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this was 1883. Might I just add Phyllis, the left hasn’t left this, first it was global cooling, then it was global warming, then it was global cooling, then it was global warming, and now it’s just a catchall phrase known as climate change and the fact of the matter is there isn’t substantial science to back any of these claims up.



Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and their ilk, they don’t care about capitalism, they don’t care about free market opportunities, they want a planned and controlled economy because they believe that most of us our incapable of running our own lives and the scary thing is now, Phyllis, we have these people in all levels of government of the United States, including in the White House and the West Wing of the White House.

Religious Right Filmmaker Urges Parents to Take Children out of 'Godless and Pagan' Public Schools

Yesterday, Phyllis Schlafly hosted E. Ray Moore on Eagle Forum Live to discuss the Christian Reconstructionist film, “IndoctriNation,” about the supposedly destructive nature of the public school system. Moore called public schools the “main culprit” on why young adults leave the church, likening it to “playing Russian Roulette with your children’s souls.” Throughout the show he said parents are mandated by the Bible to homeschool their children to place them in Christian schools, saying that while public schools are “godless and pagan by precept and design,” there should be “God in the math class and in the science class as much as in the Bible class.”

Moore: We have so much research showing that Christian children who stay in these government schools through their career, 80% of them of what we would call evangelical Christians are adopting a secular humanist or Marxist/Socialist worldview. We also know that we’re having terrible attrition in the Christian family when children get to be college age, 70-80% of them are dropping out of the church and just abandoning the Christian faith, and we believe that the main culprit for that also is the fact that so many Christians have left their children in these public schools.

Schlafly: Well we’re told that the public schools are trying to be religiously neutral, do you think that’s true?

Moore: No they’re not religiously neutral, they’re godless and pagan by precept and design. That’s another myth that we have to deal with that somehow math and science are religiously neutral, no, we want God in the math class and in the science class as much as in the Bible class.



Moore: Our own research shows 17-20% of Christian children seemed to have survived the experience.

Schlafly: Those aren’t very good odds.

Moore: It’s playing Russian Roulette with your children’s souls is what you’re doing.

Southern Baptist Convention's Political Arm Pushes Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act

While the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, is mired in scandal resulting from ERLC head Richard Land’s repeated plagiarism and inflammatory remarks on race, it has found time to criticize the Violence Against Women Act. Doug Carlson, manager for administration and policy communications for the ERLC, voiced the group’s opposition to the highly successful law because of new provisions that ensure that LGBT victims of domestic violence do not encounter discrimination while seeking help.

Carlson quoted a letter Richard Land signed along with Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, Jim Garlow of Renewing American Leadership Action, Tom McClusky of Family Research Council Action, C. Preston Noell of Tradition, Family, Property Inc., Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum and Penny Nance and Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America.

Notably, the letter was also signed by conservative activist Timothy Johnson, who was convicted of a felony domestic violence charge and was arrested a second time for putting his wife in a wrist lock and choking his son, as reported by Sarah Posner.

Carlson writes:

Under the reauthorization, VAWA, as the bill is known, would spend vast sums of taxpayer money—more than $400 million each year—on programs that lack sufficient oversight and fail to address the core issue of protecting vulnerable women from abuse. Many of the programs duplicate efforts already underway. Among other problems, it would expand special protections to include same-sex couples. Men who are victimized by their male sexual partners would receive the benefit of the law above heterosexuals. And with broadened definitions of who qualifies for services, those who are most in need of the bill’s protections would have diminished access to it.



Pro-family groups, too, have been leveling attacks on the bill for months for its anti-family policies. Many of them expressed those concerns to the Judiciary Committee in February in hopes of derailing the bill. “We, the undersigned, representing millions of Americans nationwide, are writing to oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),” Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land, along with nearly two dozen other religious and conservative leaders, wrote in a Feb. 1 letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This nice-sounding bill is deceitful because it destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda.”

“There is no denying the very real problem of violence against women and children. However, the programs promoted in VAWA are harmful for families. VAWA often encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence,” they added.

Regrettably, a slim majority of committee members rejected that counsel, ultimately approving the bill in February on a narrow 10-8 vote. Now the battle lies in the full Senate, where those opposed to the new VAWA are facing significant pressure to support it. Allies of the bill are tagging its opponents as waging a “war on women.”

But no matter how noble its title suggests, the Violence Against Women Act is the wrong answer to addressing ongoing domestic abuse. With a shortage of evidence to date of VAWA’s success in reducing levels of violence against women, the war to decrease such violence and to ultimately strengthen the family shouldn’t include reauthorizing a flawed policy that promises an expansion of the same.

Schlafly's Schtick

Phyllis Schlafly is an all-around right-wing activist who has been around forever. You could say she was Tea Party before her time, railing against liberals and taxes and the UN's threat to US sovereignty. Her 2009 "How to Take Back America" conference was an amazing gathering at which health care reform was described as fascism, President Obama was described by Rep. Trent Franks as an "enemy of humanity," and attendees were encouraged to buy guns and ammo to defend themselves against impending tyranny.

But Schlafly’s real bread and butter is the hostility to feminism that fueled her campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment – and it was her anti-feminist schtick that she brought to George Washington University in D.C. last night.  I use the word schtick because it’s hard to take seriously Schlafly’s caricature of feminists as anti-men, anti-marriage, anti-family, and anti-child-rearing, not to mention claims like these:

  • “Feminists don’t have any role models of happiness.”
  • “They don’t believe that women can be successful. You never hear the feminists  talking about really successful  women like Margaret Thatcher or Condaleeza Rice, they just don’t believe women can be successful…that’s why they hate Sarah Palin….”

What?  Feminists don’t believe women can be successful?  That didn’t ring true to the many GW students, women and men, who politely protested Schlafly’s appearance.  During the Q&A, one challenged Schlafly directly, saying her mother is a feminist, a role model of happiness, and had instilled in her children a love of family.  The student said Schlafly seemed to be having a 40-year old argument with quotes plucked from early feminist writers.

Schlafly did have her admirers.  The young woman who introduced her said Schlafly had given her an example of how to stand up against the emerging “gender-interchangeable society.”  Schlafly returned to that theme later, saying that feminists don’t want equality for women, they want “gender interchangeability.”

Schlafly reveled in the recent flap about Ann Romney never having to work outside the home, since she saw it as proof that feminists have no respect for mothers who choose to answer to a husband rather than a boss.  But Schlafly was not on message with the Romney campaign’s claims that women have accounted for almost all job losses during the Obama administration.  Schlafly, who repeatedly claimed that the Obama administration is utterly controlled by feminists, “proved” her case by saying that feminists had successfully demanded that most jobs created by federal stimulus funds went to women.

Schlafly touched on a few other issues, such as her opposition to marriage equality (though she seemed to say she didn’t think civil unions were worth fighting about).  And she pushed the same theme being pushed by Ralph Reed and other strategists trying to build a broad electoral coalition: you can’t separate fiscal and social conservatism.  She took a shot at Mitch Daniels for seeking a “truce” on social values, something she called “impossible.”

In the end, she told the young women, they should get married before having babies, and they should ignore feminists who might poison their attitude toward life by telling them that women are victims of the patriarchy. She derided the notion of a "glass ceiling" and denied that unequal pay is a problem. Men, she said, are willing to do dangerous jobs that women aren't, because "women like nice inside jobs with carpeted offices." American women, she said, are the most fortunate people who have ever lived.  Why, in Africa, she said, some women have to wash their clothing in the river.  “We have all these wonderful modern conveniences that men have invented for our pleasure.”  

 

Schlafly: 'American Women are the Most Fortunate People who Ever Lived on this Earth'

Earlier this month, we posted a report on remarks that Phyllis Schlafly delivered to a class at The Citadel entitled the "Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America" during which she warned the cadets not to date feminists.

The Citadel has finally posted the video of Schlafly's appearance, which turned out to be an excruciatingly dull hour and forty five minutes of Schlafly railing against feminism and gay marriage and abortion to a group of cadets who, based on the question and answer session toward the end, clearly did not share many of her views.

The bulk of Schlafly's remarks was dedicated to recounting the rise of the conservative movement and her efforts to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, which she said was unnecessary because "women have had every constitutional right men have [had] since the day it was written" ... which seems like a rather odd statement considering that the Constitution had to be specifically amended to give women the right to vote.

We managed to grab a few "highlights" from Schlafly's remarks, such as we she said that feminism "is a bad word and everything they stand for is bad and destructive" because "American women are the most fortunate people who ever lived on this earth." 

She then went on to explain that the true motive of feminists is to destroy the stay-at-home mother as a model because it gives men an advantage over women in the workplace.  As Schlafly explained it, men have wives at home cooking them dinner and raising their children and the feminist "is insanely jealous of that [and since] she can't have a wife of her own, she wants to abolish the wife of the man."

Finally, she warned the cadets not to date women who are feminists, no matter how pretty they are and offered a surefire way to know whether a woman is a feminist or not - simply ask her how she feels about Phyllis Schlafly:

Jay Richards claims Marriage Equality is Incompatible with 'Individual Rights' and 'Limited Government'

Intelligent Design activist Jay Richards of the Discovery Institute, who recently coauthored the book Indivisible with televangelist James Robison, appeared on Phyllis Schlafly’s radio program Eagle Forum Live this week where he argued that those who believe in individual rights and limited government should oppose the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. Richards maintained that stopping the legalization of same-sex marriage is needed to defend the rights of individuals, and argued that since marriage is “outside the jurisdiction of the state” same-sex couples cannot take part in it.

Richards: We argue that there are other pre-political realities besides just the individual that a limited government has to recognize and marriage is one of those realities, it’s a universal human institution, we find it in every time and place, in every culture, every religious tradition has this basic concept of marriage as between one man and one woman with a special connection to children. So a limited government is going to recognize that institution rather than try to redefine it, so that’s why we think, in fact, if you believe in limited government you need to believe in laws that protect marriage as it actually is historically. The institution of marriage is one of those things that is outside the jurisdiction of the state, so quite apart from the consequences, we think, if you believe that government should recognize individual rights, then you need to believe that the government is also going to recognize the rights and realities of this institution which it can’t dictate.

P.S. Obama is a dictator. Love, Phyllis Schlafly

Here's an addition to our recap of right-wing direct mail, this time from Phyllis Schlafly, the long-time anti-feminist and all-around right wing activist.  Like most of the other recent mail, the letter from Schlafly is about raising money with over-the-top rhetoric about the tyranny being visited upon America by President Obama. "He's taken control of your healthcare and stolen your money. Now he wants to dictate to your church," warns the envelope. "Stop Obama's War on Faith." Inside, more of the same:

The culture of dicatorship is rearing its ugly head. The forcef of imperial government and totalitarian treatment of American citizens are growing stronger every day.

 

Under the guise of "health care" and "tolerance" and "equality," Barack Obama is using all the power he can grasp in order to control how we live and what we believe. He is exploiting eveyr legal and illegal loophole to consolidate governmenet power into his own hands.

He's trying to control our standard of living by restricting our energy use. Hey's trying to control theminds of our children by imposing a national curriculum in the schools. And now, he's using his hated ObamaCare health law to assault religious liberty....

Let there be no doubt about it. Barack Obama is at war with the vast majority of Americans who believe in God and the freedom to worship. Now it the time for you and me to stand up for religious liberty....

If Obama wins this battle and gets his way, religiously affiliated hospitals, schools, colleges, and charities all over America will be forced to pay for abortion drugs, sterilization procedures, and contraceptives.

 

If Obama gets by with thisk you can be sure that the next steps will be ordering priests, ministers and rabbis to perform same-sex marriages. God will be stripped out of the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" will be banished to the dustbin of history."

Schlafly Tells Male Students at The Citadel not to Date Feminists

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.”

Phyllis Schlafly Calls on Conservatives to Imitate Legendary Textbook Censor Norma Gabler

Today Phyllis Schlafly hosted Guy Rodgers of ACT! for America on Eagle Forum Live where Rodgers discussed his anti-Muslim group’s new report arguing that children have been “indoctrinated in Islam” by textbooks. Rodgers called on parents to follow the example of famed right-wing activists Mel and Norma Gabler to pressure schools into rejecting textbooks the group claims have a “pro-Islam” bias. “We need another Norma Gabler,” Schlafly said.

Of course, the Gablers were notorious textbook censors who attacked the inclusion of evolution and anything they deemed part of the liberals’ “mental child abuse.” Diane Ravitch writes in The Language Police that the Gablers went after any textbooks they believed “taught ‘humanism,’ sex-education, ‘one-worldism,’ ‘women’s lib,’ or the occult” or promoted “a religion of secular humanism, in violation of the Constitution.”

While both of the Gablers have passed away, their group, Educational Research Analysts, was instrumental in crafting a successful Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) resolution condemning the “pro-Islamic/anti-Christian bias” that “has tainted some past Texas Social Studies textbooks.”

As the Texas Freedom Network points out, “the Gablers had prominent roles in the Texas textbook wars for decades before their deaths” and an Educational Research Analysts’ newsletter on the supposed anti-Christian bias in textbooks was released just one month before the state passed its September resolution. The newsletter blasted “both militant Islamic cultural jihadists (backed by Arab petrowealth in the U.S. textbook industry), and American academic secularists, in their com¬bined assault on Christianity in World History classes” and called on the SBOE to resist the “Allah-lobby,” while noting that “Christian conservative mastery of detail in Texas' textbook approval process is power”:

High school World History will thus fulfill the Texas Education Code's legislative intent better than U.S. History, whose new standards stress free-market benefits much less emphatically. The SBOE should now add that while U.S. History texts must stop ignoring Christianity, high school World History books must cease attacking it. In World History the SBOE should take action in the interna¬tional as well as the national culture war. It should check both militant Islamic cultural jihadists (backed by Arab petrowealth in the U.S. textbook industry), and American academic secularists, in their com¬bined assault on Christianity in World History classes.



Many wrongly think Texas’ SBOE can reject only those textbooks that meet less than 50% of its course content standards, flunk certain manufacturing guidelines, or contain factual errors. But it can also dump those that clearly conflict with basic democratic values. For the first time ever the SBOE should invoke that power to warn publishers not to pander to Islam against Christianity – long a festering malaise (see the Manifesto within here) – in their new high school World History submissions.Christian conservative mastery of detail in Texas' textbook approval process is power … as vital to identify textbooks that so prostitute themselves, as it is to abort their local adoption statewide. Texas' elected SBOE is the one viable national democratic proven check and balance on textbook publishers' otherwise seemingly-unslakeable lust to kowtow to Allah-lobby conceits. All the oil money in Arabia cannot actually sell into American schools a book rejected by Texas' elected SBOE in response to documentation by knowledgeable citizen-voters

Religious Right Groups Enraged after Senate Rejects the Blunt Amendment

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.

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

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.

Phyllis Schlafly Inadvertently Debunks Her Own Argument Against Marriage Equality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bachmann Lauds Schlafly, LaHaye for Inspiring Her Political Career

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Religious Right Reacts To DOMA Repeal Vote

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.

Perkins Ignores Palin To Spin The 2008 Election Loss

Several weeks ago, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins hosted a press briefing at the National Press Club to discuss just what it is that the Religious Right is seeking in a Republican presidential nominee.

During the Q&A, Perkins was asked to discuss the idea that the very positions that make a candidate appealing to the Religious Right are the same positions that make such candidates unappealing to the general voting population.

Not surprisingly, Perkins took issue with that assessment and asserted instead that without the support of the Religious Right, no Republican candidate can hope to win the general elections and pointed to John McCain as proof:

This idea that a candidate that would be supported by social conservatives that would win the Republican nomination would be unacceptable to the general populace is just not true. I think the opposite it true; we saw that in the last election cycle. There was a Republican nomination that was not acceptable to social conservatives. He did not have the enthusiastic support of social conservatives and, as a result, the Republicans lost the general election.

Now, obviously McCain and the Religious Right had a rather contentious history, but to say that the McCain campaign did not receive the "enthusiastic support of social conservatives" requires one to completely ignore the rapturous lovefest that exploded when McCain announced the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, which we chronicled at the time:

James Dobson, Focus on the Family: "A lot of people were praying, and I believe Sarah Palin is God's answer.”

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: “Senator McCain made an outstanding pick.”

Connie Mackey, FRCAction: “I am elated with Senator McCain's choice.”

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel: "Absolutely brilliant choice.”

Richard Land: “Governor Palin will delight the Republican base.”

Rick Scarborough, Vision America, “I’m elated. I think it’s a superb choice."

Ralph Reed: “They’re beyond ecstatic. This is a home run.”

Gary Bauer, American Values: "[A] grand slam home run."

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: “She is the best possible choice.”

Janet Folger, Faith2Action: “[T]he selection of Sarah Palin is more than ‘Brilliant!’ ‘Electrifying!’ and ‘Energizing!’ The selection of Sarah Palin will lead to words like: ‘Rejuvenating!’ ‘Victory!’ and ‘Landslide!’"

Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America: “Governor Palin will change the dynamics of the entire presidential race.”

Janice Shaw Crouse, CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute: “She is an outstanding woman who will be an excellent role model for the nation's young people.”

David Barton, Wallbuilders: "The talk won't be about, 'look at Sarah Palin' as much as 'look at what McCain's choice of Palin says about McCain's core beliefs.”

Jonathan Falwell: “John McCain made it very clear that his administration was going to be a pro-life administration, and he proved that’s his belief and his passion today with the choice of Sarah Palin.”

Jerry Falwell, Jr.: “I think it’s a brilliant choice.”

Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life: “And then when [Palin] was announced — it was like you couldn’t breathe. [We] were grabbing each other and jumping up and down.”

Gary Marx, Judicial Confirmation Network: "I can tell you that this pick tells millions in the base of the party that they can trust McCain. More specifically that they can trust him with Supreme Court picks and other key appointments’"

David Keene, American Conservative Union: “The selection of Governor Palin is great news for conservatives, for the party and for the country. I predict any conservatives who have been lukewarm thus far in their support of the McCain candidacy will work their hearts out between now and November for the McCain-Palin ticket."

If social conservatives were unenthusiastic about the McCain ticket last time around, some apparently forgot to tell all of these social conservatives who were gushing about just how thrilled they were. 

Syndicate content

Phyllis Schlafly Posts Archive

Miranda Blue, Tuesday 02/18/2014, 2:13pm
In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly compared the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v Windsor to the infamous Dred Scott case, arguing that the landmark marriage equality decision should not be used as legal precedent. Attacking President Obama for his “dictatorial attitude” and “judges who think they can do anything they want,” Schlafly urged Americans to simply ignore the legal precedent set by gay rights decisions. Schlafly recalled how Republicans in the 1850s argued that the Dred Scott decision shouldn’t set a... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Tuesday 02/18/2014, 11:34am
Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly released a report earlier this month that summarizes her argument that Republicans shouldn’t support immigration reform because she thinks Latino and Asian-American immigrants are inherently Democratic-leaning. Schlafly elaborated on the report in an interview Friday with Dove TV, claiming that immigrants will always vote Democratic because they “don’t even know what you’re talking about when you talk about limited government.” “These immigrants, legal and illegal, coming in don’t really understand our country and... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 02/14/2014, 6:30pm
The organization behind the most recently debunked tale of Christian victimization is standing behind its original bogus claims. Tom DeLay will be joining Rick Joyner and Jerry Boykin at an upcoming conference at Joyner's Morningstar Ministries. On a semi-related note, "Prophet" Bob Jones has died. Phyllis Schlafly thinks feminists ought to be speaking out against polygamy but won't "because the feminists are not pro-women; they just want to kill the nuclear family." Finally, "Coach" Dave Daubenmire is mad that pastors didn't come... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Thursday 02/13/2014, 1:54pm
On Secure Freedom Radio yesterday, Frank Gaffney invited Phyllis Schlafly to discuss her new Eagle Forum report making the case that Republicans should oppose immigration reform because immigrants will always vote Democratic. Schlafly repeated her usual talking points that people from other countries don’t “understand the concept of limited government” so expanding legal immigration would be “suicide for the conservative movement and the Republican party.” Gaffney agreed, adding that if immigration reform “dooms” the Republican Party it also “... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Friday 02/07/2014, 6:30pm
The New York Times reports that Sen. Pat Roberts has "acknowledged that he did not have a home of his own in Kansas. The house on a country club golf course that he lists as his voting address belongs to two longtime supporters and donors." It is genuinely amazing the way right-wing groups are framing proposed restrictions on 501c4 organizations as an attack on conservatives. Do they not realize that liberals groups have c4 arms as well? Phyllis Schlafly issues a warning: "Once there is no objective morality, no universal good and evil, laws that are not... MORE >
Kyle Mantyla, Thursday 02/06/2014, 12:27pm
As Miranda noted the other day, Phyllis Schlafly "has never been very good at hiding partisan motivation for right-wing policy," frequently coming right out and admitting the petty, partisan motivations behind the supposedly "principled" stands that conservatives inevitably take in opposing things supported by Democrats or President Obama. And this was a trend she continued when she appeared on Newsmax yesterday to discuss her new report warning that immigration reform legislation will doom the Republican Party when she declared that conservatives ought to oppose such... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Monday 02/03/2014, 1:12pm
Phyllis Schlafly, one of the strongest proponents of the theory that the Republican Party can survive simply by solidifying its base of white voters, is out with a new report arguing that all the GOP needs to do to thrive is to cut legal immigration in half. In the report, Eagle Forum argues that immigrants – particularly Latino and Asian-American immigrants -- are inherently “leftist,” drawn to “the left’s race-based grievance politics,” and reliant on the country’s “racial spoils system and a huge welfare state,” and so therefore legal... MORE >
Miranda Blue, Thursday 01/30/2014, 1:43pm
Buzzfeed’s John Stanton today managed to get Republican lawmakers on record admitting that the movement to stop immigration report is at least party driven by racial animosity. One Southern Republican member of Congress, who requested anonymity, told Stanton outright that “part of it…it’s racial.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham put it a little more delicately, referring to “ugliness around the issue of immigration.” While it’s unusual to have Republican members of Congress saying it aloud, it’s hardly a secret that today’s anti-... MORE >