Cathie Adams, the former chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party who now leads the state chapter of Eagle Forum, told a Republican group yesterday that if Texas doesn’t defy a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality this year, it “could be the end of America.”
“On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to hear arguments on marriage, and we expect that they’re going to do the wrong thing,” she said in at the end of a speech on Islam to the Smith County Republican Women, which was posted on YouTube by an attendee.
“Texas holds a whole lot more power and a whole lot more authority,” she said, “and if we don’t come out and do something before April 28, this could be the end of America.”
“If we don’t get this done by April 28, I don’t know that we’re going to be able to hold back what is happening,” she said. “And folks, if you are a believer, you understand what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. You understand. And we are on the threshold. “
“I mean, young people in schools, elementary all the way through universities, are being lied to that these people are ‘born this way,’” she continued. “No, they’re not. I’ve met friends who have come out of that lifestyle, I’ve met men who are willing and ready and begging for a bill to come up in the Texas legislature that they can testify in support of in order to defend the right of parents and defend the right of those individuals who choose to seek a way out of sexual perversion.”
Drawing on the right-wing conspiracy theory that Democrats encourage non-citizens to illegally cast ballots in U.S. elections, Phyllis Schlalfy told American Family Radio today that President Obama’s executive actions on immigration are part of a larger plot to rig the vote.
The Eagle Forum founder told host Fred Jackson that the “purpose” of “Obama’s amnesty” is to help undocumented immigrants unlawfully vote: “They want to jimmy the next election by making these illegals grateful to the Democrats and able to vote, and that’s just really a change in our system that we don’t approve of. It isn’t fair, it isn’t honest, but once they have a driver’s license and a Social Security number, you can’t stop them from registering to vote.”
Ted Cruz’s father and adviser Rafael Cruz, a prominent right-wing activist in his own right, appeared on “Eagle Forum Live” this weekend with Phyllis Schlalfy, where he called on state leaders to follow Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s lead in flouting federal court decisions which strike down bans on same-sex marriage.
“Something very exciting that has happened is what happened in Alabama with Justice Roy Moore,” Cruz said, hailing a state supreme court ruling which found that “the courts of Alabama do not have to obey the opinion of a federal judge and as a matter of fact, Justice Roy Moore, ordered the civil courts in Alabama not to issue marriage licenses for homosexual couples. And so what they are doing is asserting that the state has supremacy and basically all of these laws were for the state to make those decisions, not the federal court, the federal court is overreaching and it is actually legislating from the bench, contrary to the opinion of the majority of the American people.”
Cruz added that states with marriage equality will begin forcing pastors to marry same-sex couples under penalty of prison, something that has never taken place in any of the dozens of states where same-sex marriage is legal.
“We need to realize that the attack on marriage is more than just an attack on marriage, it actually goes to the heart of religious freedom,” Cruz said. “What is going to come next and this is part of the danger of what may happen out of the Supreme Court in June, is that if marriage of anybody-with-anybody becomes a civil rights issue, then they are going to come to churches and force pastors to violate their religious convictions. And so it is going to come to America to where a pastor is going to be faced with a decision: do you obey a law that is not only unjust but violates your core principles, or do you obey God and face prison?”
“This is the dilemma that America’s pastors are going to be facing if this issue is labeled a civil rights issue. It goes way beyond marriage to actually violate the religious freedom of people of faith,” he continued.
Later in the program, Cruz warned that “we are on the brink of the destruction of this country” and said that President Obama is acting “like an emperor more than a president,” adding: “If we have eight more years of this type of government, this country will be destroyed.”
When a caller, Dan, called in to say that the American people should begin “killing judges” over the fear that “judges will order pastors to marry homosexuals,” Schlafly said that she is “not ready to kill anybody.”
Instead, Schlafly said that people should instead “use all the ways that are available to us in this free system.” Cruz agreed with Schlafly, arguing that elected officials are selected by “a small minority of Americans” and that people who believe in “biblical values” must turn out en masse to the polls.
On yesterday’s edition of “Focal Point,” Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly told host Bryan Fischer that state governors should simply “refuse to enforce” a Supreme Court decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage.
She also urged President Obama or whoever replaces him to direct the Attorney General to defy the court, just as the federal government should have ignored the Dred Scot ruling before the Civil War.
“We just cannot live in a country where one judge or even five judges are able to change the law of our land that goes against the laws of most of our states and we’ve had for several thousands of years about the definition of marriage, that is simply not our form of government,” Schlafly said. “We believe in ‘We The People.’”
Schlafly said that people need to “speak up and say we’re not going to put up with it” and defy judges who “think they’re God or something.” She also encouraged governors to order officials who issue marriage licenses to disobey the court’s decision.
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly spoke to Rick Wiles of “Trunews” yesterday about President Obama’s purported mission to “break our country” by implementing the “Karl Marx/Saul Alinsky agenda” and putting “more and more people on the welfare rolls.”
When Wiles insisted that our “mysterious” president was “never vetted,” Schlafly pushed the debunked myth that “we don’t know whether he legally got into Columbia and Harvard Law School,” agreeing with Wiles’ suggestion that Obama may have never even attended college.
She explained that Obama was able to execute this supposed cover-up in part because “people were so entranced with the first black president and they really expected, I think many of the people who voted for him, really expected this to ease the tensions between the races and be a step forward for harmony in the United States, but it didn’t work out that way.”
Schlafly later agreed with Wiles’ assessment that “Obama is deliberately seeking to destroy America” and “agitate” the American people into conflict, arguing that Obama wants to use the welfare system to realize this goal. She even argued, without a hint of irony, that no one who lived during the Great Depression received “handouts” from the government.
In an interview with WorldNetDaily’s radio network posted today, Phyllis Schlafly declared that she was “tired of” Republican presidential “losers,” and said that at last week’s CPAC she was impressed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
In particular, Schlafly liked Jindal’s comments about immigrants not becoming “hyphenated Americans,” saying that “these illegals…don’t want to be assimilated into America.”
“I also thought a very good speech was made by Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who covered a lot of important issues, and particularly the fact that we do not want a lot of these illegals to be assimilated, and they don’t want to be assimilated into America,” she said. “I think anybody that’s let into this country for permanent residency should want to be an American, and if they don’t want to be an American and abide by our constitutional laws, we shouldn’t let them in.”
Earlier this month, Phyllis Schlafly spoke to right-wing personality Stan Solomon about the supposed dangers of transgender rights and communists working in Hollywood.
When Solomon asked the Eagle Forum founder about her views on the decision of Bryn Mawr College, an all-women’s college, to accept transgender students, Schlafly called the announcement “nuts.” She also mocked Bruce Jenner’s reported gender transition: “I don’t know what the world’s coming to, I think it’s just plain nuts.”
“If you destroy modesty, if you destroy privacy, you actually destroy humanity,” Solomon said, warning that transgender rights is a fulfilment of biblical prophecy.
In the same program, Solomon and Schlafly used the commercial success of the film “American Sniper” to criticize Hollywood, despite the fact that the movie was a major Hollywood picture.
Solomon said he is tired of seeing movies where “the hero is a person who comes out as a homosexual and comes out against America because America’s bad,” and Schlafly warned that communists infiltrated Hollywood to put “their propaganda on the screen.”
The conversation ultimately turned to Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming speech to Congress, as Solomon scolded Jewish supporters of President Obama as “idiots,” “moronic” and “stupid.”
In what is becoming an annual tradition, the American Conservative Union has accepted the sponsorship of an organization led by a white nationalist.
Metro Weekly reported yesterday that the Log Cabin Republicans attempted to sponsor the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference, but were rejected. Although the ACU disputes the story, in the past it hasrepeatedlyexcluded the now defunct gay conservative group GOProud. [UPDATE: Log Cabin Republicans report that they have been offered a speaking slot at CPAC, while they will "continue working toward full sponsorship of future CPACs."]
At the same time, the ACU has repeatedly allowed white nationalists to present at and sponsor CPAC. In 2010, CPAC welcomed the sponsorship of the John Birch Society. In 2012, it hosted a panel on the “failure of multiculturalism” featuring John Derbyshire, Peter Brimelow and Robert Vandervoort, three of the most unabashedly racist voices on the Right, who were joined by Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa. Vandervoort shared the stage on another panel with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the GOP’s most influential anti-immigrant strategists. Then, in 2013 and 2014, Vandervoort’s group ProEnglish was a sponsor of the conference.
This year, it appears that ProEnglish is once again sponsoring CPAC. Although the group is not listed on the event’s website, it is included on a longer list of sponsors on the event’s mobile phone app.
UPDATE: Here is a screenshot showing that ProEnglish will be sponsoring a booth at CPAC's exhibit hall, at a cost of $4,000:
Along with leading ProEnglish — a nativist group founded by John Tanton that seeks to establish English as the official language of the U.S. — Vandervoort has a background as a white nationalist leader. The Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights reported in 2012 that Vandervoort was “the organizer of the white nationalist group, Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance, while he lived in Illinois”:
During that period Vandervoort was at the center of much of the white nationalist activity in the region. While he was in charge, Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance often held joint meetings with the local chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens. He also made appearances at white nationalist events outside Illinois, for instance participating in the 2009 Preserving Western Civilization Conference.
Vandervoort's position at ProEnglish is not surprising, given his familiarity with the Nativist Establishment. He and several Chicagoland Friends of American Renaissance members attended a March 22, 2005 Federation for American Immigration Reform meeting at the Lincoln Restaurant in Chicago. At a November 13, 2004 FAIR "Midwest Immigration Reform Summit" in Rosemont, Illinois, Vandervoort attended and passed out leaflets to the crowd announcing a local American Renaissance event.
Although ProEnglish stays away from the outright white nationalism of Vandervoort’s past, it thrives on nativist fear-mongering. In 2013, ProEnglish ran a nasty anti-immigrant ad against South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham, which featured the voice of a woman “translating” a message from an “illegal immigrant”:
The Ruth Institute’s Jennifer Roback Morse joined Phyllis Schlafly on “Eagle Forum Live” last week for a special Valentine’s Day episode on how “radical sexual revolutionaries” are destroying marriage and the family.
Morse told Schlafly that the “goal all along” of the “radical feminists” and “radical sexual revolutionaries
was to advocate for liberalized divorce laws in order “to break down that dividing line between public and private and just scoot that family court right into your living room, right into the backseat of your minivan, right into your bedroom and taking jurisdiction over the life of the family.”
“This is a gross expansion of the power of the state,” she said. “And gay marriage will only accelerate that, because gay marriage now will create a whole series of situations where family courts will be deciding who actually counts as a parent in the first place.”
In an interview on the “Florida Roundtable” radio program this week, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly attacked President Obama for weakening American by bringing in “foreign ideas and diseases and people who don’t believe in self-government.”
Schlafly said that while she believes that the United States “should be the biggest and the best and the strongest,” the president believes “just the opposite,” which is why he is letting into the country “all these people with Ebola” and immigrants who “are not familiar with the whole concept of limited government.”
“He wants us to be one of the boys,” she said. “He wants us to be just like everybody else. That’s why he’s letting all these people with Ebola in. There’s no reason why we should take on the African diseases. He should stop them when they get off the plane and not let them in. We don’t want some of these foreign ideas and diseases and people who don’t believe in self-government.”
“You know, these people he’s letting in and credentialing as new immigrants are not familiar with the whole concept of limited government,” she continued. “They look to the government as their savior and advisor and some organization to tell them what to do. We don’t want that!”
Sen. Rand Paul says that he has "heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." No wonderAlex Jones loves him.
The Government Is Not God PAC has set up a website encouraging Mike Huckabee to run for president.
Missouri Republican Party Chairman Ed Martin is stepping down from his position to become president of Eagle Forum.
Timothy Johnson, founder of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, has died.
Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., is not happy with anti-abortion groups that have targeted her after she helped postpone a Republican bill aimed at banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Finally, Sam Rohrer of the Pennsylvania Pastors Network says that America will never receive God's blessing until it rejects homosexuality: "There is no room in God's justice for compromise on the moral standards He has established. History shows that cultures decay not from singular events but an incremental ceding of Truth and corrupting of God-established universal moral standards. The return to God's blessing as a nation will occur when individuals, led by pastors in the pulpit, once again preach the 'whole counsel' of God and understand that blessing arises only from complete obedience to God's Word."
But Gov. Christie isn’t the only possible Republican presidential hopeful to have flirted with anti-vaccination conspiracy theories or happily promoted groups that do the same.
The episode is reminiscent of the 2012 GOP presidential nomination contest, when candidates piled on Rick Perry for mandating that female students in Texas receive an HPV vaccine, a stance for which he has since apologized. Rep. Michele Bachmann took the criticism of Perry even farther, baselessly charging that the vaccine causes mental retardation.
In addition, a number of top GOP presidential contenders, including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have promoted Eagle Forum, the conservative organization founded by right-wing icon Phyllis Schlafly, which regularly pushes false claims about vaccines.
Eagle Forum is such a favorite of the Republican establishment that Schlafly received a lifetime achievement award — presented by Bachmann — at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference.
An entire section of Eagle Forum’s website is devoted to criticizing vaccines. The group hasrepeatedlypromoted the myth that vaccines are linked to autism, featuring articles on its website about how efforts to vaccinate children are a form of government control that jeopardizes the freedoms of parents and families.
Along with its own misinformation, Eagle Forum refers members to anti-vaccine groups such as the National Vaccine Information Center and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which counted Rand Paul as a member for over two decades. Back in 2000, the group promoted a letter [PDF] to the Department of Health and Human Services from then-Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., which suggested that vaccines are responsible for an increase in autism diagnoses.
In 2012, Schlafly praised California parents who refused to vaccine their children, attacking a member of the state assembly who wanted to pass a law requiring parents consult with a pediatrician before they make a decision on whether their child receives a vaccination.
Schlafly’s anti-vaccine activism is unlikely to cost her any support from the Republican ranks, who are even more likely to seek support from her and her organization as the GOP nomination contest moves into high gear.
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, who once worried that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel might be a secret Muslim, told far-right talk show host Stan Solomon earlier this month that President Obama is “sweet on the Muslims.”
While speaking with Solomon about Obama’s absence from a demonstration of world leaders in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo attack, Schlafly said Obama “does not want to admit there is Muslim terrorism, he pretends that it isn’t” and is “unwilling anytime to say there is Muslim terrorism.”
Schlafly told Solomon that extremists will only learn to “respect” the U.S. if the country makes its military “the biggest and strongest” in the world.
Distraught that women are outpacing men in college enrollments, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly took to WorldNetDaily this week to float the idea that colleges should enforce a gender quota to even out admissions to the benefit of men. Responding to a 2010 New York Times article, Schlafly wondered if colleges should set male admissions quotas to ensure that student bodies are “half women and half men.”
Another proposal Schlafly put in the mix is to “stop granting college loans, thereby forcing students to take jobs to pay for their tuition and eliminate time for parties, perhaps even wiping out time for fraternities and sororities.”
Schlafly also called for colleges to stop enforcing Title IX, which prevents sex discrimination in education, as a way to attract men, alleging that the anti-discrimination measure “removes a primary motivation for young men to go to college, many of whom want to try out for a sport even if they are not good enough to make the team.”
All of this, the right-wing activist insists, would actually benefit women because it would give them more available men to date.
The New York Times published a provocative news story called “The New Math on Campus.” No, it’s not about the failure of Common Core to teach arithmetic; it’s about the changing ratio of males to females on most college campuses.
Long ago when I went to college, campuses were about 70 percent male, and until 1970 it was still nearly 60 percent. Today, however, the male percentage has fallen to the low 40s on most campuses.
Colleges claim they grant admissions based on academic merit, and girls come out of high school with better grades than boys. But that doesn’t always mean they are smarter or more capable of doing college work or succeeding after graduation.
Boys do far better on average than girls on the SAT test for mathematics, which means that boys are better prepared than girls for STEM majors in college. This has been true every year for more than 40 years.
Nearly twice as many boys as girls attain very high scores on the math SAT, with an immense difference at the high end. But the job market for STEM graduates is not as good as it should be, due to corporations’ preference for hiring lower-paid, easy-to-control foreigners on H-1B visas, so many American guys decide that the high cost of an engineering degree is not worth it.
A shocking 46 percent of recent college graduates work in jobs that do not require a college degree. Boys are more likely than girls to look at the cost-benefit tradeoff of going to college. The imbalance of far more women than men at colleges has been a factor in the various sex scandals that have made news in the last couple of years.
So, what’s the solution? One solution might be to impose the duty on admissions officers to arbitrarily admit only half women and half men. Another solution might be to stop granting college loans, thereby forcing students to take jobs to pay for their tuition and eliminate time for parties, perhaps even wiping out time for fraternities and sororities. I went through college while working a full-time manual-labor job, and I don’t regret a minute of it; it was a great learning experience.
Another solution would be to reinstate all the men’s sports that were canceled by an extremist feminist application of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination against female students. The feminists have misused that law to abolish many men’s sports in order to achieve a statistical equality between the percentage of men playing on college sports teams and the percentage of male enrollment in college.
The feminists have abolished more than 2,200 men’s college sports teams since 1981, such as wrestling, gymnastics, track, golf and even some football in order to limit the number of male players to Title IX guidelines. That removes a primary motivation for young men to go to college, many of whom want to try out for a sport even if they are not good enough to make the team.
The popularity of the new college football playoff system illustrates how successful men’s college sports can be for participants and fans alike. But when colleges eliminate men’s sports, women are hurt by the resulting gender imbalance in enrollment.
Declaring that “nobody elected Barack Obama to clean up Africa,” Schlafly attacked the president for not banning all travel to the U.S. from the West African countries at the center of the Ebola outbreak, and went on to warn that “unchecked foreigners” from Central America — where there are also currently zero cases of Ebola — will spread the disease in the U.S.
“With the massive influx of unchecked foreigners coming across our borders, including 130,000 from Central America since October, why are we surprised about this alarming spread of foreign diseases into the United States?” she declared.
While refusing to sensibly secure our borders, U.S. officials announced that they expect an increase in Ebola-related incidents in the United States. With the massive influx of unchecked foreigners coming across our borders, including 130,000 from Central America since October, why are we surprised about this alarming spread of foreign diseases into the United States? Obama has failed to use his legal power to deny entry. Federal law gives the president the power to seal our borders to any class of aliens who pose a threat to the U.S., but Obama continues to insist it is unlikely that anyone with Ebola will reach our shores.
In an interview today with WorldNetDaily, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly weighed in on efforts to combat sexual assaults on college campuses, which she contended are part of a feminist “war on men.”
Schlafly pointed to questions surrounding the accuracy of a Rolling Stone report on rape allegations at the University of Virginia as evidence that increased attention to fighting sexual assault on campuses is misplaced and reiterated her claim that college is a “dangerous” place for men: “It’s really dangerous for a guy to go to college these days. He’s better off if he doesn’t talk to any women when he gets there. The feminists are perfectly glad to make false accusations and then claim all men are capable of some dastardly deed like rape.”
“There isn’t any rape culture,” Schlafly said. “There is a war on men, and [feminists] are very open about it.”
This is, of course, coming from the anti-feminist activist who oncesaid that men cannot rape their wives since “by getting married, the woman has consented to sex.”
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly believes feminists are so vehemently defending Jackie and her partially discredited allegations because they don’t want to lose out on an anti-male narrative.
“The reason they bought into the story and didn’t have any suspicions about the flakiness of it is antagonism toward men in general,” Schlafly said. “Their cry is they want to abolish the patriarchy, and anything that hurts men is something that pleases the feminists.”
“There isn’t any rape culture,” she said. “There’s nothing ‘culture’ about rape. Rape is a crime and ought to be punished. But people who make false accusations about a dangerous crime like that also ought to be punished, and I hope everybody connected with this false story will suffer the consequences.”
Schlafly, whose recently published book “Who Killed the American Family?” came out just days before she turned 90, sees a national media landscape dominated by feminists and those who are afraid to anger the feminists.
“They really are a vicious group,” she said. “They don’t like men, and they want anything to discredit and destroy men. I think it’s very helpful that the [UVA rape] story has been exposed as a fraud, and anybody who heard it in the first place should have suspected it was a fraud.”
Schlafly has spent the better part of her long career battling feminists, and she even goes so far as to say there is a war on men in the U.S., not a war on women.
“There is a war on men, and [feminists] are very open about it,” she said. “They don’t conceal it; they brag about it. You read all of their material – they’re always saying they want to abolish the patriarchy. They said that husbands are not necessary in a marriage, they’re not necessary in raising children.”
Noting the harm done to men falsely accused of rape, she pointed to the three Duke lacrosse players whose reputations were smeared in 2006.
“It’s really dangerous for a guy to go to college these days. He’s better off if he doesn’t talk to any women when he gets there,” Schlafly said. “The feminists are perfectly glad to make false accusations and then claim all men are capable of some dastardly deed like rape.”
A group of Religious Right organizations have taken a sudden interest in curbing government spending on national parks and public lands…all in the interest of stopping the creation of a museum dedicated to American women’s history.
Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is currently holding up a defense authorization bill that was passed last week in the House, contending that a public lands package attached to it is too pricey and doesn’t belong in a defense bill. While Coburn and Sen. Ted Cruz have objected to provisions in the bill designating new national wilderness areas, which Cruz calls an “extreme land grab,” they have garnered allies in the Religious Right who object to quite a different provision: the establishment of a bipartisan commission to start planning a National Women’s History Museum on the National Mall.
In a letter to members of the House last week, representatives of Concerned Women for America (CWA), Heritage Action, Eagle Forum, March for Life, and the American Family Association signed on to a letter with a handful of “small government” groups that oppose the creation of more public lands, urging lawmakers to strip the lands package from the defense bill.
Although the letter makes a generic nod to preventing the government from gaining “more ownership over America’s lands,” it goes on to object specifically to the women’s history museum provision, using language copied and pasted out of a recent CWA press release.
CWA and its allies have been trying for months to stop Congress from authorizing a planning committee for the women’s history museum, claiming that the museum would end up being a “shrine to liberal ideology, abortion and liberal advocates” and complaining that the museum’s website doesn’t mention CWA founder Beverly LaHaye.
Back in May, the groups failed to stop the House from passing a bill authorizing the planning committee, in part thanks to the efforts of the bill’s main Republican sponsor, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who called their arguments “convoluted.” Heritage Action’s threat to score the women’s history vote against members of Congress ultimately only scared 33 Republicans into voting against it.
Roger Schlafly, a son of Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly who has repeatedlytaken to the organization’s blog to lament the increasing population of racial minorities in the U.S., yesterday took issue with a William H. Frey article in Newsweek celebrating America’s growing racial diversity.
“Tell that to the people of Ferguson Missouri,” Schlafly wrote in response to Frey’s assertion that minority groups can bring “manpower and brain power” to “otherwise stagnating city and suburban housing markets.”
Schlafly also criticized America’s “immigration policy that appears designed to repopulate the country with non-whites,” adding that he can’t think of any examples where racial diversity has helped the country.
Claim that USA needs to be saved by non-whites
Newsweek magazine has an article on America's Getting Less White, and That Will Save It:
America reached an important milestone in 2011. That occurred when, for the first time in the history of the country, more minority babies than white babies were born in a year.
Soon, most children will be racial minorities: Hispanics, blacks, Asians, and other nonwhite races. And, in about three decades, whites will constitute a minority of all Americans (see chart, below).
What will be different going forward is the sheer size of the minority population in the United States. It is arriving “just in time” as the aging white population begins to decline, bringing with it needed manpower and brain power and taking up residence in otherwise stagnating city and suburban housing markets.
Tell that to the people of Ferguson Missouri.
Okay, maybe that is a bad example. But what are the good examples? The article does not provide any. The comments are overwhelmingly skeptical, to put it mildly.
We do have an immigration policy that appears designed to repopulate the country with non-whites. Do our political leaders really believe that this is necessary in order that the whites be saved by the non-whites? If so, I would like to see an explanation of how that is going to work.
Stan Solomon celebrated the death of Michael Brown on his talk show this week during an interview with Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. The far-right pundit, who marked Trayvon Martin’s death in the same vein, said that “Michael Brown was shot because he’s a thug. I’m glad he’s dead. He deserves to be dead. He was a thug. He had a lifetime of thuggery and his dad was a convicted drug dealer.”
Solomon made the remarks after his other guest, conservative commentator Brent Johnson, dared to suggest that the grand jury investigating Brown’s death was “conducted in an extremely biased matter.” Solomon responded that he was “embarrassed” for Johnson.
Schlafly and Solomon both pledged to give officer Darren Wilson money and defended his role in the shooting.
When a number of prominent anti-abortion rights groups submitted an amicus brief defending the rights of pregnant workers in Young v. UPS, a case that was argued before the Supreme Court this week, we were not surprised that Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum was not among them. After all, Schlafly has built a long career out of arguing against protections for women in their careers.
In fact, it turns out, Schlafly submitted her very own amicus brief [pdf] in the case defending UPS’s right to suspend employees who become pregnant. And even thought the brief is written by Schlafly’s attorney Larry Joseph, it is full of classic Schlafly wisdom about how pregnant women most certainly cannot “have it all.”
In the brief, Eagle Forum argues that the plaintiff, Peggy Young, was seeking “preferential treatment” by not being suspended from her job for getting pregnant. In fact, the brief goes on to argue, in enacting the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the interpretation of which is at issue in Young, “Congress never intended…to eliminate stereotypes of husband-breadwinner, wife-homemaker families” or “to have pregnant women work as package-delivering truck drivers” although the “eradication of typical – or even stereotypical – families was the goal of the feminist movement.”
In enacting PDA, Congress never intended: (1) to eliminate stereotypes of husband-breadwinner, wife-homemaker families; (2) to have women return to work immediately after giving birth to the exclusion of caring for their newborns; (3) to have pregnant women work as package-delivering truck drivers; or (4) to privilege the status of female truck drivers over either male truck drivers or the women married to male truck drivers. While the eradication of typical – or even stereotypical – families was the goal of the feminist movement, Congress generally has taken the more moderate path advocated by UPS here. By contrast, Young demands that UPS provide her with light duty for nine months when typical on the-job light duty lasts a month, so that she continues to draw her high pay while forcing her predominantly male coworkers – who support their own spouses and children – to do the heavy lifting. It insults pregnancy to characterize this situation as pregnancy discrimination.
The brief goes on to argue that Young and her allies want to “impose their pregnancies on coworkers,” thus “[f]acilitating single motherhood out of a strained sense of equality”:
At all times relevant to this action, Young herself was married to a man whose job provided medical insurance. Nonetheless, much of the advocacy and data submitted to this Court press the concerns of single women who work and want to have children. If PDA did allow women like Young and similarly situated single women to impose their pregnancies on coworkers, PDA might provide enough of a cushion for Young, but it would leave similarly situated single women short, once their children were born. Facilitating single motherhood out of strained sense of equality does not do the women or the children a significant or long-lasting favor[.]
Finally, Eagle Forum argues that for “both married women like Young and especially for single mothers” there is no right to work while pregnant. “Life is a series of tradeoffs,” it concludes, “and ‘you can have it all’ does not mean ‘having it all given to you.’”
Third, although Young herself was married when the underlying facts unfolded, the position pressed by Young and her amici also extends to single working mothers. For both married women like Young and especially for single mothers, neither this Court nor this Nation have ever recognized a “fundamental right to bear children while also participating fully and equally in the workforce.” Senator Williams – as quoted in Guerra – should not be construed to mean that women can “have it all” through some “fundamental right” to avoid the inevitable tradeoffs between work and family life. Life is a series of tradeoffs, and “you can have it all” does not mean “having it all given to you.”