Eagle Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 10 Most Absurd Arguments Against The Udall Citizens United Amendment

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

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

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

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

1. Democrats want to repeal the First Amendment!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. They’ll go after pastors!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. The polls are skewed!

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

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

(image via Buzzfeed)

7. What about disclosure?

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

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

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

8. The poor don’t participate anyway!

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

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

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

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

9. It’s voter suppression!

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

10. Blame Saul Alinsky!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of 'Politically Correct'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schlafly: Well, practically ever law is legislating morality.

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

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

White Nationalists Demand Credit For Another Idea That's Gone Mainstream In The GOP

The white nationalist website VDARE is once again demanding credit for an idea that it has been championing for years that has now gone mainstream in the GOP.

Last year, we reported that VDARE writer John Derbyshire (formerly of the National Review) was annoyed that prominent Republicans were failing to credit racist VDARE writer Steve Sailer when they advocated a plan nearly identical to the ‘Sailer Strategy’: that is, the idea that the GOP can only survive by solidifying and growing its white base while alienating people of color. Sailer had been persistently advocating this tactic for over a decade when it suddenly came into vogue among conservatives who opposed the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform plan.

Now, another VDARE writer is upset that more and more immigration reform opponents are pushing another VDARE argument without giving the white nationalists credit. This time, the argument is that steady or increased legal immigration – with or without a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrations – will ruin the Republican party because immigrants are inherently liberal.

In a post on Friday, VDARE writer James Fulford highlights a recent study from the Center for Immigration Studies which argues that Republicans shouldn’t bother with immigration reform because immigrants will inevitably vote for Democrats. Fulford complains that neither the CIS report nor the conservative outlets covering it “manages to credit Peter Brimelow or VDARE.com for saying all this early and often, possibly because it they're scared of Media Matters and the SPLC.” As he notes, VDARE has been pushing the argument since as early as 2001.

The CIS report solidifies what has become a common talking point among even relatively mainstream anti-immigrant groups. CIS spokespeople repeatedly argue that the country shouldn’t “ import more” immigrants because they’ll never vote Republican anyway. Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum has also been pushing this line of argument and released its own report on the subject. Schlafly probably put the argument the most succinctly when she said in February, “These immigrants, legal and illegal, coming in don’t really understand our country and will probably vote Democratic .” She also suggested that Latino immigrants “don’t understand” the Bill of Rights and reject American values.

It’s no surprise that this idea originated in the racist underworld of VDARE. After all, the subtext of the argument is that the GOP should rely on what Pat Buchanan called a new “Southern Strategy” and dump any plans to expand its appeal beyond its mostly white base. As the “Southern Strategy” comparison makes clear, that involves both scapegoating immigrants and ignoring their voices in government.

Eagle Forum Hopes To Make The GOP Even More Hostile To Gay Rights

Remember how the Texas Republican Party’s 2012 platform drew national attention for its radical and bizarre political positions?

Well, if the Texas Eagle Forum has its way, the GOP state and county party committees would preserve their extremist stances and go even farther in embracing the far-right.

The group has unveiled its lists of proposed resolutions for party committees in hopes of shaping the state GOP’s 2014 platform, asking members to demand Congress impeach and remove judges who rule in favor of gay rights and urge the party to approve a resolution condemning homosexuality:

WHEREAS, the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit; and
WHEREAS, the practice of homosexuality is unhealthy and puts the American public at risk for disease; according to the CDC, homosexuals make up only 2% of the U.S. population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV, especially young men 13-24 years of age; and
WHEREAS, homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that homosexuality should not be presented as an acceptable lifestyle in public policy, and the “family” should not be redefined to include same-sex “couples.”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

The model resolution is almost exactly the same as the one found in the current Texas GOP platform [PDF], which reads:

We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

But the group, led by Cathie Adams, now wants the party to go one step further by endorsing the discredited practice of ex-gay therapy:

WHEREAS Reparative therapy and other Sexual Orientation Change Efforts are based on the understanding that healing emotional wounds and reducing shame will reduce same-sex attraction and empower individuals to live in accordance with their own faith and values;
WHEREAS, psychological and spiritual counseling have been well-documented in scientific and psychological literature to help individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions reduce and/or eliminate their unwanted homosexual feelings;
WHEREAS, laws have recently been passed in California and New Jersey severely restricting the free speech rights of licensed therapists who support counseling/therapy to change or reduce homosexual behavior in individuals who seek their help;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that licensed therapists, psychologists and counselors in the state of Texas cannot be forbidden or penalized by any licensing board for practicing reparative therapy and supporting clients of any age with sexual orientation change efforts.

Another proposed resolution warns that “religious liberty is under severe attack in our churches, schools, the military and the public arena by anti-religious organizations and the federal government,” calling on elected officials to reject “the ‘politically correct’ efforts by the Obama administration and anti-religious groups to intimidate, bully, and silence people of faith.”

Texas Eagle Forum’s recommended resolutions call for required drug testing for welfare recipients and sweeping opposition to gun safety laws while featuring warnings about the purported use of foreign laws in US courts, which are all resolutions that are part of the current Texas GOP platform.

The group also proposes a resolution asserting that there is “overwhelming scientific evidence” that humans have no influence on the climate and that “the earth has not warmed since 1998,” referring to climate change as a “non-existent theory of climate change [that] is a political agenda which attempts to control every aspect of our lives.” Similarly, Texas Republicans have a plank on “protections from extreme environmentalists.”

We strongly oppose all efforts of the extreme environmental groups that stymie legitimate business interests. We strongly oppose those efforts that attempt to use the environmental causes to purposefully disrupt and stop those interests within the oil and gas industry. We strongly support the immediate repeal of the Endangered Species Act. We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species. We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished.

Eagle Forum Spokeswoman Warns Real ID Licenses Are Like Nazi Star Of David Badges

Testifying yesterday against Lousiana’s bill to allow its residents to access REAL ID compliant drivers licenses, Eagle Forum spokeswoman Sandy McDade said the gold stars marking REAL ID licenses are like the Star of David badges Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany.

However, she said that while she opposes the REAL ID Act, she does support requiring a photo ID to vote because she had “read documents” about people voting “several times.”

McDade, who is the chairwoman of Eagle Forum’s Louisiana chapter and who also serves at the national group’s political chairwoman, told the state house’s transportation committee that the only country she could think of with a national ID card was Nazi Germany.

“I will leave that there, I won’t go down that path, I just want you to have that image,” she said.

But then just a few minutes later, she ended her testimony with a “humorous, but it’s not really” anecdote. “We’re talking about putting a star on our drivers’ licenses,” she said, “and I have to ask: Is that a ‘Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star’ or is it the Star of David? Because we all know where that went.” 

She later confirmed to the Baton Rouge Advocate that she was indeed referring to the badges Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany.

After her testimony, Rep. Sam Jones asked her if she supported requiring photo identification to vote. McDade replied that she did because “I have read documents where people go and vote several times and declare themselves to be different people.”

“Wow,” Jones responded.

Schlafly: Increase The Pay Gap So Women Will Have Better Opportunities To Find A Husband

Phyllis Schlafly has never been a big fan of feminism or of efforts to promote equality between men and women in general. Schlafly is, after all, notorious for her stated belief that it is impossible for a husband to ever rape his wife because "when you get married you have consented to sex."

Given this sort of outlook, it is not surprising that Schlafly opposes things like the Paycheck Fairness Act and efforts to close the gender pay gap, arguing in an op-ed published in The Christian Post that closing the pay gap will actually harm women.

As Schlafly sees it, women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do.  As such, if women and men make the same amount, then women will be less likely to get married because they will be "unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate."

The solution, obviously, is to increase the pay gap so that men will earn more than women so that women, in turn, will have a better opportunity to find husbands:

Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Obviously, I'm not saying women won't date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all.

...

The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

Schlafly: Obama Using 'Handouts' To 'Break The Capitalist System'

On her Eagle Forum Live radio program Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly claimed that President Obama’s “communist training by Saul Alinsky” inspired him to try to “break the capitalist system” by giving out government “handouts.”

Schlafly made her remarks in response to a caller who demanded, “I’d like to know how many in our Congress, in our government, are really in truly Americans. I would like to see how many communists we have in there.”

“Well, I’m not ready to call them communists,” Schlafly said, “but of course the training that Obama had when he was a young man was really kind of a communist training by Saul Alinsky in Chicago. And he also had training by these people who think the way to break the capitalist system is to put so many people getting handouts from the government that you simply break it down. And I think that’s what he’s trying to do.”

Schlafly’s guest on the program was conservative radio host and speaker Mason Weaver, author of “It’s OK to Leave the Plantation.”  During the show, Weaver, who is African American, compared a number of government programs he dislikes to slavery, including of course the Affordable Care Act, which he also claimed would intentionally kill people before they can collect retirement savings.

“It’s just slavery, folks,” he said. “I mean, think about it. On the plantation, master gave you minimum wage, master gave you your working hours, master gave you low-income housing, he gave you your food, he gave you retirement. And you worked yourself to death. Obamacare and everything Obama implements is to take control over your life, work you until your work is done, tax you to death, and then allow  you to die peacefully before paying you your retirement.”

He added, oddly, that there was “no demand” for universal health care from voters.

Eagle Forum: Marriage Equality Cases Put America 'In The Danger Zone'

Eagle Forum’s Virginia Armstrong, who leads the group’s Court Watch Project, writes in a “Court Watch briefing” today that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 have displaced the “Judeo-Christian/Constitutionalist worldview” in favor of “Humanism/Reconstructionism,” which she warns “wreaks havoc with the concepts of absolute truth and inherent logic of the Law.”

Armstrong writes that the gay rights cases have pushed America to the “breaking point” and into the “danger zone” that will undermine the rule of law.

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

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



The Humanist/Reconstructionist position on epistemology is fatally flawed at every turn, as revealed in the pro-homosexual court decisions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and Windsor v. U.S. We must remember that Perry/Windsor reflect far more than the specific issues and positions of the immediate parties to the cases. Rather, they afford us a panoramic view of the entire homosexual rights battle and should be viewed in that light.



The real conflict in Perry/Windsor and similar cases is that of the whole Culture War conflict — the War of Worldviews between Humanism/Reconstructionism and the Judeo-Christian/Constitutionalist worldview. What is at stake, as Harold Berman demonstrates in his analysis (to which we have been referring), is the “very collapse of our entire Western legal tradition.” The Perry/Windsor epistemology wreaks havoc with the concepts of absolute truth and inherent logic of the Law — key components of the Western legal tradition outlined by Professor Berman. And as Nancy Pearcey of Houston Baptist University’s Schaeffer Center so cogently states, “The clash between these two understandings of morality [the Judeo-Christian v. the Humanistic] will determine whether liberty is gained or lost in the 21st century. It is imperative to reassert the transcendent moral truths that undergird freedom in every society.”

Even More Proof That Religious Right Myths Never Die

A few weeks ago, we published a post debunking a story that had been widely promoted by the Religious Right about a young girl who was supposedly told by her teacher that she was not allowed to deliver a presentation on her family's Christmas tradition because she brought the star that her family places atop its Christmas tree, which represents the Star of Bethlehem.

As we pointed out in the post, this supposed tale of anti-Christian bigotry turned out to be totally false but that wasn't going to stop Religious Right activists from continuing to repeat it because myths like this never, ever die once they have made their way into the right-wing echo chamber.

And so, once again, this same tale continues to spread, this time courtesy of the Eagle Forum in Phyllis Schlafly's latest commentary:

A first grader in California has been told she’s not permitted to talk about the Bible at school. A teacher at Temecula Valley School told her first grade class to bring an object to school that represented a family Christmas tradition and then give a one-minute presentation. Brynn Williams brought the star that tops her family’s Christmas tree and shared how her family remembers Jesus’ birth at Christmas. “The star is named the Star of Bethlehem,” Brynn said. “The three kings followed the star to find the baby Jesus, the Savior of the world.” Brynn had planned to end her presentation by reciting the famous Bible verse John 3:16, but her teacher stopped her before she could say more.

Brynn’s teacher told her to “stop right there” and sit back down. The teacher then explained to Brynn – in front of the entire class – that she was not allowed to talk about the bible or quote its verses in school. Brynn’s mother met with the principal about this issue, and the principal backed up the teacher. She said the school’s policy is to protect students from being offended.

This was a clear violation of the student’s rights. Courts have consistently ruled that public school students have the right to speak about their religious beliefs at school, and no court has ever ruled that a schoolchild cannot talk about his religious beliefs. The teacher’s behavior was bullying and humiliating, and a serious breach of what the Constitution guarantees. Brynn’s family’s lawyer has demanded that the school apologize and change its policies, or else the family will file a lawsuit. Any reasonable judge should rule against the district, but it’s ridiculous and troubling that a first grader’s family may have to go to court to force a public school to recognize a student’s basic First Amendment right of free speech.

This story wasn't true back when it was first reported.

It wasn't true when it was endlessly repeated.

And it won't be true when it is cited in the future ... but none of that will stop this story from being continuously spread by the Religious Right for years to come.

Phyllis Schlafly Says 'Feminists Are At War With Mother Nature' For Encouraging 'Girls To Enter Boys' Fields'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said today in her radio bulletin that the “the peculiar ideology of the feminists” is harming boys because it is encouraging “girls to enter boys’ fields” of study and employment. Apparently, some fields are reserved for boys, who Schlafly laments now “dislike school and have less interest in attending college” due to the nefarious actions of “a powerful network of feminists.”

“The feminists are at war with Mother Nature, and Mother Nature keeps winning, so the feminists are constantly angry at what they call patriarchy,” Schlafly added.

She also expressed concern about the emergence of a game called “Circle of Friends.” But as Slate’s Amanda Hess explains, “Circle of Friends” is just another name for freeze tag.

Many people do not realize the peculiar ideology of the feminists. They are not promoting equality of male and female; they are for interchangeability of the genders. The feminists are at war with Mother Nature, and Mother Nature keeps winning, so the feminists are constantly angry at what they call the patriarchy.

The feminists oppose competitive games where somebody wins and somebody else loses, and they manifest this particular ideology starting in elementary schools. The feminists do not like games that boys like such as the game of tag. Some feminists suggest a game called "Circle of Friends," a non-competitive version of tag, and that silliness has been implemented in a few schools. Taking winners and losers out of the game of tag and having them play non-competitive versions of other games are supposed to make rambunctious boys in grades K-through-3rd grade less competitive and less aggressive.

The scholar Christina Hoff Sommers has written extensively on the barriers that boys face in school and college. She points out that a powerful network of feminists is working to promote training for girls to enter boys’ fields, and have co-opted large sums of our tax dollars to spend lavishly to guide girls into fields dominated by boys. Here is one of one of Christina Hoff Sommers' helpful pieces of advice: "Instead of spending millions of dollars attempting to transform aspiring cosmetologists into welders, education officials should concentrate on helping young people, male and female, to enter careers that really interest them." Right now, boys are the under-served population requiring attention. When you reflect on how boys are treated in public schools, it's no wonder that they dislike school and have less interest in attending college. In many colleges, boys are now only about 40% of the student population.

Phyllis Schlafly Is 'Very Disappointed' That 'Nobody's Saying Anything' Against Marriage Equality

In an interview with VCY America’s Crosstalk program yesterday, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly declared that she was “very disappointed in the leadership of all the churches” and “positively amazed” that neither politicians nor pastors are voicing “any objection” to a recent spate of marriage equality rulings in the courts.

“I think everyone in leadership is to blame for not speaking up against this whole series of judges who are knocking down the constitutional provisions who were voted by the people of their state to say that marriage is a man and a woman,” Schlafly said. “Where are they? Where are the spokesmen?”

If only Schlafly read Right Wing Watch, she would find plenty of politicians and church leaders willing to speak out against the marriage equality rulings.

Phyllis Schlafly: 'Girl' Marines Make US Look Weak

Phyllis Schlafly has latched onto the news from December that the Marine Corps is delaying its toughened pull-up requirement for women, part of the preparation for allowing women to serve in combat roles.

The delay does not mean that the Marines have lowered the strength standard for people going into combat, but don’t tell that to Schlafly. In her radio commentary on Friday, the Eagle Forum founder declared that “women in combat are a danger to themselves and also to the rest of the unit” because “lowering our strength standards sends a message to the world that our military is not as strong as it used to be, and that it’s more important to appease the feminists than to ensure the strength of our forces.”

“Our enemies are tough, strong, vicious men ready to fight to the death, and we need real men to fight them, not girls who can’t even do pull-ups,” she added.

Of course, many US allies, including Israel, allow women to serve in combat.

Phyllis Schlafly Nostalgic For 1952, When DAR Was 'Strong, Pro-American Organization'

In a speech today to Breitbart News’ alternative CPAC conference today, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly reminisced about her early work pushing immigration restrictions, boasting that she was active in promoting the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act as member of Daughters of the American Revolution.

“The DAR at that time was a strong, pro-American organization,” she said.

We aren’t sure how Schlafly thinks that DAR has become less “pro-American” in the past 60 years. But we will note one way in which the organization has changed dramatically: while by 1952, the DAR had reversed its 1939 decision to ban African-American singer Marian Anderson from performing at its Constitution Hall, the group did not admit any black members until 1977.

Schlafly's DAR anecdote was couched in a larger speech in which she repeated her frequent assertion that comprehensive immigration reform will be “suicide for the Republican Party.” 

Phyllis Schlafly Applauds Stan Solomon's Homophobic Rant Against Obama

Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly is quite taken with right-wing pundit Stan Solomon, and last week hailed an unhinged rant Solomon delivered against Muslim-Americans and President Obama.

“I don’t really give a damn if there are any Muslims here but if they are here and they don’t want to be Americans, then get the hell out, and the same for any other group,” Solomon said, before railing against the president. “Barack Obama is not an American, never has been, not in his actions, not in his speech, not in his politics and not in his birth.”

“And not in his baseball throw either,” cohost and former congressional candidate Steve Davis interjected.

“He’s a homosexual, always has been, is now, always will be,” Solomon continued. “That’s his right to be but this nonsense that somehow homosexuality is something equal to or preferable to is just wrong.”

Schlafly applauded his remarks: “Very well stated Stan, thank you for being a voice of truth and sanity on the air.” 

Maybe Schlafly agreed with Solomon’s claims because she heard them before, as she was the guest on a previous edition of The Talk To Solomon Show on which Solomon said that “Barack Obama is a wussy guy who throws a ball like a girl, who everyone knows was involved in homosexuality and I think he is the stereotypical — if he could get away with it he’d be in drag.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious