Eagle Forum

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.”

Schlafly And Solomon Suggest Ukraine-Style Uprising Against Obama

In an interview late last month with Stan Solomon of the Talk to Solomon Show, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly agreed with Solomon’s suggestion that President Obama’s opponents “should be at least as strong as the Ukrainians” and march on Washington to depose the current government.

“If we would have not 100,000 but 100 million march on Washington and say, ‘No way,’ I don’t think our military and the few pitiful police they have there wouldn’t be able to stop us,” Solomon said. “I don’t think our military would fire on the American people. And we need to clean that cesspool of Democrats and Republicans, of illegals certainly, and say it’s time to save America for America, basically.”

“Yes, I agree, America for Americans,” Schlafly responded.

The interview was recorded on January 28, but uploaded yesterday to Vimeo.

Phyllis Schlafly's Ludicrous Lie

Most RWW readers probably had little intention of reading Phyllis Schlafly’s latest column, entitled “Obama’s War on the First Amendment.” But just in case you were interested, we can spare you the time. Its ridiculous nature is encapsulated in one paragraph:

Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t want any expression of religious faith in any public place, including buildings or schools or events. He wants to redefine the First Amendment from “free exercise” to “freedom of worship,” which means you would only be able to go inside your church, shut and perhaps lock the doors, and say a prayer where no one else can hear you.

Actually that transparently false first sentence is enough. No expression of religious faith in any public space? Has Phyllis Schlafly ever listened to an Obama speech? Did she watch either of his inauguration ceremonies? His National Prayer Breakfast addresses?

It’s one thing to disagree with the Obama administration’s position requiring insurance coverage of contraception, and to take a position that private corporations have the right to exempt themselves from laws that company owners say violate their religious beliefs. It’s another to make the ludicrous leap that the administration is out to force all religious expression behind closed doors.

In her column, Schlafly says “Make no mistake; we are in a war for religious liberty.” Clearly, in Schlafly’s war, truth is already a casualty.

Jones & Schlafly Warn We Will All Become 'Slaves' To Immigrants

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly has been busy peddling her new anti-immigration report to conservative media, and yesterday took her case to Infowars, where she chatted about immigration with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

Schlafly repeated her frequent claim that most of “the Hispanics coming in” don’t “even understand or want a smaller government” and therefore will ultimately end “freedom and prosperity” in America. “They’re not voting for amnesty, they’re voting for handouts by the government and they get that by going Democratic,” she said.

Jones wholeheartedly agreed, adding that new immigrants will then “support literally making those of us that produce they’re slaves.”

“It would be a joke if it weren’t so really tragic,” Schlafly concurred.

Schlafly: Resist Windsor Like Dred Scott

In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly compared the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v Windsor to the infamous Dred Scott case, arguing that the landmark marriage equality decision should not be used as legal precedent.

Attacking President Obama for his “dictatorial attitude” and “judges who think they can do anything they want,” Schlafly urged Americans to simply ignore the legal precedent set by gay rights decisions. Schlafly recalled how Republicans in the 1850s argued that the Dred Scott decision shouldn’t set a binding legal precedent. “We should reject some of these laws that try to write into the Constitution gay marriage, which is not a constitutional right,” she said.

Unfortunately for Schlafly, courts across the country are already using Windsor as precedent for striking down anti-equality laws.

Well, I’m not really a predictor, but I think the American people have got to stop this dictatorial attitude of Obama, who thinks he can do anything by executive order and the judges who think they can do anything they want by calling it a ‘living Constitution.’

Remember Abraham Lincoln, when the courts handed down probably the worst decision in history, the Dred Scott case. And Lincoln was very good, he said, well, okay, we have to accept what the court did for poor old Dred Scott but we don’t have to accept it as the law of the land, we don’t have to accept it as binding in other cases, or else we will be subservient to ‘that imperial judiciary.’ He just rejected it. And we should reject some of these laws that try to write into the Constitution gay marriage, which is not a constitutional right.

Schlafly: Immigrants 'Don't Really Understand Our Country And Will Probably Vote Democratic'

Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly released a report earlier this month that summarizes her argument that Republicans shouldn’t support immigration reform because she thinks Latino and Asian-American immigrants are inherently Democratic-leaning. Schlafly elaborated on the report in an interview Friday with Dove TV, claiming that immigrants will always vote Democratic because they “don’t even know what you’re talking about when you talk about limited government.”

“These immigrants, legal and illegal, coming in don’t really understand our country and will probably vote Democratic,” she said.

Schlafly added that a “good example” of liberal-leaning immigrants were the Boston Marathon bombers, who she said came into the country through “the asylum gimmick” and proceeded to collect welfare. “So we don’t want to just bring in more people to enhance the Democratic vote,” she concluded.

Schlafly added that President Obama is supporting immigration reform because he “wants to spread the power around” because “he thinks it isn’t fair that we’re richer and more powerful than other countries and he wants to bring us down to the level of other people.”

Gaffney: Legal Immigration 'Dooms Our Constitutional Republic'

On Secure Freedom Radio yesterday, Frank Gaffney invited Phyllis Schlafly to discuss her new Eagle Forum report making the case that Republicans should oppose immigration reform because immigrants will always vote Democratic.

Schlafly repeated her usual talking points that people from other countries don’t “understand the concept of limited government” so expanding legal immigration would be “suicide for the conservative movement and the Republican party.”

Gaffney agreed, adding that if immigration reform “dooms” the Republican Party it also “dooms our constitutional republic that that party has historically been there to serve and advance.”

As you know, the freedom of America is based on limited government --“Bind him down from mischief,” as Jefferson said – and the conservative movement believes in government’s too big and too expensive. And the people coming in will just vote the other way. And that’s why I think the Democrats are so eager to bring them up, they see millions of Democratic votes coming in through this amnesty.

It’s of course not just people who are not in this country and will come in if there’s an amnesty and the borders remain open, it’s also the numbers of undocumented people already here – it seems to be 11 million, but God only knows what it actually is.

Well, that’s right, it’s the people who are already here, and they come from countries -- well, America is not only exceptional, it’s unique in that we believe in limited government and cutting down on government spending, and there’s just a large bloc of the world that has other experiences and doesn’t even understand the concept of limited government. So, when they come in they will vote Democratic, which is what they showed. And this is also true of the Asians who are coming in, although not in as large numbers as the Hispanics, and that is because that’s all they know and they think government should be big in their life, and conservatives don’t feel that way. So I think that the amnesty, which would bring in millions of legal and illegal immigrants would just be suicide for the conservative movement and the Repbulican party.

Gaffney: I want to commend you again and urge everyone to check out at eagleforum.org ‘How Mass Legal Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party,’ and I would argue – and I think you would too, Phyllis Schlafly, dooms our constitutional republic that that party has historically been there to serve and advance.

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/6/14

  • Gary Bauer is not happy that AT&T had condemned Russia anti-gay crackdown: "[W]hen I worked in the Reagan White House, I don't recall AT&T or other major corporations condemning the Soviet Union while Jews and political dissenters rotted in Siberian gulags. Sadly, while Ronald Reagan worked to rebuild pride in America and America's standing in the world, many corporate elites were eager to trade and "coexist" with the Soviets. And today most big corporations don't feel a need to condemn Christian persecution and human rights violations. Why does concern for homosexual rights trump all other issues? I smell a double standard."
  • Michele Bachmann will speak at an Eagle Forum luncheon next month.
  • Beware! The Girl Scouts have been infiltrated by liberal groups “specifically so they can first corrupt them, and then coerce them to put their agenda forward on the unsuspecting people that they serve.”
  • FRC prays against the IRS: "May God intervene to awaken the people and end what must be seen as plans to empower the IRS to permanently tyrannize the American people!"
  • Liberty Counsel has taken its battle on behalf of "ex-gay" therapy to the Supreme Court.
  • Finally, some times you just have to shake your head at the things that David Barton says on his radio show, such as this: "This is one of the things that liberals have done to us in recent years is make us think that everybody is inherently good and therefore if an accident happens with guns, it can't be the individual's fault who walked into the theater and shot everybody, it's got to be the gun's fault because people are inherently good."

Schlafly: 'Anything That Obama Is For, I Think The Conservatives Should Be Against'

As Miranda noted the other day, Phyllis Schlafly "has never been very good at hiding partisan motivation for right-wing policy," frequently coming right out and admitting the petty, partisan motivations behind the supposedly "principled" stands that conservatives inevitably take in opposing things supported by Democrats or President Obama.

And this was a trend she continued when she appeared on Newsmax yesterday to discuss her new report warning that immigration reform legislation will doom the Republican Party when she declared that conservatives ought to oppose such legislation simply because President Obama supports it.

While conservatives and Republicans are out there laughably claiming that they want to work for President Obama but are constantly having their bipartisan efforts rejected by the administration, Schlafly openly states that conservatives ought to just flatly oppose anything that Obama supports.

"If they like it," she said, "it's certainly not going to be good for the conservative movement or for the grassroots or for the Republican Party ... Anything that Obama is for, I think the conservatives should be against":

The 10 Worst Arguments In Eagle Forum's Anti-Immigrant Plan To Save The GOP

Phyllis Schlafly, one of the strongest proponents of the theory that the Republican Party can survive simply by solidifying its base of white voters, is out with a new report arguing that all the GOP needs to do to thrive is to cut legal immigration in half.

In the report, Eagle Forum argues that immigrants – particularly Latino and Asian-American immigrants -- are inherently “leftist,” drawn to “the left’s race-based grievance politics,” and reliant on the country’s “racial spoils system and a huge welfare state,” and so therefore legal immigration should be dramatically reduced in order to save the Republican Party.

The report backs Schlafly’s idea – echoed by groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies and activists such as Pat Buchanan – that the Republican Party shouldn’t bother trying to become “ welcoming and inclusive” (particularly through immigration reform) but instead stir up racial hostility in order to solidify its hold among white voters. Unsurprisingly, this theory was first laid out by a prominent white nationalist writer before it hit the big time.

Schlafly has never been very good at hiding partisan motivation for right-wing policy. Last year, for instance, she unabashedly admitted that the purpose of Voter ID laws is to decrease Democratic turnout.

We’ve collected ten of the worst arguments in Eagle Forum’s report, which we fully expect to see waved around by conservative lawmakers in the near future.

  1. Democrats promote immigration just to get votes. “Looking at the political motivation of the groups push­ing higher immigration and amnesty, it’s obvious that the Democrats promote large-scale immigration because it produces more Democratic votes. A recent Gallup poll found that ‘Hispanics in the United States identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party over the Republicans Party by about a two-to-one margin, regardless of whether they were U.S.-born.’ If the Republican Party is to remain a party that is conservative and nationally competitive, it must defeat amnesty and any proposed increases in legal immigration. Further, conservatives must work to signifi­cantly reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country from the current level of 1.1 million a year.”
  2. Reducing legal immigration should be the #1 conservative issue. “ Each decade under current policy, about 11 million new legal immigrants arrive and become potential voters. If immigra­tion is not reduced, it will be virtually impossible for Republicans to remain nationally competitive as a conservative party. The key conclusion of the report is this: For conservatives, there is no issue more important than reducing the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year .”
  3. Immigrants “attracted” to “affirmative action and welfare” and “identity- and grievance-based politics.” “Most immigrants come from countries where the government plays a larger role in the economy and society. Their support for expansive government is reinforced by liberal elites in immigrant communities and the liberal urban areas in which so many settle. Further, immigrants’ liberalism often reflects self-interest, as many benefit from affirmative action and welfare. Unfortunately, some immigrants are also attracted to the Democratic Party’s support for identity- and grievance-based politics. In short, the factors contributing to immigrants’ liberalism are largely outside of the Republican Party’s control .”
  4. Anti-immigrant policies don’t hurt Republicans. “The idea that Republicans’ support for Proposition 187 two decades ago is what continues to cost the party [California] ig­nores the fact that voters in immigrant communities support Democrats because they largely agree with them on policies other than immigration ... The real problem is that immigration has created a far larger liberal electorate in California. If legal immigration is not reduced, the same thing will happen across the country .”
  5. Immigrants will turn America into New York and San Francisco . “These are two of the most intensely immigrant-settled cities in America — one-third of their residents are foreign-born. The governments of both cities are solidly left-wing, combining high taxes and oppressive business regulation with the Left’s cultural agenda and race-based grievance politics. The immigrants in both cities are quite different, with San Fran­cisco being predominately Asian while New York’s immigrants are very diverse, with Hispanics being the largest share. Yet, there has been no significant political pushback against liberal policies from immigrant voters in either city. In fact, Hispanics and Asians are part of the dominant Democratic coalition in both places. New York and San Francisco show how voters in immigrant communities can live with the most extreme manifestations of the Left’s social and economic agenda and remain enthusiastic Democrats.
  6. Immigrants are “alienated” by patriotism. “Yet the gap between naturalized citizens and native-born citizens on measures of attachment to the United States is so large that the authors of a Hudson report concluded that the nation’s ‘patriotic assimilation system’ is broken. These results matter politically because patriotism and American sovereignty are central to the conservative message, but such a message is meaningless to a significant share of immigrant voters, or even likely to alienate them .”
  7.  Immigrants encourage “ethnic separatism” and “grievance-based politics.” Putting aside the level of immigration, the rise of multicul­turalism and ethnic grievance-based politics makes the kind of assimilation that leads to voting Republican much more difficult. Unlike in the past, today’s immigrants are ar­riving in an America with a racial spoils system and a huge welfare state, which unfortunately many are dependent on. This new reality makes it much less likely that the children of today’s immigrants will come to identify with the small-government agenda of the Republican Party. Most principled Republicans rightly oppose such policies, but identity politics and all the policies that go with it are well established in modern America. Even if one optimisti­cally assumes that someday we will abandon such divisive policies, for the foreseeable future immigrants will continue to arrive in an America that encourages ethnic separatism and discourages assimilation. In fact, mass immigration provides one of the key underlying justifications used by liberal elites for continuing such policies. This fact makes lowering the level of new immigration all the more impor­tant.”
  8. Diversity is ruining America. “Finally, immigration increases support for big government by adding to society’s diversity. Robert Putnam of Harvard has shown that increased diversity results in less civic engagement and attachment. Putnam’s work shows that as diversity increases, people of all groups become less trusting of one another — even less trusting of members of their own group. He concludes that people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actu­ally make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” A society in which private citizens do less for themselves but want more from the government is tailor-made for Democrats. Federal immigration policy, if it is allowed to continue, will move America further in this direction. When private citizens do less for themselves or for others, the vacuum is filled by government. Yes, immigration adds many new Democratic voters. But it also makes the rest of the electorate more inclined to support the Democrats’ statist agenda."
  9. Descendants of European Catholic and Jewish immigrants aren't good for Republicans either. "It is also worth pointing out that many of the descendants of Great Wave immigrants still do not vote Republican, a cen­tury after many of their ancestors arrived. Looking at white non-Hispanic Catholics and Jews gives us some idea of how the descendants of these immigrants vote today. While Romney did better in 2012 than most recent Republicans with white Catholics, in both 2000 and 2008 only 52 percent voted for the Republican presidential candidate. Moreover, a majority of Jews have voted Democratic in every presi­dential election for which there is data, including 2012. The idea that the descendants of Great Wave immigrants eventually became solidly Republican is incorrect."
  10. Immigrants will take away your guns just by living in cities. One of the reasons whites have such a strong commitment to gun rights is the much larger share who own them. The reason for this is that a much larger share of whites live in rural America or have roots there and are thus familiar with firearms in a way that is less common among urbanites. Asians and Hispanics in contrast are set­tling in cities and the suburbs where hunting and gun ownership are much less widespread. And they are coming from countries where firearms ownership is highly restricted. It is unlikely in the extreme that Asians and Hispanics will ever have gun ownership rates approaching that of whites given where they are coming from and where they are settling. This fact means that immigration unavoidably increases the share of the electorate that has no experience with guns. As a result, immigrants and their children will tend to be much more supportive of efforts to limit or even ban gun ownership. As is the case with other issues, continued high levels of immigration have important implications for the future of public policy.

 

 

Another Anti-Choicer Admits Real Purpose Of TRAP Laws

The latest issue of Rolling Stone has a great article by Janet Reitman about the anti-choice movement’s new embrace of incremental measures to “chip away at reproductive rights in a way that will render Roe's protections virtually irrelevant.” We also covered this strategy in depth last year in our report, “ Chipping Away at Choice.”

Reitman discusses how anti-choice groups, most prominently Americans United For Life, are pushing incremental state-level measures that are billed as “health and safety” protections for women, but are really meant to carve away at the legal foundations of Roe in the long term and close abortion clinics and reduce access in the short term. Just this week, AUL released its annual handbook for lawmakers, which is full of legislative proposals for “TRAP” -- targeted regulation of abortion providers -- laws that limit access to abortion without directly challenging Roe.

One flaw in this strategy is that it relies on the anti-choice movement to radically change its talking points on abortion. AUL, for instance, rarely talks about outright criminalizing abortion. Instead, they talk about “ protecting women” from the “abortion industry” by over-regulating abortion clinics and forcing women to jump through hoops before terminating a pregnancy.

But not everyone in the movement has such message discipline. Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, a radical anti-choice group, told Reitman that he had changed his tactics to embrace TRAP laws because “ I want to win.” Last year, Phil Burress, a main proponent of an Ohio bill that required abortion providers to have “admitting privileges” to a local hospital, admitted that the goal of the bill was to put abortion clinics “out of business.” Last month, a pastor who said he was behind a similar admitting privileges bill in South Carolina, said the purpose was to regulate clinics so much that it makes abortion unaffordable to the average woman.

Now we can count Phyllis Schlafly among the anti-choice activists who haven't fully digested AUL’s new talking points. Last week Schlafly discussed the anniversary of Roe v. Wade with AUL’s Clark Forsythe, who deftly deployed his group’s messaging about “helping women to understand the short-term and long-term risks of abortion.” But Schlafly was having none of it. Instead, she announced that she recommends states pass “admitting privileges” bills because such laws  had closed clinics in Missouri and Texas and are “one of the most effective means of reducing abortion."

Forsythe: I think the way forward is, it has to be multi-faceted. We have to continue to press in politics and elect the right Senate, elect the right president. We have to continue to work through public policy in the states. We have to continue to educate about the impact on the unborn child from abortion, but as well the impact on women. And I think moving forward, getting the public to understand, helping women to understand the short-term and long-term risks of abortion based upon a growing body of international data, international medical data, is key toward turning around public opinion and influencing the Supreme Court.

Schlafly: And we do recommend the state law that says nobody can do an abortion unless he has hospital privileges within 30 miles – that’s about an hour’s drive. And that’s closed the biggest abortion clinic in Missouri and it’s closed about 30 in Texas, and it’s one of the most effective means of reducing abortion.

Schlafly Claims 'Many Americans' Moving Out of Marriage Equality States In Protest

We’ve all heard anecdotal stories of gay and lesbian couples traveling or even moving to marriage equality states to tie the knot. But according to Phyllis Schlafly, there’s a migration going the other way too. In her latest radio commentary, Schlafly claims that “many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.”

The liberal media must be covering up this mass exodus from marriage equality states, because we haven’t heard a single story of someone doing this.

The Court held that because the U.S. Supreme Court had recently ordered that federal benefits be granted to same-sex couples who are married under state law, the civil union law in New Jersey was inadequate to ensure that homosexual couples in New Jersey are able to receive the same benefits as married couples.

There was no dissent from the New Jersey Court’s ruling, not even by Christie’s own judicial appointments. But many Americans are dissenting with their feet, by moving away from same-sex marriage states and into the many states that continue to recognize the value of marriage as being between only one man and one woman.

Utah Eagle Forum Compares 'Disturbing And Disruptive' Homosexuality to Murder, Theft

A sample letter opposing a proposed state antidiscrimination measure circulated by the Utah Eagle Forum this week calls homosexuality a “disturbing and disruptive” “personal weakness,” which the group compares to “theft, dishonesty [and] murder.”

Fox 13 reporter Max Roth, who attended an Eagle Forum event on the antidiscrimination bill Wednesday, posted an image of the letter on Twitter, which was then spotted by On Top Magazine. The meeting was led by Utah Eagle Forum head Gayle Ruzicka.

The sample letter, signed by Orem Eagle Forum president Barbara Petty, asks the antidiscrimination bill’s sponsor Sen. Steve Urquhart, “What were you thinking?”

“Any confusion a man or woman has for their gender other than the gender that they were born with, is their personal weakness,” Petty writes. “We all have weaknesses and some are more disturbing and or disruptive than others. There is no need to categorize weaknesses.”

“However our God inspired Founding Fathers included words in describing our Constitution as a document good only for a moral people,” she continues. “Deviant sexual life styles are immoral.”

The letter goes on to compare discrimination against “immorality” to discrimination against “theft, dishonesty [and] murder” and berates Urquhart for promoting “oppression of the majority by the minority.”

We’ve transcribed the letter from Roth’s photograph. Sic throughout, bolding is ours.

Barbara Petty
Orem, UT

August 2013

Dear Senator Urqhart

We raise our voices in extreme rejection of the Anti-Discrimination Bill that you sponsored.

To propose such an option in support of a questionable life style is unacceptable.

God’s word says he created man and woman in his image. Any confusion a man or woman has for their gender other than the gender that they were born with, is their personal weakness.

We all have weaknesses and some are more disturbing and or disruptive than others. There is no need to categorize weaknesses.

However our God inspired Founding Fathers included words in describing our Constitution as a document good only for a moral people.

Deviant sexual life styles are immoral. We urge you to withdraw your anti discrimination bill and any further activity in that direction.

We discriminate against immorality, theft, dishonesty, murder etcetera and as our representative in the Utah Senate your oath of office is to uphold the constitution. We hold you to the oath you have taken.

Such action as described in the anti discrimination bill allowing a man to say he feels like a woman and wants to use the bathroom and shower facilities for women is a disgrace to the sacred covenants we have with the God of this world and offends all decency.

It is also a complete perversion of sentiment in that, in order to make a small minority feel more “comfortable” in their unnatural behavior, the overwhelming majority must suffer being uncomfortable in natural behavior. It is not an abuse of a minority to reject its abuse of the sensibilities of the majority.

Isaiah 5:20 says: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

What were you thinking?

Please don’t consider oppression of the majority by the minority to be good.

Sincerely,

Barbara Petty

cc: Senator Ralph Okerlund (who voted in favor to bring this Bill out of committee)
      Senator Peter Knudson (who voted in favor to bring this Bill out of committee)

You can view Roth’s report from the event and another anti-antidiscrimination event the same day here.

Schlafly & Solomon: Liberals Will Take Kids From Conservatives, Give Them To Gays Who Will Abuse Them

Last night, Stan Solomon hosted Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly to discuss his latest conspiracy theory that liberals intend to take kids away from conservatives and give them to gay people, some of whom will inevitably molest them.

Why haven’t you and I heard of this plot? Because the media is covering it up, of course!

Schlafly also criticized President Obama for “insulting” Americans when he “omitted” the word “God” from his recent recitation of the Gettysburg Address. Of course, her claim is completely false: Obama was reading the first draft of the speech, which did not include a reference to God.

Solomon called Obama a “foulmouthed, homosexual, drug-using, ne’er-do-well,” while Schlafly suggested that he only became president because “he had people behind him pushing him all the way.” “I really don’t think he’s very smart,” she said. “He can only say what somebody puts on the teleprompter for him.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious