Eagle Forum

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.”

Schlafly Decries 'Feminist War Against Manly Sports,' Cheers Return Of Wrestling To Olympics

Last month, the International Olympic Committee announced that it would restore the sport of wresting to the docket for the Summer Olympics after a public outcry over its removal. Among those pleased by the sport’s return to the Olympics is Phyllis Schlafly, who, of course, blames “the feminists” for the sport’s original cancellation.

“The opposition to wrestling was probably coming from the feminists who do not excel in the sport of wrestling, and who dislike anything that is truly masculine, as wrestling certainly is,” Schlafly said in her radio commentary today.

She suggested that the Olympic Committee instead eliminate table tennis because “even I can play ping-pong.”

In reality, wrestling was originally chopped from the Olympics not because of the “feminist war against manly sports,” but because it was boring. According to the New York Times, “Olympic officials complained to wrestling officials that their ancient sport had antiquated leadership and matches that could be dull, with results not easily understood by spectators.” The sport will return with new rules changes to make it more palatable to TV-watching audiences.

This isn’t the first time that Schlafly has found feminist fault in the Olympics. Last year, she claimed that Title IX “weakened our competitiveness” at the London Olympics – where American women athletes excelled.

Several months ago, on these broadcasts I reported that the Olympic Games Committee was planning to eliminate wrestling as a competitive international sport in the next Olympic Games. I joined an international effort to get the Olympic Committee to change its mind. Of all the sports that could be eliminated, wrestling should not be one of them. Wresting has been an Olympic sport ever since the Olympic Games were started in ancient Greece.

The opposition to wrestling was probably coming from the feminists who do not excel in the sport of wrestling, and who dislike anything that is truly masculine, as wrestling certainly is. I'm happy to report that our campaign was successful and wrestling will remain as one of the sports in the Olympic Games.

If any sport could be targeted for elimination, I suggest ping-pong. I don't think that is really a sport worthy of inclusion. Even I can play ping-pong, and I'm no athlete.

The attempt to cancel wrestling was really a political decision rather than anything to do with athletics. Let's hope the public wakes up to the feminist war against manly sports and begins defending sports and exposing the nonsense of the feminists.

Religious Right Groups Scandalized By Effort To Protect Houston's LGBT Inmates

The Associated Press reported last week on the efforts of Sheriff Adrian Garcia of Harris County, Texas, to prevent violence against the Houston county jail’s estimated 250 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender inmates. The AP notes that while a number of major cities have taken similar steps, Harris County will be the first in Texas to implement such a program.

Naturally, the American Family Association and Eagle Forum are scandalized.

Under the headline, “Deputy, Ronnie is now called Regina: Jail enacts sexual orientation policy,” Charlie Butts, a reporter for the AFA’s OneNewsNow, interviews Texas Eagle Forum president and former Texas Republican Party chairwoman Cathie Adams, who claims that Houston’s mayor Annise Parker – who is openly gay – is behind the new policy.

Adams claims that Parker actually wants to leave LGBT people “more vulnerable to abuse” and that the policy “will eke into the community and set up a very tragic situation.” She suggests instead of allowing transgender people to identify as they choose, that the jail offer conversion therapy to transgender inmates;  Butts claims, “The mental health field has an excellent track record in treating transgendered people to conform to their biological gender.” In fact, major medical groups including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association oppose the practice of reparative therapy.

Cathie Adams, with Texas Eagle Forum, says Houston is being influenced by its mayor, Annise D. Parker, an open lesbian. The city needs a better role model, she says.

"Not a person who is going to leave them more vulnerable to abuse," says Adams. "And I'm very sorry to say, I think that is exactly what this policy will do, not just in the prison but of course it will eke into the community and set up a very tragic situation."

The policy also suggests that transgendered people can choose between male and female sections of the prison.

Adams calls that allowance "tragic," noting that a "man is born as a man."

Jailers must address the transgendered by their "chosen name" and include it on the bracelet, the AP also reported.

The mental health field has an excellent track record in treating transgendered people to conform to their biological gender. So Adams wonders why, if Houston wants to help jail inmates, they don't offer counseling instead of affirming their gender confusion.

Jailers fall under a "zero tolerance" rule for sexual misconduct or harassment toward LGBT inmates, which could include firing and criminal charges. It was unclear from The Associated Press story if those rules only apply to homosexuals.
 

Schlafly Warns Of Amnesty For Polygamous Muslims On Welfare

Phyllis Schlafly appeared on Crosstalk last week, where she went through her usual argument about why Latino immigrants don’t make good Americans because they are less likely to vote Republican and hold conservative political views. She told host Jim Schneider that immigrants used to “be proud to be an American” and “became good people,” unlike “the people who are coming in now” who “don’t agree with the fundamentals of America.”

Schlafly also warned that immigration authorities are allowing Muslim immigrants to practice polygamy and have “a bunch of wives who will now go on our welfare.” She also agreed with a caller who said that the Obama administration will bring in tens of millions of Muslim immigrants in order to impose Sharia law.

Schlafly: I would like to know if our immigration authorities are letting in people who believe in polygamy. Polygamy is against our law. We’ve brought in thousands of Muslims; I want to know if they made them sign a pledge to assure they’re not bringing in a bunch of wives who will now go on our welfare. Nobody can answer that question, I can’t get any answers to that question.



Caller: See anything that Obama’s had on the front burner so far has destroyed this country and is ripping it away, and we also can’t forget about when we bring in with this amnesty bill these illegal Mexicans and whoever else wants to come in, we’re going to bring in 40-50 million Muslims with them all to destroy our constitution. I think people should keep that in mind and we’ll be under Sharia law shortly.

Schlafly: It is true. They’ve brought in lots of Muslims and in fact they’ve brought a lot into the St. Louis area where I live. Get somebody to answer the question: do you make sure they’re not bringing polygamists in?

Just in case where you were wondering where the figure of 40-50 million Muslims comes from, a regular Crosstalk guest Avi Lipkin claims President Obama plans to “bring in 50-100 million Muslims” in order to impose Sharia law.

Responding to another caller who told a story of undocumented immigrants using phony Social Security numbers in order to find employment, Schlafly added that “a lot of them get on the highway drunk and kill people too.”

Studies show that immigrants actually have a lower crime rate than native-born Americans.

Phyllis Schlafly Cites Hoax Case To Claim Christian Students Face Persecution

Conservative activists regularly claim that they are the real victims of bigotry and compare themselves to persecuted people throughout history, frequently citing bogus cases to show proof of their pain. As Kyle noted earlier today, “One thing that you can count on from the Religious Right is that once a talking point has been established, it will be repeated endlessly even after it has been proven to be demonstrably false.”

Take today’s Phyllis Schlafly column for example, where she warns that the First Amendment is under attack in public schools:

Some public-school busybody bureaucrats are trying to suppress any and all religious mention on school property. Their orders are far more extreme than anything courts have ever held to be violations of the First Amendment.

Sports are a favorite target of the anti-religious crowd. A high-school football coach, Marcus Borden, was forbidden even to bow his head or “take a knee” during voluntary student-led prayers before the games.

In Texas, a boy’s track relay team ran its fastest race of the year and defeated its closest rival by seven yards, which should have enabled it to advance toward the state championship. The team’s anchor runner pointed to the sky to give glory to God as he crossed the finish line, but someone didn’t like the gesture, so the authorities disqualified this winning team because of it.

The first case she mentioned is authentic, as indeed the coach was told to stop praying before games because the school and the courts found that his actions amounted to religious pressure and was unconstitutional. We wonder how Schlafly would react if a Wiccan public school coach tried to lead their team in prayer….

The second case she mentions of the Texas track athlete, however, is a well-known hoax that was debunked many months ago.

The athlete who said he was penalized for saluting God admitted that he fabricated the story and that he was actually disqualified for taunting: “My actions upon winning the 4x100 relay were strictly the thrill of victory. With this being said, I do not feel my religious rights or freedoms were violated.”

However, Republican politicians, Religious Right activists and conservative journalists continue to spread the myth, even well after it has been thoroughly discredited.

Right-Wing Groups Gear Up To Oppose Disability Rights Treaty, Again

Last December, former Republican senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole took to the Senate floor in a wheelchair to urge his former colleagues to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD), a United Nations treaty that would encourage countries around the world to emulate the United States’ protections for the rights of the disabled.

The treaty fell six votes short of the 2/3 majority it needed for passage, thanks to an intense lobbying effort by Religious Right groups that warned – against all evidence – that the treaty would threaten U.S. sovereignty, impede the rights of homeschoolers, expand abortion rights and allow the UN to seize children with glasses from their families.

Now, the fight is set to start over again. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a hearing on the treaty for tomorrow, and once again the extremist right is gearing up to defeat it by spreading myths about CRPD’s true purpose and effects.

The first sign of what is to come is that Susan Yoshihara of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) has been called as a witness for Tuesday’s hearing. C-FAM is a far-right group dedicated to defeating gay rights and reproductive health measures at the UN. Most recently, the group has made headlines for vocally defending Russia’s ban on gay-rights speech , a law that C-FAM’s president Austin Ruse said “most of the people in the United States” would agree with. C-FAM opposes UN efforts to prevent violence against LGBT people, an effort for which it has found its strongest allies in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

C-FAM also stands against any UN public health initiatives that stray from an abstinence-only ideology. The group criticized UN HIV/AIDS guidelines that called for decriminalizing adultery, homosexuality and extramarital sex, claiming that decriminalization “would fuel the spread of HIV/AIDS.” The group also opposes efforts to combat HIV/AIDS through sex education and condom distribution, which it claims are merely ruses to “protect the sexual revolution.”

C-FAM’s opposition to the CRPD has centered on the myth that the treaty would expand abortion rights – a myth that even the anti-choice National Right to Life Committee has debunked and which Sen. John McCain called just plain “wrong.”

As the Senate considered the CRPD last year, Yoshihara warned that the treaty included protections for “sexual and reproductive health,” which she said meant the treaty would be “used to advance a right to abortion.” After the treaty fell short in the Senate, Yoshihara declared that “cooler heads prevailed,” fretting that “the text could be interpreted as including a right to abortion.”

Also gearing up to fight the CRPD is the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which is renewing its warnings that the treaty, along with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, would imperil homeschooling families in the United States, “override existing state laws” and “surrender our nation’s sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats.” An indication of HSLDA’s mode of operation is that the group’s founder Michael Farris has written a novel set in a future in which the United States has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, allowing the UN to snatch children from American homeschooling parents .

It is Farris who warned last year that the treaty would allow the UN to come in and take control of children who wear glasses or have ADHD. In an interview with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, Farris claimed that the treaty could even empower doctors to kill disabled children. He even warned that the treaty would make the United States “an official socialist nation.”

Thanks in large parts to Farris’ efforts, rumors claims that the United States’ signing of the CRPD would endanger homeschooling became so pervasive that Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware was forced to confirm with the Department of Justice that “ratification of this treaty will not do anything to change existing American law, rules or enforcement on homeschooling” and that the treaty would not “ erode one iota of American sovereignty.”

HSLDA and Farris found a powerful ally in former senator and failed presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who warned that the treaty would lead to the deaths of children with disabilities like his daughter Bella.

Under Farris and Santorum’s leadership, the Religious Right rallied to oppose the CRPD last year. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins warned – with absolutely no basis – that under the treaty, “the global community could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled–at taxpayer expense.” Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum included the treaty vote on its “bills to watch” list, and Schlafly warned that CRPD – and UN treaties as a whole – “override national sovereignty in pursuit of social engineering, feminist ideology, or merely busybody interference in a country’s internal affairs.”Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, Eagle Forum and the American Family Association also joined the effort against ratification

While right-wing groups circulate irresponsible rumors about imaginary impacts of the CRPD, international disability rights advocates are left without an important tool for their work – the United States’ approval of international standards based on US law. The Senate now has a second chance to listen to common-sense voices of support for the treaty – including leading disability rights, civil rights and business groups – and reject the unhinged rhetoric that brought down the treaty last year.

Schlafly: 'It's The Statue Of Liberty, Not The Statue Of Immigration'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is sick and tired of people invoking the Statue of Liberty to advocate for fixing our immigration laws.

In a radio commentary today Schlafly – who previously argued that the Bible’s mandate for “compassion” doesn’t apply to immigrants – commemorates the anniversary of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty by declaring that the statue “has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration.” Instead, she argued, “people who had nothing to do with this great gift from the French were allowed to paste a plague on the base of the statue with a quotation that has misrepresented the statue as an invitation to open immigration.”

“Remember, it’s the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration,” she concludes.

While Schlafly is correct that the Statue of Liberty was not originally meant by the French to commemorate immigration, it quickly became a symbol of America’s promise for immigrants. As a National Parks Service historian told the New York Times, the statue “became really famous among immigrants. And it was really immigrants that lifted her up to a sort of a glory that was probably before America really fully embraced her.” The addition of the plaque with Emma Lazarus’ poem “The New Colossus” 20 years after the statue’s erection merely reinforced this symbolic value.

Schlafly somewhat undermines her case by quoting speeches from presidents who were very aware of the statue’s symbolic value. Schlafly selectively quotes Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech at the fiftieth anniversary of the dedication of the statue…a speech that was all about the importance of immigrants to American life. Likewise, she quotes Ronald Reagan’s speech at the statue’s centennial, which was also focused on the statue’s symbolism of a nation of immigrants. “Which of us does not think of other grandfathers and grandmothers, from so many places around the globe, for whom this statue was the first glimpse of America?” he asked.

But no, Schlafly says, “The statue has nothing to do with immigration.”

The Statue of Liberty is probably the most identifying symbol of America. It's almost like a religious shrine for Americans. Today is the anniversary of its dedication on October 28, 1886. A gift from France, it was built by Gustav Eiffel, the builder of the Eiffel Tower, and designed by Auguste Bartholdi, who wrote this about the Statue of Liberty: "The statue was born for this place which inspired its conception. May God be pleased to bless my efforts and my work, and to crown it with success, the duration and moral influence which it ought to have."

On the Statue of Liberty's 50th anniversary in 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: "The Almighty did prepare this American continent to be a place of the second chance.... Millions have ... found ... freedom of opportunity, freedom of thought, freedom to worship God." President Dwight Eisenhower stated in 1954: "It represents ... a nation whose greatness is based on a firm unshakable belief that all of us mere mortals are dependent upon the mercy of a Superior Being." When the Statue of Liberty was relighted after a restoration, President Ronald Reagan said in 1986: "I've always thought ... that God had His reasons for placing this land here between two great oceans..."

The Statue of Liberty memorializes the unique liberty we enjoy in America. It has nothing whatever to do with immigration. It's most unfortunate that people who had nothing to do with this great gift from the French were allowed to paste a plaque on the base of the Statue with a quotation that has misrepresented the Statue as an invitation to open immigration. The Statue has nothing to do with immigration.

Remember, it's the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration.
 

James O'Keefe Says Liberals 'Using the Government' to 'Destroy' Him, Urges Conservatives to 'Get Some Balls'

Conservative activist James O’Keefe, who specializes in making secret video recordings and then dishonestly editing them to attack groups and people he doesn’t like, claims that he is “feared and hated and attacked in a very nasty way” by liberals who “don’t play nice” and want to “destroy” him “using the government.”

In an interview on Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly’s niece Anne Cori this weekend, O’Keefe lamented that his fellow conservatives are “afraid to be effective because to be effective is to be hated.”

Asked if he had any advice for struggling activists, the ever-humble O’Keefe responded: “To speak frankly: Get some balls.”

O’Keefe: I think the problem with the Right, the Right – that is, the conservatives – they don’t like blood in the water. I mean that in a figurative sense. They don’t like shaking things up. They’re afraid to be effective because to be effective is to be hated. One of the things that Rush Limbaugh said, I can’t remember where he said it, but he said, ‘You have to understand that when people hate you and fear you, it’s a sign of respect. And I think it’s impossible to be effective as a conservative without being feared and hated and attacked in a very nasty way. These people don’t play nice, they don’t debate you. They try to destroy you using the government.

And I think people need to realize, the book ‘Breakthrough’ is about what one must go through in today’s society to speak truth to power. It’s very different than it used to be, I think.

Cori: Well, James, do you have advice for people who wilt in the face of criticism?

O’Keefe: Advice for them? To speak frankly: Get some balls.

Schlafly Objects To LA Schools iPad Program Because It Might Benefit Children Of Immigrants

Phyllis Schlafly is livid about the Los Angeles Unified School District's decision to launch a program last month to put iPads in the hands of every student in the school district. The Los Angeles Times explains that the effort is intended to “put a school district composed mostly of low-income, minority students on an even footing with more prosperous students, who have such devices at home, at school or both.” The program was temporarily halted this week after enterprising students at one test school promptly figured out how to hack the iPads for personal use – but that’s not what concerns Schlafly.

Instead, in her Eagle Forum radio commentary today, Schlafly frets that the “fancy electronics” might be used to educate the children of undocumented immigrants…or any student learning English as a second language:

The superintendent says his goal is to “close the technology gap” for the many low-income students in the district, but technology doesn’t seem to be the central problem. Los Angeles Unified is a very depressed school district, regardless of how much technology students do or do not have. It continually has some of California’s lowest test scores, and almost 1/3 of its students do not finish high school. (Throughout the rest of the state, only 13% of students don’t make it to graduation.) The waste of money on fancy electronics seems even more egregious when we consider what a terrible job Los Angeles Unified currently does educating its students.

To add insult to injury, many of the students who will be receiving a taxpayer-funded iPad aren’t even supposed to be in the United States. Los Angeles has one of the highest illegal alien populations in the U.S. Almost 400,000 illegal aliens live in this district. Almost a third of its students are classified as “English learners.”

You may want to keep these kinds of frivolous expenses in mind next time your own school district asks for a tax increase. In the district I live in, the school board is asking for a tax increase almost every year.

Schlafly: Strip Funding from Courts, Schools, Colleges, Child Protective Services, Social Safety Net, Feminists And Democrats

It’s not exactly news that Phyllis Schlafly thinks that things like gay rights, feminism, secular education, popular culture and progressive laws are ruining America. But it’s still remarkable to see her try to list all of her enemies in one place.

In a column this week entitled “America’s War Against Traditional Marriage Endangers Our Democracy,” Schlafly goes after child protection services, day care, divorce courts and domestic violence protections – all of which she sees as threats to the family and our democracy--  and issues a call to “shame and cut off taxpayers’ money from the groups that killed the American family,” groups that she goes on to list: “Feminists, judges, legislators, public school teachers and administrators, so-called child protection agencies, professors, psychologists, college courses, government handouts and Democratic politicians who want big-government spending in order to win votes.”

A combination of forces abolished the American family as we knew it.

The many factors include changes in the law such as unilateral divorce, court decisions and especially abuses by the family courts, the culture, curricula and customs from elementary grades through college, taxpayer financial incentives for illegitimacy, and the pronouncements of self-appointed experts who think they know how to manage children better than parents.

We must shame and cut off taxpayers' money from the groups that killed the American family, including feminists, judges, legislators, public school teachers and administrators, so-called child protection agencies, professors, psychologists, college courses, government handouts and Democratic politicians who want big-government spending in order to win votes.

The problem cannot be remedied by prohibiting same-sex marriage (even by a constitutional amendment) or by telling men to "man up."

Feminists demand that we abolish the patriarchy, and they argue that its worst offense is expecting mothers to care for their own children, and so the taxpayers should pay for day-care for all children. Feminists are still whining on television in 2013 about President Nixon's veto of the comprehensive Mondale day-care bill back in 1971.

All those who care about preserving the religious and economic freedoms that are the hallmark of America should realize that we cannot reassert constitutional rights, private enterprise, balanced budgets, reduction of government spending and freedom from government management of our lives without the intact, self-supporting traditional nuclear family functioning as the foundation of our society.

Schlafly: Immigration And Health Care Reform Are Part Of Obama's Plan To Introduce Communism

Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, one of the most vocal opponents of immigration reform, took her case to the sympathetic audience at the Talk To Solomon Show last week. Schlafly told host Stan Solomon that President Obama’s drive “to put another thirty million people on our health care system ties in with Obama’s plan for amnesty, to bring them in by the millions and load them onto the taxpayer.”

Solomon explained that the result would be communism: “This is the design, communism is equal but awful, everyone has the same but no one has everything. Everyone has the same but no one has anything. That’s Obama’s plan.”

“That’s his plan,” Schlafly replied.

Earlier this year, Schlafly similarly alleged that immigration reform efforts were crafted by “socialist-minded people” who “want to destroy our system.”

Watch:

Phyllis Schlafly's Totally Coherent Defense of North Carolina's Voter Suppression Law

In a WorldNetDaily column today, Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly comes to the defense of North Carolina’s new voter suppression measure with classic Schlafly logic. The new law is not politically motivated and won’t keep Democrats from voting, Schlafly claims…before adding that the law’s main virtue is that it is politically motivated and will keep Democrats from voting.

Schlafly starts out her argument by claiming that the notion that the state’s new photo ID requirement will disproportionately disenfranchise largely Democratic voting groups is “absurd” because “the poorest members of society can obtain photo ID to get taxpayer-funded handouts”….and then immediately contradicts herself by declaring “the real reason the left wants to make sure that individuals without voter ID are allowed to vote is because they are expected to vote for Democrats”:

Liberals make the absurd claim that requiring photo ID is discriminatory because some minority groups may be unable to provide proper ID. But government-issued photo identification can be obtained by anyone at very low cost.

We already need photo ID, aka a driver’s license, to drive to work, which is rather important to most people. Welfare recipients are required to show photo ID to receive money in many states, and we haven’t heard any gripes about ID discrimination.

If the poorest members of society can obtain photo ID to get taxpayer-funded handouts, they should be able to do likewise for voting. The real reason the left wants to make sure that individuals without voter ID are allowed to vote is because they are expected to vote for Democrats.

Schlafly then takes on the North Carolina law’s reduction of early voting days, including eliminating Sunday early voting, which she happily admits is a response to the popularity of early voting among Democratic voters:

The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that “early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.”

She is especially upset that the Obama campaign (or the “Obama technocrats”) ran a successful early voting get-out-the-vote effort, or, as she puts it, “identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote”:

The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.

But early voting’s sins, according to Schlafly, go beyond being successfully used by Democrats. In fact, she says, early voting “is actually contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution”:

Early voting is actually contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Article II states, “the Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes, which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Federal law sets the date for national elections on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

But that isn’t all! Schlafly -- who happens to be the recipient of the 2011 Citizens United Lifetime Achievement Award--  claims that early voting actually “increases the influence of big money spent on campaigns.” Not only that, she says, but it “increases opportunities for ballot fraud” because, she claims without any evidence, poll watchers aren’t present during early voting:

Early voting increases the influence of big money spent on campaigns because it requires candidates to campaign, to spend and to buy expensive television ads over additional weeks. Early voting increases opportunities for ballot fraud because the necessary poll watchers we expect to be on the job at polling places on Election Day can’t be present for so many days.

Schlafly wraps up her argument by declaring that North Carolina’s voter suppression law should “cheer up” conservatives  as they work to restrict reproductive choice, cut unemployment insurance and Medicaid and mandate the teaching of cursive so that “kids will now be able to read letters from their grandmothers”:

In 2012 the Democrats were so sure that North Carolina was a happy hunting ground for their votes that they held their National Convention in Charlotte to renominate Barack Obama. North Carolina promptly responded by voting down same-sex marriage in a referendum and then passing a bunch of good laws. So cheer up, conservatives.

In addition to the helpful new voting laws, North Carolina passed stricter regulations on abortion clinics, ended teacher tenure, cut unemployment benefits, blocked the expansion of Medicaid and (despite the scorn of propagandists for the national takeover of education by Common Core) mandated the teaching of cursive writing. Maybe that’s why the liberals are so angry: Kids will now be able to read letters from their grandmothers.

Case closed.

Eagle Forum: Elysium and World War Z Show Need to Curtail Immigration

Roger Schlafly of Eagle Forum writes today that the summer blockbusters “Elysium” and “World War Z” represent not only warnings against immigration reform, which his organization has strenuously opposed, but immigration in general. In a blog post titled “Anti-immigration summer movies,” Schlafly argues that the two films “seem to be saying that the Earth is being overrun by barbarians, and the only want to preserve a civilized society is to build walls to keep out the intruders, and to kill them when they try to invade.”

Apparently, Schlafly was rooting for the super-rich residents of Elysium, which he laments “lacks the political will to defend itself against the non-citizen attacks, so it is destroyed and ransacked.” He claims the film is “a warning against unrestricted immigration.” He suggests that World War Z has a similar message and that its zombie invasion is an allegory for immigration.

The big-budget, sci-fi, A-list-actor summer blockbuster movies are: Elysium,World War Z, Man of Steel, Oblivion, and Pacific Rim. All were fun to watch.

Do these have political messages? The first two seem to be saying that the Earth is being overrun by barbarians, and the only want to preserve a civilized society is to build walls to keep out the intruders, and to kill them when they try to invade.

Each movie has a hero who supposedly is saving the world, but he is really just pursuing his self-interests or trying to impress a woman who does not deserve it. The Brad Pitt character in WWZ reluctant to help fight the disease that is killing billions of people until he is forced. Then he burns up his mobile phone battery talking to his wife when he should have been reporting to his superiors. The country that does the best is Israel, because it builds walls to keep out the invading zombies.

In Elysium, Earth is overpopulated and miserable. A few people escaped, and created a better world. The Matt Damon character tries to sabotage that world so that he can steal their medical technology and remedy a horrible workplace accident. Instead he helps some woman he barely knows. The off-world civilization lacks the political will to defend itself against the non-citizen attacks, so it is destroyed and ransacked. As the Wash. Posts reviews, "Matt Damon storms the ultimate gated community".

Some have suggested that Elysium is left-wing because of its theme to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Maybe so, but it is also a warning against unrestricted immigration.

Phyllis Schlafly Was 'Extremely Offended' and 'Personally Insulted' By DOMA Decision

Eagle Forum founder and anti-gay activist Phyllis Schlafly was “extremely offended” by the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, because of “all the nasty names” she claims the court’s majority called DOMA’s proponents.

Speaking with Steve Deace yesterday, Schlafly said that it was “inappropriate, unprecedented and really nasty” for Justice Anthony Kennedy to find that DOMA’s passage had anything to do with “animus against gays.”

“I feel personally insulted by what Justice Kennedy said,” she added.

Deace: You wrote an interesting reaction to the US Supreme Court, I guess we would call it ‘opinion,’ but it really looked to me, Phyllis, like five justices, and Anthony Kennedy in particular, chose to write what amounts to an anti-Christian polemic disguised as a legal opinion. And it seems like you sort of got the same vibe from what they wrote.
 

Schlafly: Well, I was extremely offended at all the nasty names he called us. I just think it’s so inappropriate, unprecedented and really nasty for the justice to say that the reason DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, was passed, and those who stand up for traditional marriage is that they have animus against gays, they want to deny them equal dignity, that we want to brand them as unworthy, we want to humiliate their children, we have a hateful desire to harm a politically unpopular group. I just think, I feel personally insulted by what Justice Kennedy said. I don’t think that’s true, the idea that anybody who stood up for traditional marriage is guilty of all that hate in his heart is just outrageous.

Later in the interview, the two discussed Hobby Lobby’s suit against the health care law’s mandate that they provide their employees with insurance that includes birth control coverage. Deace claimed that the Obama administration is making “a clear attempt to eradicate the worldview that stands in opposition to statism.”

Schlafly agreed: “Well, I think you’re right, and that’s why I think Obama is definitely trying to make this a totally secular country where you’re not permitted to reference God in anything that anybody else can hear.”

It goes without saying that if the president is trying to eliminate public references to God, he’s doing a very poor job of it.

Deace: Well, and I think you look at something like religious freedom, you’ve got the Obama regime trying to tell companies like Hobby Lobby that your freedom of religion, when you walk into corporate headquarters there at Hobby Lobby, you no longer have the freedom of religion. So you have to do what we tell you to do, even if it violates the moral conscience of your religion, the Bill of Rights ends when you walk into your corporate headquarters. What we see going on in the US Military, for example. We’re seeing unprecedented threats to religious liberty. I know this is something you’ve written about as well. And I think this is a clear attempt to eradicate the worldview that stands in opposition to statism.

Schlafly: Well, I think you’re right, and that’s why I think Obama is definitely trying to make this a totally secular country where you’re not permitted to reference God in anything that anybody else can hear.

Eagle Forum: Immigration Bill Will Destroy Two-Party System, Turn America Into Detroit

On the July 13 Eagle Forum Live program, Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori spoke with conservative activist former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey about the Senate’s bipartisan immigration bill, which Schlafly claims McCaughey is “only one known to have actually read.”

Discussing a provision of the bill (page 384 of this pdf) that would provide grants to organizations helping new immigrants through the citizenship process and with English and civics lessons, Cori claimed the real purpose of these grants would be to register new citizens “as Democratic voters.” McCaughey agreed, saying that the real goal is “tilting the scales permanently against a fair two-party system.”

“The Tea Party’s not getting any of this money,” she said.

Through the immigration bill, McCaughey added, the Obama administration is emulating the ward bosses of Tammany Hall, only “nationalizing this kind of political corruption.”

McCaughey: Under this law-- under this bill, excuse me – community activists are the ones who are going to be paid by the federal government, our taxpayer dollars, they are going to be paid to walk the immigrants through the amnesty process, collect their documents, apply for waivers, gather their families together, educate them on the principles of American citizenship, walk them all the way through the various stages of this process. And that’s really a method of pouring huge amounts of money, taxpayer money, into groups that are always affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Cori: I’m sure one of the things they’ll do as they hold their hand is register them as Democratic voters.

McCaughey: Exactly. This is tilting the scales permanently against a fair two-party system.



McCaughey: Providing permanent funding to the community organizations that are allies of only one party. The Tea Party’s not getting any of this money!

Cori: Well, do you think the IRS is going to look into these Democratic organizations?

McCaughey: No, not at all. But you know what it reminds me of? Way back in the 1930s and ‘40s and ‘50s, we had James Curley in Boston, we had Tammany Hall, these local ward bosses, and poor people and newcomers would go to these ward bosses and get whatever they needed – a job, health care, food – in exchange for their vote. Well, now the Obama administration is nationalizing this kind of political corruption. They are creating a permanent infrastructure dedicated to making the Democratic Party the majority party, and it’s all in this immigration bill.

Later in the program, Cori speculated that the immigration bill – which the Congressional Budget Office has found would dramatically reduce the deficit – could in fact “make the United States just Detroit on a large scale, in terms of bankruptcy.”
 

McCaughey: We certainly shouldn’t rush through a comprehensive bill. You know, the nation is facing a $17 trillion debt, and the debt ceiling is coming up. End of the fiscal year, September 30, the nation runs out of money. And we really have to pay, John Boehner said, the number one issue is to get government spending under control. And this is not the time to rush through an immigration bill that could cost the nation trillions of dollars, and there’s no accurate assessment even of what it would cost.

Cori: Well, it could make the United States just Detroit on a large scale, in terms of bankruptcy.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious