Eagle Forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schlafly: Well, practically ever law is legislating morality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Wow,” Jones responded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

Even More Proof That Religious Right Myths Never Die

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't true when it was endlessly repeated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phyllis Schlafly: 'Girl' Marines Make US Look Weak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phyllis Schlafly Applauds Stan Solomon's Homophobic Rant Against Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious