Eagle Forum

Steve King Warns of Dark Future for America with 'Open Borders'

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) appeared Saturday on Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly and criticized the Republican National Committee’s endorsement of comprehensive immigration reform. King said that the GOP instead should focus on pushing for a contiguous border fence along the US-Mexico border, saying that “our public policy people” have no excuse since the Chinese built the Great Wall of China.

Later, while speaking to a caller named Meryl who complained that undocumented immigrants have trespassed on her property in Missouri, King said that if the US gives up on the rule of law in favor of “open borders” then we will become like “Third World countries” where the rich will construct fences and walls around their houses and install panic rooms.

Of course I supported the fence and we heard the arguments against the fence, people said, ‘well you can’t build a 2,000 mile long fence,’ as if somehow that would be too much of an engineering marvel. Well we can do the Panama Canal 100 years-plus ago and I’ve been over there to take a look at the Great Wall of China that was built more than 2,000 years ago, and that’s 5,500 miles long and you can march armies down the top of it, the Japanese did that. So building a fence is not that hard; I’ll just show you how to do it if it’s too complicated for our public policy people to get their mind around.



What occurs to me is that you say you need a fence around your own property, if you go to Third World countries and look around you see that is what they do. If they don’t have the rule of law, if they don’t have law and order, if lawlessness prevails then the more wealthy build a better, more effective barrier around their own compounds. In Mexico, there are plenty of fences that go around people’s homes to protect them from lawlessness, but if we’d line them up around the border we could easily build the border fence that we need. I’m thinking in places in the Caribbean or in Africa where there’s no law or very little law, they build a fence, sometimes a fence and a wall, and the wall will often have broken glass in the border on top and they’ll have an alarm system and inside that they’ll even have a safe room that they can go into to wait for people to rob them so maybe they don’t get killed. That’s what happens if you give up the rule of law and we have the rule of law still in this country but in these areas, in your neighborhood Meryl, that gives us a precursor, a look into what’s to come if we have a nation with open borders.

Phyllis Schlafly Denounces Rob Portman's 'Stupid' and 'Dumb' Marriage Equality Announcement

In an interview on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly attacked Sen. Rob Portman’s newfound support for legalizing same-sex marriage, calling his announcement “dumb” and a “stupid statement.” Schlafly, who unlike Portman has maintained her opposition to marriage equality even after learning that she has a gay son, said that Ohio voters may “feel sorry for him” because “maybe he was pressured by his son to do this.”

She insisted that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “does not proscribe a national rule against gay rights” and protects states’ rights.

However, Section 3 of DOMA requires the federal government to discriminate against legally married same-sex couples. Even the American Family Association’s legal counsel admits that Section 2, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions that are legal in other states, likely violates the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Mefferd: What do you make of Sen. Portman’s announcement last week?

Schlafly: I think it was a rather stupid statement that he made. He doesn’t appear to understand what DOMA is all about. His statement is not in accord with the facts and it’s inconsistent. If he stands up for states to be able to make their own decisions about marriage, DOMA allows that, we have about a half a dozen states that have made that unfortunate decision and they’re not interfered with by DOMA. I don’t understand. Portman was always advertised as one of the brightest of the Senators and he doesn’t seem to understand that the Defense of Marriage Act does not proscribe a national rule against gay rights; it doesn’t do that at all. It just says if one state adopts same-sex marriage the other states simply do not have to recognize it. What can be more states’ rights than that?



Mefferd: That shouldn’t be the way people shift positions as far as public policy is X is happening in my family therefore I’ve changed my mind completely for the entire country.

Schlafly: I agree with you and I think it’s really a dumb way to create legislation and my guess is that the Ohio voters will take care of that in the next election; I think they won’t respond to that type of an argument. They’ll feel sorry for him, maybe he was pressured by his son to do this, but I think the legislators should stand up for what the majority of people want and not decided based on personal experience.

Schlafly: 'We Need to Train the Men' to 'Stand Up to the Feminists'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly spoke earlier this week to Sandy Rios of the American Family Association about the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which Schlafly called a “terrible” law that “would have been an excellent place to cut” spending. She lamented that “Republicans are just scared by the feminists” when “they ought to stand up and show how really vicious they are.”

Schlafly: It’s a terrible bill. At this time when we’re talking about the sequester and trying to cut here and there, that would have been an excellent place to cut.

Rios: You know I’m sure that you’ve heard Phyllis that Eric Cantor, it’s been reported by conservative Republican aides that in a private meeting he threatened conservatives that there would be civil war if they didn’t allow this to be brought out on the floor for a vote. They are so concerned that the press and the country is going to think they don’t like women because they’ve been so burned through the last campaign. If they had listened to you what would you have said to them about that?

Schlafly: Well the Violence Against Women Act was a payoff to the feminists for endorsing Bill Clinton and the Republicans are just scared by the feminists, which is very unfortunate, they ought to stand up and show how really vicious they are.

At the end of the interview, she told Rios that “we need to train the men” how to fight feminists: “It isn’t natural for men to fight women and it’s just very hard for the men to stand up to the feminists” and their “many nutty ideas.”

Schlafly: We need to train the men. It isn’t natural for men to fight women and it’s just very hard for the men to stand up to the feminists. But the feminists control the Obama administration and they have so many nutty ideas. They’ve been trying to tell us that there really isn’t any difference between the genders, they are interchangeable, but then when it comes to the matter of domestic violence they enforce all these stereotypes and it’s just so wrong.

Eagle Forum Pushes Blatantly False Attack on Obamacare

Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum on Friday warned that the Obama administration has estimated that the average family will pay a minimum of $20,000 for health insurance once the health care reform law goes fully into effect.

The only problem with Schlafly’s claim is that the government never issued such an estimate.

The IRS simply used the $20,000 figure as an example for calculating the “shared responsibility payment,” or penalty, for a nonexempt family that does not acquire health insurance.

As the Annenberg Center’s FactCheck.org notes:

The IRS used $20,000 in a hypothetical example to illustrate how it will calculate the tax penalty for a family that fails to obtain health coverage as required by law. Treasury says the figure “is not an estimate of premiums.”



[T]he regulations weren’t a “cost analysis” at all. A spokesperson for the Treasury Department confirmed to FactCheck.org in an email that the IRS wasn’t making any declarations or projections about what prices will be.

“[Twenty thousand dollars] is a round number used by IRS for a hypothetical example,” the official wrote. “It is not an estimate of premiums for a bronze plan for a family of five in 2016.”

Schlafly wasn’t the only conservative leader to fall for the false story, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel also wrote an article arguing that a government “cost analysis based on ObamaCare regulations show[s] that the cheapest healthcare plan in 2016 will cost average American families of four or five members $20,000 per year for the so-called ‘bronze plan.’”

The Obama Administration is now estimating that by 2016 the minimum annual cost of health insurance for an average American family under ObamaCare will be $20,000. And there is no guarantee that the health insurance will actually cover all the medical treatments that the family wants and needs. $20,000 is merely the minimum annual cost; many families could face even higher premiums. Millions of Americans will be faced with the choice of buying this expensive health insurance, or paying hefty penalties to the IRS. Those who choose not to buy health insurance will be slapped by the IRS with thousands of dollars in additional taxes. Is this what Americans really want? Certainly not. $20,000 is many times more expensive than what most Americans pay for health insurance today.

It's not only families who will be hit by these enormous price increases under ObamaCare. One study predicts that a 27-year-old non-smoking male in Texas will go from paying $54 a month in health insurance premiums to a whopping $153 per month as soon as ObamaCare goes into full effect. That will be on top of the massive student debt that so many young people are already struggling to pay off. The real result may be that many Americans will choose to drop their health insurance simply because they cannot afford it. But that is the opposite of what ObamaCare was supposed to achieve.

None of this is a surprise to those who have criticized ObamaCare for years. Not a single Republican voted for this costly injection of federal bureaucracy into the American health care system, which has been the finest the world has ever known. Many businesses are decreasing the number of hours that their employees can work in order to fall below the threshold requiring employers to buy this costly insurance for their employees.

Vic Eliason Wonders if Chuck Hagel Is a Secret Muslim while Phyllis Schlafly Thinks All Muslims Are Terrorists

Apparently, President Obama and John Brennan aren’t the only secret Muslim agents in the administration.

Yesterday, Vic Eliason of Voice of Christian Youth America interviewed Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly about Chuck Hagel, who is set to be confirmed as secretary of defense later today. Adding to the other ridiculous, last-ditch efforts to sink Hagel’s nomination, Eliason asked Schlafly about wild allegations “that Mr. Hagel has become or has been a part of Islam, he’s Islamic.” Rather than specifically address Eliason’s question, Schlafly said that since Obama “gives a pass to Islam” in “his attack on religion,” Americans “have to be on guard on that all the time.”

The two then went on to praise Hagel-critic Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily, who must be taking a break from his usual endeavors of exposing Obama’s foreign birthplace, secret Muslim faith and gay past.

Eliason: Phyllis, there have been those that allege that Mr. Hagel has become or has been a part of Islam, he’s Islamic. What substance is on this thing?

Schlafly: Hagel is the most dangerous appointee for secretary of defense we’ve ever had, he’s got so many things wrong with him. He’s for getting rid of our nuclear weapons, he’s for downplaying our anti-missile defense and he’s even for signing onto the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would give some more foreign people the opportunity to make decisions about our policies. Whereas we know the whole world is better off if we have military superiority. Well, when we talk about Obama and his attack on religion he gives a pass to Islam. So, we have to be on guard on that all the time.

Eliason: Well our good friend Jerry Corsi from over at WND had an interesting statement here, of course he refers to Mr. Hagel: ‘A former Nobel Peace Prize nominee warns that Senate confirmation of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense would send a message to Iran of weakened U.S. resolve, making it less likely America’s military might would in any way deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions.’

Schlafly: Well Jerry Corsi is very reliable and I would take his words very seriously, that’s absolutely true. I think it so dangerous to have Hagel as secretary of defense, who is trying to implement all of the pacifist ideas that Obama has.

She also agreed with a caller who claimed that officials like Hagel need to identify President Obama as “the enemy” of America.

Later, Schlafly compared the American policy of Cold War deterrence to the current policy for “dealing with the Islam,” while noting that “the Muslims are different” than the Soviets as “they seem to like to commit suicide.”

Schlafly’s classification of all Muslims as terrorists was part of a bizarre argument that criticized Hagel for supposedly seeking to do away with America’s nuclear arsenal that she claims we need to scare terrorists who also are not at all afraid of our nuclear weapons.

Schlafly: I want to point out one difference between dealing with the Communists and dealing with the Islam. When the Communists in Russia were in charge we had a policy called mutually assured destruction which we called MAD and it was that they knew that if they dropped a bomb on New York City we’d hit back and wipe them out and that was supposed to deter them from doing any bad attack. But the Muslims are different; they seem to like to commit suicide. I don’t think they are going to be deterred by that type of an attitude and we have to make sure that we have the weapons that are enough to scare them that they never attack in the first place.

Eagle Forum Explains How Feminism Ruined Dating

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori guest-hosted this weekend’s edition of Eagle Forum Live, where she got to interview Schlalfy’s niece, Suzanne Venker, about her new book, How to Choose a Husband. Venker, who co-authored The Flipside of Feminism with Schlafly, is the sort who advises women not to become brain surgeons.

It was no surprise, then, that she and Cori blamed the rise of feminism for the problems women face while dating.

Venker denounces feminists for teaching women that relationships should be equal partnerships and that they should have skills for the workforce rather than tools to be a wife.

Cori: Are young women today too competitive when they look at their relationships?

Venker: I do thinks so. I don’t think they know any other way. I think they’ve been raised to have a life in the workforce and they’ve been given absolutely no tools for how to be a wife or how to even be a girlfriend. So they’ve inadvertently brought those tools that they’ve acquired for the workforce into their love lives and it’s not working. Men don’t want to be bossed around so if you’re the boss at work that’s fine but you’re going to have to shift gears at home because that doesn’t work for love.

Cori: You can’t say, ‘tonight’s your time to wash the dishes,’ because that will break a relationship, ‘I washed the dishes last night so now you’ve got to wash the dishes.’

Venker: Exactly. That’s tit-for-tat and that’s a recipe for disaster. That’s what equality demands. If everything is supposed to be fifty-fifty at all times and you’re keeping score, your marriage is going to fail.

She goes on to explain that feminists have corrupted the minds of women by making them think positively about “being single and being sexually free.”

Cori: When you go on a job interview attitude is the most important factor, and of course dating is just another form of a job interview, are single young women today victims of their own attitude when they date?

Venker: They are. You have to remember, this is the generation that was raised to ‘never depend on a man’ and not only never depend on one, really that you just don’t need a man period. So that’s a whole different life than the kind of life women were taught to inspire to in the past. What’s unfortunate about it is that it sounded I guess at some point empowering, I hate the use of that word the way feminists use it because it’s actually a very good word, but they use it to mean that being empowered is being single and being sexually free to do what you want and when you want and not being tied down to anything, but of course at some point that’s going to run its course.

Feminist moms are especially to blame:

Cori: Suzanne, women’s literature is filled with plaintive tales of bad guys or good guys who get away, do women today need happier stories or better role models in the society, or have their mothers just messed up on teaching them these rules?

Venker: Well I do believe it’s the latter. I believe that they came from a generation of baby boomer feminists who’ve taught them all kinds of negative thoughts about men and marriage. What I’m saying in this book, “How to Choose a Husband,” is you’re going to have to — as hard as it is — accept that your mother, if this was your story, doesn’t have the answers that you are looking for and you’re going to have a hard time finding them in the culture as well, which is why I wrote the book.

David Horowitz's Winning Formula for the GOP: Be More Like David Horowitz

David Horowitz appeared on Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly over the weekend and made the case that the Republican Party continues to lose elections because their candidates aren’t incendiary and combative enough, arguing that Republicans should model themselves after far-right activists like Schlafly and himself if they ever want to win an election again. If not, Horowitz said that Democrats will continue to “oppress” women and minorities and take the U.S. down the path of Nazi Germany.

Horowitz: I think that Obama has awakened conservatives to the fact that they have to get involved in politics in a very serious way. One of the ways they need to, where they are way behind, is in the political battle itself. You can’t just put your principles out there, you have to sell them. The way to sell them is to tap into this basic story that politics is about: the underdog and the people that are keeping the underdogs down. The Democratic Party, the bad-hat has to be put on it. Democrats are the oppressors of women, children, minorities and the poor. Phyllis, you have been so strong and good on the way Democrats oppress women. We have to use their language against them and none of our candidates did that.



Caller: I wonder if you share the same opinion that I see the same thing happening in America slowly that happened in Nazi Germany, quickly.

Horowitz: Yeah, of course I agree with that. They’re the same kind of movement. All these movements: Nazism, communism, socialism, progressivism; they are all substitutes for an authentic religion.

Horowitz maintained that Republicans need to portray the Democratic Party as an “enemy” of people of color that has “declared war on black people and Hispanics and minorities.” “Democrats have their boot heals on the necks of poor black and Hispanic children” through the public school system, Horowitz claimed, “Imagine if the Republican convention was about that instead of just patting themselves on the back for their success stories.”

Horowitz: The Republicans did not mention in that campaign the victims, the black victims, the Hispanic victims of Obama’s policies. If you want to communicate to minority communities who care about them, then you have to take up the battle against their enemies and the Democratic Party is the enemy, it has declared war on black people and Hispanics and minorities.



Horowitz: Democrats have their boot heals on the necks of poor black and Hispanic children. Imagine if the Republican convention was about that instead of just patting themselves on the back for their success stories.

Schlafly: Well I wish they would take some good advice from you.

Religious Right's Last Stand to Block Chuck Hagel

While it is becoming extremely unlikely that the GOP will be able to muster enough votes to filibuster Chuck Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary, Religious Right groups and their Republican allies continue to make new and more over-the-top overtures to activists hoping to block his confirmation.

For example, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that “we can’t afford to allow someone who has been that cozy with the terrorist groups that are out there to become Secretary of Defense.”

Inhofe went on to say that Hagel wants to “disarm us” and shows “hostility” toward the U.S. and Israel. Inhofe also cited Sen. Ted Cruz’s questioning of Hagel where he egregiously misrepresented the nominee’s speeches and interview with Al-Jazeera.

Inhofe: That is what is so scary about this; we’d be confirming a secretary of defense—

Perkins: That wants to basically disarm.

Inhofe: Who wants to disarm us. Before I run out of time, Cruz came up with something just great, he’s a new senator from Texas and he’s on my committee, the Armed Services committee, and he came out and he actually used…a spot that came from Al-Jazeera, this was Chuck Hagel being interviewed on Al-Jazeera a short time ago when he agreed with the call-ins at that time that Israel committed war crimes; Hagel admitted that Israel committed ‘sickening slaughters’; admitted that America is the world’s bully. And this is the guy that is trying to become the secretary of defense; it’s a scary, scary thing.

Perkins: Senator before I let you go, just one question: do you know why he seems to be so indifferent if not hostile toward Israel?

Inhofe: And the United States, Tony. I just don’t understand it. Of course, he denies that he is and you know the record confirms that he has this hostility to it. By the way, almost every group in Israel is lobbying us and calling us and saying, ‘please don’t let this happen.’ They’ve been just as concerned about Obama, this is the first time that any President of the United States has trashed Israel in my memory. So I can’t answer that question.

Matthew Hagee, the son of televangelist John Hagee who has been lobbying with Christians United for Israel against Hagel and called him “dangerous to America’s security,” said on the Hagee Hotline that Hagel’s contentious confirmation hearing was an answer to their prayers.

At the end of the day, Pastor Hagee and those 400 [pastors] who joined him were very confident that what they had done was all that was in their physical power to do to not only represent their views as Americans but the views of the body of Christ and the kingdom of God and to stand up on behalf of God’s chosen people, Israel. All that was left to do was to remain in prayer and to be hopeful that the actions that they had taken would make a difference. If you saw any of the headlines following the Senate committee’s interview of Chuck Hagel, you know that a difference was made. You saw that the Senate firsthand was able to expose Hagel’s weaknesses and you saw the difference that the prayer of the righteous and faith in action can make.

Just today the Family Research Council asked activists to pray for Hagel’s defeat and FRC senior fellow Ken Blackwell said Hagel’s nomination invites “chaos and confusion at a time of international peril.” Eagle Forum told members in an action alert that “Chuck Hagel is a threat to America’s strength and safety” and Rick Santorum claimed “his confirmation would be a direct threat to our national security.”

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer also weighed in, saying that Iran “loves” Hagel because he wants to “disarm” the U.S.

Who's Worse: Feminists or Gays?

Robert George, the founder and chairman emeritus of the National Organization for Marriage, appeared on Saturday’s edition of Eagle Forum Live with Phyllis Schlafly to “explain why redefining marriage as merely an emotional bond is a very bad idea.” George warned that legalizing same-sex marriage “would be a disaster for children, for communities, for society as a whole” because marriage would lose its “direct link to procreation and children.”

Schlafly, the arch antifeminist, added that while gays are out to ruin marriage, it is actually the feminists who are the bigger threat. She said feminists are “the cause of most of our problems” because they don’t want men “to have any authority.”

George: What’s at stake is whether we’re going to retain that understanding of marriage with its link to procreation and children, its essential and direct link to procreation and children, or whether we are going to just ditch the idea of marriage altogether, replace it with a different way of organizing social relationships, transform what was known as marriage into mere sexual, romantic, domestic partnership, companionship, which the state would not have any interest in and then reassign the label marriage to that relationship. That would be a disaster for children, for communities, for society as a whole.

Schlafly: In the normal course of human behavior with men and women around these helpless little creatures do appear who could not possibly take care of themselves, isn’t marriage the answer for dealing with that problem?

George: Here’s the way I see it Mrs. Schlafly, I’m borrowing here a thought from my friend Maggie Gallagher who is a great pro-marriage campaigner, when a child is born it’s a pretty good bet that there’s going to be a mother somewhere in the vicinity. Nature provides for that. The real question, one that every culture has to face is: will there be a father around who will help that woman to raise the child? To raise the child in a bond of commitment between mother and father and who will provide the distinctive contributions to child rearing that fathers provide.

Schlafly: That’s exactly why I think the cause of most of our problems are the feminists who don’t want the father around, they want to kick him out, they don’t want him to have any authority and they just don’t think men are necessary.

Later, George responded to a caller asking how “this homosexual thing” will “bankrupt America” with warnings about “big government” and “financial catastrophe.”

Caller: I think that this homosexual thing is not to have equality of people but to bankrupt America by destroying the family.

Schlafly: Well it is true Professor George that when you get rid of the father and you break up the family, the welfare rolls increase and that contributes to destroying our system.

George: Yes it’s an invitation to big government, it makes big government inevitable for the two reasons I articulated: one, the provision of social welfare services; and two, the provision of security, both of which expand with the breakup of the family. Of course, big government eventually means financial catastrophe and bankruptcy because as Mrs. Thatcher famously said, ‘sooner or later you run out of other people’s money to spend,’ and that’s the condition that we find ourselves in and I again would broaden the blame here.

Schlafly Says 'Feminist Ideology' Unfairly Blames Men for Sexual Assaults

As the Obama administration continues to be a complete nightmare for antifeminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, the Eagle Forum president is out with a new column attacking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta over his decision to end the ban on women in combat. She claims the policy shift is “lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists” and even makes a bogus analogy to the NFL.

Schlafly said that the rate of sexual assaults “will skyrocket” if the ban is removed and also attacked the “feminist ideology” for blaming men for such incidents: “Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims.”

In a newsworthy act of political cowardice, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ran through the Pentagon’s exit door as he announced he is striking down the 1994 Combat Exclusion Law. His timing means his successor, presumably Chuck Hagel, will inherit the task of defending the order to assign women to front-line military combat.

Of course, Panetta doesn’t want to be grilled about his order. It’s lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists.



Military women are already complaining about increased sexual assaults, and of course those problems will skyrocket. Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims. [emphasis added]



How do you answer the fact that women do not have an equal opportunity to survive in combat situations, and did you consider the fact that women in the military get injured at least twice the rate of men? Please explain why the National Football League does not seek diversity or gender equality with female players.



A lot of people have a very sanitized view of what battlefield fighting is all about. They seem to think it means a quick gunfight and then returning to the base with separate shower and toilet facilities and a ready mess hall.

Gaffney: Obama has a 'Profound Affinity for' Islamism

It is always fascinating to watch far-right activists claim that Muslims should be stripped of their First Amendment rights while denouncing the Obama administration for allegedly trying to undermine the freedom of religion all in the same breath.

Take, for example, Frank Gaffney, who testified in a Tennessee court on behalf of a group that tried to ban a mosque by arguing that Islam is not be protected under the First Amendment. He spoke with Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly yesterday about Obama, whom Gaffney thinks is likely a secret Muslim, about his purported “assaults” on religious freedom.

After Schlafly named a series of lawsuits (most of which had no connection to the Obama administration) that she says prove Obama is hostile to the First Amendment, Gaffney asserted that Obama is not only trying to impose a “secularist agenda” but also champion “unalloyed efforts to promote Islamism.” He argued that Obama has a “profound affinity for” Islamism and asked Schlafly how that squares with his secularism.

Schlafly, however, couldn’t come up with a coherent answer besides arguing that Obama is wrong for saying that “we are not a Christian nation” since that’s “what the founding fathers were saying all the time.”

Gaffney: These seem sort of like small and unconnected assaults, but one of the places where we see and you write very powerfully about, this coming to ahead as you say, is the exception to his secularist agenda, which seems to be President Obama’s profound affinity for and I would argue unalloyed efforts to promote Islamism. Tell us what that’s about and how that’s translating into further problematic behavior with respect to our religious freedoms.

Schlafly: Well my book, No Higher Power, shows how he is trying to completely secularize our country but he is giving a pass to Islam. You find that he doesn’t attack Islam and he went over to one of those countries and announced that we are not a Christian nation, but America is a Christian nation, look at all of our founding documents and what the founding fathers were saying all the time and the very beginning. It is very peculiar the way he gives a pass to Islam.

Maybe Schlafly and Gaffney can read Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography where he explicitly states that Muslims have religious freedom and no religion has a privileged status, or see the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli negotiated by George Washington and ratified unanimously under John Adams which reads in part:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility [sic], of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never have entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Conservative Historian Warns Obama and Democrats are 'Much More Radical' than Marxists

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafy brought on conservative historian Don Critchlow, who wrote a fawning biography of Schlafly, as her guest on Saturday’s Eagle Forum Live to promote his new book, Takeover: How the Left’s Quest for Social Justice Corrupted Liberalism. He told Schlafly that President Obama and today’s Democratic Party have a “more insidious” and “much more radical agenda, actually, than what the old communists were talking about,” as they plan to take away “real rights” and “control the way we live.”

Schlafly: When Barack Obama was running for President he bragged, he said that he wanted to ‘fundamentally transform America,’ what do you think he really wants to transform?

Critchlow: I think he wants to transform the way Americans live. I think what this transformation is is a clear cut agenda to extend the federal government into all parts of our lives. What’s happened, Phyllis, is that we’ve seen the steady erosion of real rights in America today. This is a very insidious agenda that has been imposed upon us and too many Americans are going along with it.



Critchlow: I think the takeover of the Democratic Party, the new progressives were not communists per se. The old communists, the old Marxists were concerned with issues of production. This is a much more radical agenda, actually, than what the old communists were talking about. The new progressives want to control consumption. That’s the point of takeover — that they want to control — it’s more insidious because they’re going to control the way we live as opposed to just nationalizing a few industries as the old socialists and communists wanted.

Critchlow also didn’t rebuff one caller’s theory that Obama will soon nationalize pension plans in order to take the money from seniors after the death panels have them killed, saying that government will begin “extending its control over all kinds of things that we just can’t envision.”

Caller: One of the things that President Obama is talking about a lot right now is nationalizing the pension funds, he wants to take over all the private pension funds and have the government control them and I think give the people who should have received their pension funds give them a month annuity instead. I figure this is designed to mesh with Obamacare in the following way: sooner or later somebody getting this money that’s retired will have a medical problem, they’ll need to go see a doctor and when they go see a doctor under Obamacare they’ll be sent to the death panel and the death panel will have them euthanized and ten the government will grab up all their money and have the rest of their money, they will have only gotten tiny bit of the pension money they were saving up for and the government will have all their money. So I wanted to ask if he figures I’m right on my speculation on this point?

Critchlow: Well what we’re going to see in this financial crisis that we’re experiencing, government extending its control over all kinds of things that we just can’t envision. Obamacare is an unaffordable and cockamamie plan that now the Supreme Court has ruled is constitutional. So we’re going to see this full blown agenda being fulfilled as this crisis worsens.

Eagle Forum: 'Non-Whites, Non-Christians and Non-Marrieds' will 'Tear Down Traditional American Culture'

After warning that a decline in the white birth rate will lead to the demise of American culture, Eagle Forum is now attacking racial and religious minorities for supposedly trying to “tear down traditional American culture” and “undermine Americanism.” As Kyle noted yesterday, Roger Schlafly (son of Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly) is taking a page from Bill O’Reilly in blaming President Obama’s re-election on Democrats who have been “badmouthing traditional American values” and “increasing government dependence.” Schlafly, who earlier claimed that people should fear that “immigrants do not share American values” and “will not be voting Republican,” writes that Republicans and WASP culture are the last bastions of “traditional American values” against “non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds.”

America was founded by WASPs -- White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They had nuclear families, attended church, and believed in the Protestant work ethic. Republicans are seen as believing in traditional American values.

Democrats campaign largely by badmouthing traditional American values, and convincing various demographic groups that they are outside the Republican base, and hence better off voting Democrat. So non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds vote Democrat out of group identifications. That is, they see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture.

Democrats never persuade voters based on reason or logic. They gain voters by increasing government dependence and by promoting changes to immigration policy, family law, and schools that increase the population wanting to undermine Americanism.

We used to have independent voters who decided elections by voting for who they thought were the better candidates. This election has convinced everyone that now elections are determined msinly [sic] by demographics.

Religious Right Groups Work to Defeat Treaty on Rights of People with Disabilities, Falsely Claim it Sanctions Abortion

Conservative organizations have come out strongly against the UN Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities, with Rick Santorum leading the charge. The groups are upset about the treaty ensuring that people with disabilities have equal rights because they claim it is “pro-abortion.”

Article 25 of the Treaty reads in part: 

States Parties recognize that persons with disabilities have the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure access for persons with disabilities to health services that are gender-sensitive, including health-related rehabilitation. In particular, States Parties shall:

(a) Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes;

Anti-choice activists are angry about the inclusion of the phrase “reproductive health” in the nondiscrimination clause, according to LifeNews:

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, has previously noted the pro-life concerns, saying abortion advocates put language in the treaty in Article 25 that requires signatories to ‘provide persons with disabilities… free or affordable health care including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programs.’” “Translation: the global community could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled–at taxpayer expense” he said. “Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried to neutralize the threat during the mark-up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Unfortunately, his amendment (which would have stopped the treaty from forcing abortion policy on countries that sign) was thwarted by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) after a debate.”

Several pro-life groups are on record opposing the treaty, including Eagle Forum, Family Research Council Action, CitizenLink, Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel, and others.

In addition, the Home School Legal Defense Association and the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) have also came out against ratification.

But Perkins’s claim that the treaty “could force America to sanction sterilization or abortion for the disabled-at taxpayer expense” is simply false.

The State Department makes clear that the treaty “does not include abortion” and the phrase “reproductive health” in Article 25 “does not create any abortion rights, and cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion.”

The Convention is firmly rooted in the principles of equality and non-discrimination. As the Chairperson and many other delegations, including the United States, have noted on countless occasions over the course of negotiations, the treaty reinforces existing rights and is aimed at assuring that persons with disabilities will be treated on an equal basis with others.

This approach was reflected in oral statements and in various places in the written travaux preparatoires, including in a footnote to the draft text of Article 25 that appeared in the report of the Seventh Ad Hoc Committee.

In this regard, the United States understands that the phrase "reproductive health" in Article 25(a) of the draft Convention does not include abortion, and its use in that Article does not create any abortion rights, and cannot be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion. We stated this understanding at the time of adoption of the Convention in the Ad Hoc Committee, and note that no other delegation suggested a different understanding of this term.

Even the National Right to Life Committee reported after the text was adopted that no delegate interpreted “reproductive health” to mean abortion and that “delegates from pro-life nations ultimately accepted this language.” “The committee responsible for enforcing compliance to this treaty would be going way beyond their mandate if they were to interpret the term ‘reproductive health’ to include abortion,” the NRLC said:

The legally undefined and controversial term "reproductive health" remains in the document despite the fact that the term has never appeared in any other UN treaty. However, all parties maintained that the term does not include abortion and that its inclusion in this treaty cannot be interpreted to create any new rights such as a right to abortion.

The final version of Article 25 (a) on health states that nations signing and ratifying the treaty shall: "Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health. . . . ."

Delegates from pro-life nations ultimately accepted this language because they were assured and became confident that it does not include abortion or create any new human rights such as a right to abortion.

For example, during the debate the Treaty Chairman, Ambassador McKay of New Zealand, stated repeatedly that the use of the term "reproductive health" in this treaty does not create any new human rights such as abortion. He even added a non-binding footnote to the record of negotiations, not the treaty itself, which he claimed would preclude any such misinterpretation of the term.

Numerous delegates from nations throughout the world including the European Union agreed with Chairman McKay that the term "reproductive health" does not include abortion. No delegate from any nation stated that it does.

In light of all these statements and the language of the treaty, the committee responsible for enforcing compliance to this treaty would be going way beyond their mandate if they were to interpret the term "reproductive health" to include abortion. It is crucial that they do not because nations that sign and ratify a treaty are required to change their laws in order to comply with the treaty.

But for the Religious Right, even definitive evidence that the treaty’s language does not refer to abortion doesn’t change their mind that the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities must be defeated.

Schlafly and Allies Prepare to Blame Election Loss on Voter Fraud

Leading up to what promises to be a very close presidential election, the Right has been working hard to lay the groundwork for blaming an Obama victory on “voter fraud.” The same strategy worked wonders last time around, when, one year after President Obama’s decisive victory a full half of Republicans believed that the community organizing group ACORN had stolen the election. In-person voter fraud, as John McCain strategist Steve Schmidt admitted today, is a convenient part of “the mythology now in the Republican Party,” one that as Josh noted earlier has helped to fuel decades of voter suppression measures.

At an Eagle Forum conference in September – attended by Todd Akin, among others – two speakers addressed the issue of voter fraud: Catherine Engelbrecht, whose group True the Vote has been challenging registered voters across the country, and John Fund, a conservative columnist and author of a recent book on the issue.

Fund claimed that President Obama wants the election to go to the Supreme Court, and that in a close election, the president would use the now-defunct ACORN to change the outcome: “The election is close, and he puts his thumb on the scale of democracy, and he sends his old ACORN friends the signal, you know what’s going to happen.”

 After Engelbrecht’s speech, Schlafly joined her on stage to share news she had heard from “somebody” that in Pennsylvania, “at two o’clock in the afternoon they have no Republican observer, the Democrats just vote [for] the rest of the people who haven’t voted.”

“I think it goes on,” Engelbrecht agreed.

Todd Akin Compares Criticism of his Remarks to Beheadings by Islamic Extremists

In late September, a month after his remarks about “legitimate rape” sent shock waves through the country, Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin addressed a St. Louis conference convened by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, one of Akin’s most ardent defenders. In his speech, Akin wasn’t at all apologetic about his claim that women are unable to become pregnant in cases of “legitimate rape.” Instead, he argued that “political correctness” had caused him to face greater backlash than Bill Clinton, “who was accused of doing something wrong, as opposed to saying something wrong.”

“It surprised me that the saying it wrong almost seems like it’s worse than the doing it wrong,” he said. Clinton, of course, was impeached. And Akin’s comments on abortion and rape are indeed reflected in his actions, such as his attempt to redefine rape and participation in militant anti-abortion rights activism.

He went on to compare criticism of his remarks to decapitation by Islamic extremists: “We see that all the time with [what] the Islamists pull out on us: we’re offended so we’re going to cut your head off.”

Later in his speech he said that the U.S. is facing conditions similar to those in 1930s Germany that aided Adolf Hitler’s rise to power: “We can’t underestimate what could happen when you continue to print money recklessly, inflate the currency and spend money we don’t have at a trillion-plus a year. The potential is pretty serious.”

Pro-Akin Bus Tour to Feature Advocate of Violent Insurrection

The Family Research Council is organizing another Religious Right bus tour to bolster Todd Akin’s campaign for Missouri against Sen. Claire McCaskill. The “Repeal and Replace McCaskill Tour” will feature prominent conservative figures like Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins and Phyllis Schlafly and lesser-known activists like Stephen Broden.

The Faith, Family, Freedom Fund, a super PAC associated with Family Research Council Action, is bringing a statewide bus tour through Missouri, October 28th - November 2nd, with one clear message: Senator Claire McCaskill’s policies are harmful to Missouri families .

Come help us cheer on the Repeal & Replace McCaskill tour as the bus stops near you! We must fight to bring the truth to the people of Missouri!

The Fund is joined in this effort by other prominent leaders and groups such as Phyllis Schlafly, Governor Mike Huckabee, Ken Blackwell, Tony Perkins, Pastor Stephen Broden, The Honorable Marilyn Musgrave, Susan B. Anthony List, Eagle Forum PAC and several more.

Broden is a failed Republican candidate for Congress who garnered national attention when he floated violent insurrection against the Obama administration.

While Akin seeks to distance himself from his past support for militia groups and radical anti-abortion rights groups and their leaders, the inclusion of Broden on the bus tour only highlights Akin’s close relationship with the most extreme elements of the far-right.

Obama's Secret Plan to Give the United Nations Control of the Military and Internet 'Exposed'

WorldNetDaily’s Brenda Elliott, co-author of Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed, expressed her fears on Eagle Forum Live that the Obama administration is delegating all power over to the United Nations. Elliott told host Anne Cori, Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter, that President Obama will convert our defense forces into international peacekeepers dominated by the UN and “bow down to the will of the Middle East and to Islam.”

Elliott: The 2012 Unified Security Budget, which is sponsored by the Center for American Progress…that’s the organization founded in 2003 using funding from billionaire Democratic funder George Soros and headed by John Podesta, who was the co-chair of the Obama-Biden transition team…funding also sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies, which is about the most pro-Communist, leftist think tank in our country. This 96 page document proposes right off the top a trillion dollars in cuts over ten years. We already hear Obama mention these cuts to the defense budget. And you know the most concerning thing here, perhaps, is the proposal that our defense forces could be turned into international peacekeepers, with the ultimate goal of coming under the auspices of the United Nations.

Cori: Well one of the promises that Obama made in ’08 is to restore our standing in the world. Do you think the world respects the United States more after four years of Obama?

Elliott: I think that the number of times that Obama has gone before heads of state and gone into an obedient posture by bowing and constantly going into a posture of appeasing, I don’t think that gains anybody any points, I mean, you go back to history and it tells us that a strong defense keeps our foes at bay, but when we posture that we’re prepared to be peacekeepers and bow down to the will of the Middle East and to Islam, that’s not a strong position at all.

Elliott’s concern about “the proposal” is entirely unfounded: the 2012 Unified Security Budget proposes to maintain and increase our funding to UN peacekeepers and create a standing UN peacekeeper force, not to hand over our defense to the UN. In fact, according to the report, the creation of such a peacekeeping force is an investment which would reduce U.S. military expenditures in the long run.

The Internet is also in jeopardy, claims Elliott, who believes that the Obama administration aims to dominate the Internet and allow the UN to control the web.

Caller: Hi, thanks, I want to compliment Brenda on the great work she’s doing on the Internet with all her blogging, and I want to ask her if a second Obama administration would result in controls of the Internet by the Federal Communications Commission.

Elliott: Well they’ve been trying to do this for a while, and thank you very much about the blogging, I guess you must be one of my regulars, RDO2.com is the most recent one. I think there has been several efforts, especially since the beginning of the administration, to control the Internet. I think the bigger problem we may face in the future if Barack Obama is reelected is the possibility of a treaty or an agreement where we will hand that over to the United Nations. The United Nations very much wants to control the Internet, and that would definitely not be a very positive sign.

Schlafly: Senate Should Move to Expel Al Franken

Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly believes that Al Franken never would have been elected to the U.S. Senate in 2008 if Minnesota had a voter ID law and that there is now “reason enough for the U.S. Senate to use its constitutional power in Article I, Section 5 to unseat Franken.” Franken won by a mere 225 votes against incumbent Norm Coleman, but Schlafly says in her latest column that it's because felons cast illegal votes to push him over the top and that only Voter ID laws, which she claims are beloved by minorities, can remedy the situation.

Schlafly cited a report by the right-wing organization Minnesota Majority; however, the study has been largely dismissed as “frivolous” by experts, who also note that voter ID laws will do nothing to stop convicted felons from voting illegally and that the report’s “data include cases associated with the 2010 election, and are not limited to cases involving felons who voted illegally.” People For the American Way’s report The Right to Vote Under Attack also observes that Minnesota’s “Supreme Court wrote in its decision affirming Franken’s victory that neither Franken nor his opponent claimed voter fraud took place and ‘found no allegations or evidence of fraud or foul play and no evidence to suggest that the Election Day totals from the precinct are unreliable.’” Not to mention, how would Schlafly know that nearly every single felon who voted in Minnesota supported Franken?

As we approach a major national election, we hear warnings about many kinds of vote fraud and possible recounts that might delay confirmation of who are the victors. We also hear from deniers who insist that vote fraud is a figment of the imagination of Republicans. It isn't; vote fraud is real.

Many instances of registration fraud schemes were carried out by ACORN, and some members were even tried and convicted. Although ACORN announced it was closing its doors, it reemerged under new names.

It's common knowledge that there are more registered voters in Philadelphia than there are people living in Philadelphia, because dead and moved-away voters have not been stricken from the list. Similar accusations have been made in a dozen other states. In Minnesota, we were entertained for weeks with news of the recounting of votes in the 2008 Minnesota election for U.S. Senate. Al Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes out of three million cast.

After all was said and done, Minnesota discovered that 289 convicted felons had voted illegally in Hennepin County, 52 had voted illegally in Ramsey County, and many others voted illegally who were dead or who voted multiple times. That is reason enough for the U.S. Senate to use its constitutional power in Article I, Section 5 to unseat Franken.



Minorities are actually among those most eager to implement photo ID. Former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young said, "You cannot be part of the mainstream of American life today without a photo ID." The sponsor of Rhode Island's photo ID law was Harold Metts, who is the only African-American in the state senate.

Just think of all the many occasions when we all must show photo ID: when stopped by the police for a traffic violation, to make a credit card purchase, to check in for any medical treatment, to check into a hotel room, or to board an airplane. Isn't it just as important to assure that only American citizens are allowed to vote, and to prevent non-citizens from canceling out your vote, and to prevent crooks from voting twice or voting in the name of a dead person who is still registered?

When your vote is nullified by illegal votes, you are cheated just as much as if you were denied the right to vote.

Bachmann in July Warned that Obama is Allowing ‘Influence by the Muslim Brotherhood at the Highest Levels of Power’

Back in July, Eagle Forum Collegians hosted their 2012 Annual Leadership Summit at the Heritage Foundation where Rep. Michele Bachmann delivered a speech warning of the Muslim Brotherhood’s supposed infiltration of the U.S. government, her baseless pet cause. Bachmann told attendees that the Obama administration’s meeting with an Egyptian lawmaker, who was vetted by the Secret Service and both the State Department and Department of Homeland Security, was part of a string of “outrageous, unbelievable actions on the part of the administration to allow influence by the Muslim Brotherhood at the highest levels of power: the State Department, the White House, the Pentagon, the FBI.”

She then attacked the media for “saying we’re going after individual personalities and that we’re being mean to Muslims.” But Bachmann did in fact specifically name individuals, including Secretary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and other Muslims serving in the administration as part of a witch hunt denounced by Democratic and Republican leaders alike, including the Republican Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Bachmann went on to explain that “every day I’m in trouble for something, who cares, who cares?”

Watch:

Later, the Congresswoman suggested that attendees read “everything Phyllis Schlafly has ever written,” calling her an “absolute genius,” and also recommended books by extremist commentator Ann Coulter and disgraced pseudo-historian David Barton.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious