Eagle Forum

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.

Religious Right Extremists to Ride on the Todd Akin Bus Tour

Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin is organizing a “Common Sense Bus Tour” following Newt Gingrich’s visit to boost the congressman’s embattled campaign. While Akin seems to have lost the support of major GOP figures after he said that it is extremely unlikely for a woman to become pregnant as a result of “legitimate rape,” he has consistently held the support of Religious Right activists who adore his ultraconservative views. Eagle Forum, which is based in St. Louis, sent out this invitation:

Phyllis Schlafly invites you to join her at first stop of the Missouri Common Sense Bus on Tuesday, September 25 from 2:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Renaissance St. Louis Grand Hotel Ballroom, 800 Washington Avenue St. Louis, Missouri.

You will find encouragement at each stop of the Missouri Common Sense Bus tour across Missouri. Each stop will feature some of Missouri's most well-known conservative leaders who are standing with Todd Akin for U.S. Senate.

With only a few weeks until the election, invite your friends and family to come out to hear why Todd Akin is the right choice to represent common sense in the U.S. Senate. Participants will vary by stop, but include the following:

• Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum
• Dick Bott, Founder of Bott Radio Network
• Rich Bott, President of Bott Radio Network
• Don Hinkle, Editor of "The Pathway" and Director of Public Policy Missouri Baptist Convention
• Bev Ehlen, Missouri President, Concerned Women for America
• Pastor David Smith
• Buddy Smith, Executive Director, American Family Association

While it comes as no surprise that such far-right activists are rallying to Akin’s defense, here is why they may not help Akin improve his image among voters.

  • Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum has repeatedly asserted that women cannot be raped by their husband and that marital rape is simply a myth, contrived by feminists, to get women to leave their marriages.
  • Bev Ehlen, the head of Concerned Women for America-Missouri, believes that gays should deal with discrimination just as “ugly” people do and even insists that “homosexuals molest children at ten times the rate of heterosexuals” and constitute the vast majority of child molesters.
  • Buddy Smith of the American Family Association has said that people “who are caught in this trap of homosexuality are in the clasp of Satan.”

Seeing that Akin has said that liberals hate God and warned gay rights will lead to the destruction of civilization, it is an unsurprising group of campaigners.

Phyllis Schlafly Claims Title IX Damaged US Performance at the Olympics

One of the main stories to come out of the 2012 London Olympics was the outright dominance of American female athletes, another sign of the success of the Title IX, which barred discrimination between men’s and women’s educational programs and is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. But Title IX has always provoked the ire of Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum. In a radio alert today, Schlafly claims Title IX in fact “weakened our competitiveness” at the Olympics.

The US won 104 medals in London (58 for women and 45 for men), which Schlafly believes shows that male athletes suffered a severe injustice. “Feminist-imposed gender quotas hurt us at the Olympics in events which our Nation once dominated,” Schlafly claims, “While our Nation won the most medals for the fifth consecutive Summer Olympics, many of our medals were in contests of dubious value like beach volleyball. Title IX quotas have hurt our competitiveness in sports that are most helpful to the development of our young men.” Schlafly points to the US failure to win medals in wrestling as a sign of Title IX’s allegedly disastrous impact; however, throughout Olympic history the US has never dominated wrestling in the Olympics” And while Schlafly believes that the policy wreaked havoc on male collegiate sports, female athletes and women’s teams still receive significantly less financial support compared to their male peers.

Feminist-imposed gender quotas hurt us at the Olympics in events which our Nation once dominated. The systematic elimination of certain men’s sports from colleges has weakened our competitiveness. We won only four medals in all of men’s wrestling, less than half the total won by Iran, and only a fraction of the medals won by Russia in this masculine sport. Wrestling is an immensely popular and valuable sport; it’s inexpensive and safer than other sports. Wrestling develops discipline in boys. Many high-achievers, such as Donald Rumsfeld and pro-life attorney Phill Kline, developed their toughness as wrestlers.

But although tens of thousands of high schools have thriving wrestling programs for boys, at the college level Title IX gender quotas have cancelled wrestling at all but a fraction of colleges. Many hundreds of successful college men’s wrestling programs have been eliminated, not for financial reasons, but due to Title IX gender quotas. These quotas typically require that the percentage of men and women in intercollegiate sports at a college equal the percentage of men and women enrolled as students, even though many colleges have become 60% women and only 40% men.

Other men’s sports have also been hurt by this feminist quota, such as swimming and track. Private swimming clubs and a few aging stars like Michael Phelps filled that gap this time, but we nearly struck out in men’s track in the marquee events of 100, 200, 400 and 800 meters, events the Americans historically dominated. While our Nation won the most medals for the fifth consecutive Summer Olympics, many of our medals were in contests of dubious value like beach volleyball. Title IX quotas have hurt our competitiveness in sports that are most helpful to the development of our young men.

D'Souza: Obama 'Has No Interest in So-Called Civil Rights or Black Issues' Since 'He Hasn't Had the African American Experience'

While speaking to Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live, Dinesh D’Souza continued to lay out his wild and dishonest conspiracies about President Obama and even argued that President Obama doesn’t have any “interest in so-called civil rights or black issues.” That’s because, D’Souza explains, Obama had a Kenyan father and a white American mother and therefore “hasn’t had the African American experience.” In fact, “his policies have actually been very harmful, economically harmful to be sure, for Black America.”

Caller: I got a question. Isn’t Obama’s thinking a product of civil rights…anti-white, anti-Western pro-equality? Isn’t Obama’s thinking actually civil rights philosophy?

D’Souza: That’s a good question, and I used to think so but I think the answer I have to give you now is no. Remember that Obama, I mean Obama yes he’s the first black, African American president, but he hasn’t had the African American experience. And by that I mean he’s never sat at a segregated lunch counter. He’s not even descended from anyone who has. He’s not descended from slaves. His father was, well I’m tempted to say an immigrant, but he wasn’t even an immigrant, I’m an immigrant, you know immigrants come to this country to stay. Barack Obama, Sr. came to America to study and go back home and he did. So, his father’s a Kenyan, his mom is a white girl from Kansas, you know, where’s the African American part?



D’Souza: So what’s kind of strange is that a lot of African Americans say well I’m for Obama because he’s like me and so on, not realizing that first of all, Obama you know has had no interest in so-called civil rights or black issues, and second of his policies have actually been very harmful, economically harmful to be sure, for Black America.

D’Souza goes on to claim that Obama was mentored by anti-American communists and terrorists, but no one in the U.S. knows about it because the media is intentionally trying to “suppress information that’s harmful to Obama because they want him to win again.” Seemingly fixated on finding out the names of Obama’s ex-girlfriends, D’Souza claims that the public hasn’t learned the identities of the President’s ex-girlfriends because they likely came from the same group of “radical, revolutionary and truly dangerous characters” that he had “been hanging out with.”

D’Souza: Conservatives are energized, they feel they have new information when they see this film. But I think even independents are writing up and saying that they’re shaken by the film. They just didn’t know and they become a little furious that all these facts about Obama that are laid out in the film have somehow not been presented to them for the past four years. So vital information that would enable them to attack Obama is not being given. And I think it’s because there are a lot of people in the mainstream press, you know the New York Times, Chris Matthews at MSNBC—a lot of these guys they become, they stop become being journalists, they basically become, in a way, a publicist for Obama because they also think it’s morally vital for the United States for Obama to get a second term. So they’ll suppress information that’s harmful to Obama because they want him to win again.

Schafly: Well, we’ve never had a president that so, so little is known. I mean, all kinds of things we don’t know, such as his grades in school and how he got into Columbia and what he did and why we don’t hear from his classmates…nobody seems to remember him in these schools.

D’Souza: That’s all true Phyllis you’re absolutely right, and to me the more important and damaging information that we don’t know are the people who have influenced him, you know who have basically been shaping his mind over the past 20-30 years. In my book I have a chapter called Obama’s Founding Father, and we find out in that the five people who influenced him. Well one was a former Communist, Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, one was a member of Palestine National Council, a guy Edward Said, that Commentary Magazine has called a professor of terror. Another was a Brazilian socialist at Harvard Law School. This is a guy who has called for India, Russia, and China to quote gang up on the United States. Then we have a domestic terrorist Bill Ayres. And finally the incendiary preacher Jeremiah Wright. So what a group, I mean we’ve never had a president before who has been you know tutored or mentored by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, by a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon. So why isn’t this information the lead story on CBS Evening News. And the answer is those guys just don’t want the American people to know about it.



D’Souza: David Meredith in his biography of Obama, talked to a girl who was supposed to be Obama’s girlfriend. But of course her story about Obama doesn’t match the one that Obama writes about in his own book, Dreams from My Father. So Meredith goes to Obama and says well is this the girl? And Obama goes no, no, no, I had many girlfriends, and I made a composite of them. And I’m thinking wait a minute, where are those girlfriends? How come they haven’t come forward? How come no journalist has ever interviewed them? So with Obama, you know you have all these black holes surrounding this guy. It’s very shady, and Obama himself isn’t telling and I think the reason he isn’t telling is that he’s been hanging out with the radical, revolutionary and truly dangerous characters.

Obama Administration is a Phyllis Schlafly Nightmare: 'Whatever the Feminists Want, the Feminists Get'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly yesterday spoke to the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios to denounce the Democratic National Platform’s support for reproductive freedom and marriage equality. According to Schlafly, “the feminists completely control the Obama administration” and “whatever the feminists want, the feminists get,” including endorsements of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. There is “support of everything the feminists want,” Schlafly lamented, “It’s a very destructive force in our society.”

Rios: According to the platform, there is no place for politicians or the government to get in the way of abortions, so they’re saying that abortion—

Schlafly: Sandy, let me explain. The feminists completely control the Obama administration. Valerie [Jarrett] is considered the most powerful person in the country. Whatever the feminists want, the feminists get. That’s why we’re getting support of abortion by the Obama administration, and paying for it, forcing is to pay for it, which is what they want, and support of same-sex marriage, and support of everything the feminists want. It’s a very destructive force in our society.

Rios: It’s certainly not a forward movement, it’s a backward movement, I think.

Schlafly even claimed that progressives want people “to look to the government for everything,” unlike during the Great Depression when “we didn’t look to the government for any solution and they didn’t give us any solution and we grew up to be the greatest generation.” While Schlafly denies that the government didn’t play a role in ending the Great Depression, she appears to forget that there was significant government intervention through the New Deal and other government-driven programs to stimulate the sluggish economy:

Rios: You know Phyllis just philosophically, this is what the left always says, they always say that conservatives are old fashioned, they mock the old sitcoms you know where they had separate beds, twin beds, they mock the sitcoms of the 50s, the Andy Griffith’s, the Dick Van Dyke’s, they think that’s funny and amusing and to be progressive, to be modern, to be in-this-decade—the Constitution is old and outdated too, by the way, that’s what they think—they always make that argument that to be forward moving is to throw off any of the constraints of the past. Can you just from your perspective of life, why would we hang on to boundaries, regulations and rules from the past? Isn’t this a new day?

Schlafly: Because they work. Our Constitution has lasted over two centuries; no other country’s has done that. When our borders are open people want to come in, they’re not trying to get out, I think that’s a pretty good test of whether a country is successful or not. We built a great country of great prosperity and enormous freedom and some people don’t like that, they want to look to the government for everything. I grew up during the Great Depression, we didn’t look to the government for any solution and they didn’t give us any solution and we grew up to be the greatest generation.

Todd Akin Receives Support from Phyllis Schlafly, Who Denies Existence of Marital Rape

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly is joining her Religious Right allies at the Family Research Council and the American Family Association in defending Todd Akin over his “legitimate rape” claims:

Republican party leaders may be working to push Rep. Todd Akin out of the Missouri Senate race, but leading social conservatives continue to rally to his side. Fellow Missourian Phyllis Schlafly said late Monday that Akin should remain in the race and compared his treatment by party leaders to former Va. Sen. George Allen, who lost support in his 2006 race for reelection after calling a young aide to his opponent “macaca.”

“He’s not for rape. That’s ridiculous,” said Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum. “They’re making a big thing about an unfortunate remark.”

“You saw what they did to George Allen in Virginia, which I thought was a shame,” she said of party leaders urging Akin to leave his race against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill. “I don’t think people like that should make the decision. The people of Missouri should make that decision.”

Schlafly backed Akin early on in the race and her endorsement is prominently displayed on Akin’s website, but he may consider finding other defenders since Schlafly herself refuses to recognize the existence of marital rape: “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape,” Schlafly said back in 2007. In fact, she doubled down on those remarks in an interview the year later:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Like Schlafly, Akin once voiced his disapproval of marital rape laws by warning that they could be used as “a legal weapon to beat up on the husband” in a divorce proceeding.

Religious Righting the Republican Platform

Yesterday, the head of the Log Cabin Republicans said that the Republican Party platform might actually contain language saying that all Americans have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Imagine! Although the language included no reference to LGBT people, Log Cabin argued that it would be a “positive nod” toward them. 
A nearly imperceptible, practically meaningless nod, perhaps.  Anti-gay groups typically use similar rhetoric to soften their image.  Even the most stridently anti-gay Religious Right leaders insist they don’t hate gays, they love them so much they want to save them from their evil, wicked, Satanic, hell-bound lives.
Last night, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins provided a bit of a reality check. He sent a memo bragging that “our team has had several hands” working on the platform:
With a presence in the committee meetings, the FRC Action staff has been able to help delegates hold the line of social issues. Just this morning, our efforts made what was already a good document even better.
Before this week, the GOP’s draft platform included solid language defending the family – and FRC Action, in tandem with Eagle Forum, made it even stronger.
Perkins boasts that as a delegate on the subcommittee handling health care, education, and the family, “I was able to reinforce the language on marriage and successfully helped with amendments on conscience rights, abortion in health care, and stem cell research."
Joining Perkins on the Platform Committee is David Barton, the promoter of bogus “Christian nation” history whose recent book on Thomas Jefferson was slammed as grossly inaccurate by so many scholars that his Christian publishing house, Thomas Nelson, pulled the book from the shelves. But Barton’s abuses of the truth have never been enough to discredit him with his friends in the GOP. Barton is serving on the platform committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, where Tony Perkins assures us Barton led efforts that “fended off liberal attacks that would have watered down the wording” on marriage and “life.”
This morning, the Tampa Bay Times reports that the draft moving forward includes a call for a federal constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex couples from getting married anywhere in the U.S., and for a constitutional amendment applying the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to “unborn children." There is no exception for allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest.
The full Platform Committee will take up the work of the subcommittees today.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious