Anne Cori

Rick Santorum Angry That Marriage Equality Supporters 'Devalued' Marriage

While speaking over the weekend on “Eagle Forum Live,” Rick Santorum said that conservatives need to “reclaim” marriage from the left and “the folks who are trying to change the marriage laws to allow same-sex couples.”

The former senator and presidential candidate told host Anne Cori, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter, that supporters of marriage equality have “devalued marriage” and “divorced marriage from any meaning beyond a romantic relationship,” while Cori lamented the “celebration of single mothers.”

He also warned of polygamy: “If marriage is simply a romantic relationship between two people, and by the way, that’s what it’s devolved to the minds of a lot of Americans, if that’s all that marriage is well then it’s hard to make the argument that any two people or any three or four people shouldn’t be able to get married.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious