Phyllis Schlafly

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 1/21/15

  • Glenn Beck and crew spent last night's State of the Union Address providing sarcastic commentary so that viewers "got to hear just how awful it was in real-time, as it happened." 
  • If we were petty right-wing pundits, we'd ask how Ted Cruz can ever expect to run this nation effectively as president when he can't even manage to post a simple State of the Union response? 
  • Phyllis Schlafly calls upon Congress to "enact laws denying funding and withholding jurisdiction from enforcement of any redefinition of marriage by the federal judiciary."
  • The American Family Association has now launced a companion organization to its OneMillionMoms called, appropriately enough, OneMillionDads.
  • Gov. Bobby Jindal has invited the nation's 49 other governors to join him at this weekend's prayer event.
  • Finally, Gary Cass warns that the "Spiritual State of the Nation" is dire: "A small but militant minority is hell bent on destroying all vestiges of our Christian heritage. Marxist / Secularists have prosecuted their 100 year Cultural Jihad to infiltrate the media, education and politics, especially the courts, and impose their secular fundamentalism. The election and re-election of Barack Obama is sobering proof of their formidable influence."

Phyllis Schlafly: Introduce Male Quotas And End Student Loans To Reduce Female College Enrollment

Distraught that women are outpacing men in college enrollments, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly took to WorldNetDaily this week to float the idea that colleges should enforce a gender quota to even out admissions to the benefit of men. Responding to a 2010 New York Times article, Schlafly wondered if colleges should set male admissions quotas to ensure that student bodies are “half women and half men.”

Another proposal Schlafly put in the mix is to “stop granting college loans, thereby forcing students to take jobs to pay for their tuition and eliminate time for parties, perhaps even wiping out time for fraternities and sororities.”

Schlafly also called for colleges to stop enforcing Title IX, which prevents sex discrimination in education, as a way to attract men, alleging that the anti-discrimination measure “removes a primary motivation for young men to go to college, many of whom want to try out for a sport even if they are not good enough to make the team.”

All of this, the right-wing activist insists, would actually benefit women because it would give them more available men to date.

The New York Times published a provocative news story called “The New Math on Campus.” No, it’s not about the failure of Common Core to teach arithmetic; it’s about the changing ratio of males to females on most college campuses.

Long ago when I went to college, campuses were about 70 percent male, and until 1970 it was still nearly 60 percent. Today, however, the male percentage has fallen to the low 40s on most campuses.



Colleges claim they grant admissions based on academic merit, and girls come out of high school with better grades than boys. But that doesn’t always mean they are smarter or more capable of doing college work or succeeding after graduation.

Boys do far better on average than girls on the SAT test for mathematics, which means that boys are better prepared than girls for STEM majors in college. This has been true every year for more than 40 years.

Nearly twice as many boys as girls attain very high scores on the math SAT, with an immense difference at the high end. But the job market for STEM graduates is not as good as it should be, due to corporations’ preference for hiring lower-paid, easy-to-control foreigners on H-1B visas, so many American guys decide that the high cost of an engineering degree is not worth it.

A shocking 46 percent of recent college graduates work in jobs that do not require a college degree. Boys are more likely than girls to look at the cost-benefit tradeoff of going to college. The imbalance of far more women than men at colleges has been a factor in the various sex scandals that have made news in the last couple of years.

So, what’s the solution? One solution might be to impose the duty on admissions officers to arbitrarily admit only half women and half men. Another solution might be to stop granting college loans, thereby forcing students to take jobs to pay for their tuition and eliminate time for parties, perhaps even wiping out time for fraternities and sororities. I went through college while working a full-time manual-labor job, and I don’t regret a minute of it; it was a great learning experience.

Another solution would be to reinstate all the men’s sports that were canceled by an extremist feminist application of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination against female students. The feminists have misused that law to abolish many men’s sports in order to achieve a statistical equality between the percentage of men playing on college sports teams and the percentage of male enrollment in college.

The feminists have abolished more than 2,200 men’s college sports teams since 1981, such as wrestling, gymnastics, track, golf and even some football in order to limit the number of male players to Title IX guidelines. That removes a primary motivation for young men to go to college, many of whom want to try out for a sport even if they are not good enough to make the team.

The popularity of the new college football playoff system illustrates how successful men’s college sports can be for participants and fans alike. But when colleges eliminate men’s sports, women are hurt by the resulting gender imbalance in enrollment.

The Year In Paranoia: The Five Craziest Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories Of 2014

2014 was a great year for conspiracy theorists running for office, but these extreme politicians couldn’t do it without the help of a conservative media bent on pushing outlandish conspiracy theories from the fringe into the mainstream. Here, gleaned from our weekly Paranoia-Rama, are the conspiracy theories that shaped the year.

Immigration Insanity

While the temporary increase in unaccompanied child migrants coming to the southern border this summer has since subsided, the children fleeing violence in Central America provoked a year’s worth of fear mongering and conspiracy theories from conservative commentators and politicians.

One member of Republican National Committee speculated that the children were actually anti-American “warriors” who would soon “rise up against us,” an anti-immigrant activist suggested that they were child soldiers bent on waging war against the U.S., and Phyllis Schlafly and Alex Jones told their audiences to start worrying about becoming slaves to immigrants.

Republican members of Congress came up with their own conspiracy theories. Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama accused Democrats of using immigration as part of the party’s “war on whites,” Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said Democrats planned to turn the child migrants into illegal voters, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota warned that the government would use the immigrant children “to do medical experimentation” and a whole host of GOP politicians falsely claimed that the child migrants were carrying Ebola, a disease that has still not infected a single known person in Central America or Mexico.

Ebola Ebola Ebola

Is anyone surprised that conservatives cynically turned a disease ravaging West Africa into a political attack on Democrats and immigration from Latin America? Republican officials and conservative pundits went as far as to suggest that President Obama would deliberately infect Americans, including military service members, with the disease as part of his nefarious, Big Government agenda, or to further his purported goal of punishing America.

What Turned The Kids Gay This Year?

The right-wing adage that gay people “cannot reproduce so they must recruit” children is still alive and well, and this year many anti-gay conservatives continued to worked overtime to propagate the homosexual recruitment myth. Televangelist Pat Robertson warned that Hollywood is turning children gay through “girl-on-girl movies,” while radio host Kevin Swanson said movies like “Frozen” are trying to “indoctrinate my five-year-old to be a lesbian.”

Gordon Klingenschmitt, a televangelist who was recently elected to the Colorado state legislature, said a Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Al Franken would “require pedophilia in all public schools” and “require pro-gay child recruiting.” He even hosted a whole show about how parents should avoid interactions with “a gay” lest he “recruit” their kids. Conservatives also railed against Common Core and other education efforts by warning that they would turn kids gay.

Gay Nazism

Religious Right leaders who hope to criminalize homosexuality and strip LGBT people of marriage rights and antidiscrimination protections are pretty sure that conservatives are the real victims of oppression. And they not afraid to use absurd historical analogies to prove their point.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins charged that gay rights supporters are getting ready to “start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians” to concentration camps, Rick Santorum feared “reeducation camps” for gay rights opponents and pastor Scott Lively claimed gay people are using against conservatives “the same ‘blood libel’ used against the Jews by the Nazis.”

Others drew comparisons to slavery and Jim Crow, with Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association alleging that gay people have become “our new slave masters” who will “send us to the hole if we refuse the massa’s demands” and “Trunews” host Rick Wiles warning that Americans “will be saves” to the newly powerful “homosexuals and sodomites.” Wiles even said that gay people in America may soon realize Adolf Hitler’s dream of creating a “race of super gay male soldiers” who are determined to “slaughter” Christians.

Cliven Bundy Hysteria

Becoming vocal cheerleaders for Cliven Bundy — a Nevada rancher and anti-government extremist who refused to obey several court orders to pay decades of back grazing fees — may not have been the best idea for Republican politicians and Fox News pundits. Even Glenn Beck seemed horrified by the racist and violent messages coming from the Bundy ranch.

Bundy’s supporters, however, insisted that the government was using the Bundy standoff as a way to prepare for “civil war,” “mass graves,” “FEMA camps,” “tyranny” and “jihad.” After all, Bundy said that God was on his side.

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 12/19/14

  • Dave Daubenmire calls for the creation of a Christian Values Party: "If we want to save this nation, we must engage in the political debate with unashamed, Christian values."
  • Phyllis Schlafly warns that Ebola is right "on our doorstep" because President Obama hasn't banned travel from Western Africa which, the last time we checked, was nearly five thousand miles away from America.
  • Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is "alerting the nation to Walmart's increasing capitulation to the homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda—and is calling on Americans to urge Walmart to stop promoting homosexuality and gender confusion (transgenderism) with its corporate dollars."
  • Joseph Farah says we had better "get ready for Muslim invasion of U.S."
  • Get a sneak peek of Todd Starnes' All-American Christmas Special.
  • Finally, it is rather ironic to see Theodore Shoebat warn that gays are using Nazi-type language that could lead to genocide against Christians considering that he literally advocates putting gays to death.

Phyllis Schlafly Warns Central American Immigrants Will Spread Ebola In US

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly devoted her second radio bulletin in a row today to accusing President Obama of failing to keep Ebola out of the United States, where there are currently no known cases of Ebola.

Declaring that “nobody elected Barack Obama to clean up Africa,” Schlafly attacked the president for not banning all travel to the U.S. from the West African countries at the center of the Ebola outbreak, and went on to warn that “unchecked foreigners” from Central America — where there are also currently zero cases of Ebola  will spread the disease in the U.S.

“With the massive influx of unchecked foreigners coming across our borders, including 130,000 from Central America since October, why are we surprised about this alarming spread of foreign diseases into the United States?” she declared.

While refusing to sensibly secure our borders, U.S. officials announced that they expect an increase in Ebola-related incidents in the United States. With the massive influx of unchecked foreigners coming across our borders, including 130,000 from Central America since October, why are we surprised about this alarming spread of foreign diseases into the United States? Obama has failed to use his legal power to deny entry. Federal law gives the president the power to seal our borders to any class of aliens who pose a threat to the U.S., but Obama continues to insist it is unlikely that anyone with Ebola will reach our shores.

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 12/11/14

  • A timely bit of radio commentary from Phyllis Schlafly: "Of all the examples of incompetence and failure to protect Americans that the Obama Administration has displayed, its failure to keep Ebola out of our country may be the worst."
  • The gays just keep ruining Christmas.
  • Now that he's leaving Congress, Rep. Paul Broun is going to need a job so he is going to start his own tea party group.
  • You know who should have been Time's "Person of the Year"? David Barton.
  • Finally, Janet Porter is so furious that Ohio Republicans failed to pass her "Heartbeat Bill" that she threw her "Proud to be a Republican" coffee mug in the trash! That'll show 'em.

Phyllis Schlafly: Attention On Campus Rape Part Of 'War On Men,' Proof 'It's Really Dangerous For A Guy To Go To College'

In an interview today with WorldNetDaily, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly weighed in on efforts to combat sexual assaults on college campuses, which she contended are part of a feminist “war on men.”

Schlafly pointed to questions surrounding the accuracy of a Rolling Stone report on rape allegations at the University of Virginia as evidence that increased attention to fighting sexual assault on campuses is misplaced and reiterated her claim that college is a “dangerous” place for men: “It’s really dangerous for a guy to go to college these days. He’s better off if he doesn’t talk to any women when he gets there. The feminists are perfectly glad to make false accusations and then claim all men are capable of some dastardly deed like rape.”

“There isn’t any rape culture,” Schlafly said. “There is a war on men, and [feminists] are very open about it.”

This is, of course, coming from the anti-feminist activist who once said that men cannot rape their wives since “by getting married, the woman has consented to sex.

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly believes feminists are so vehemently defending Jackie and her partially discredited allegations because they don’t want to lose out on an anti-male narrative.

“The reason they bought into the story and didn’t have any suspicions about the flakiness of it is antagonism toward men in general,” Schlafly said. “Their cry is they want to abolish the patriarchy, and anything that hurts men is something that pleases the feminists.”



“There isn’t any rape culture,” she said. “There’s nothing ‘culture’ about rape. Rape is a crime and ought to be punished. But people who make false accusations about a dangerous crime like that also ought to be punished, and I hope everybody connected with this false story will suffer the consequences.”

Schlafly, whose recently published book “Who Killed the American Family?” came out just days before she turned 90, sees a national media landscape dominated by feminists and those who are afraid to anger the feminists.

“They really are a vicious group,” she said. “They don’t like men, and they want anything to discredit and destroy men. I think it’s very helpful that the [UVA rape] story has been exposed as a fraud, and anybody who heard it in the first place should have suspected it was a fraud.”

Schlafly has spent the better part of her long career battling feminists, and she even goes so far as to say there is a war on men in the U.S., not a war on women.

“There is a war on men, and [feminists] are very open about it,” she said. “They don’t conceal it; they brag about it. You read all of their material – they’re always saying they want to abolish the patriarchy. They said that husbands are not necessary in a marriage, they’re not necessary in raising children.”

Noting the harm done to men falsely accused of rape, she pointed to the three Duke lacrosse players whose reputations were smeared in 2006.

“It’s really dangerous for a guy to go to college these days. He’s better off if he doesn’t talk to any women when he gets there,” Schlafly said. “The feminists are perfectly glad to make false accusations and then claim all men are capable of some dastardly deed like rape.”

Conservative Groups Making Last-Ditch Attempt To Stop National Women's History Museum

A group of Religious Right organizations have taken a sudden interest in curbing government spending on national parks and public lands…all in the interest of stopping the creation of a museum dedicated to American women’s history.

Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is currently holding up a defense authorization bill that was passed last week in the House, contending that a public lands package attached to it is too pricey and doesn’t belong in a defense bill. While Coburn and Sen. Ted Cruz have objected to provisions in the bill designating new national wilderness areas, which Cruz calls an “extreme land grab,” they have garnered allies in the Religious Right who object to quite a different provision: the establishment of a bipartisan commission to start planning a National Women’s History Museum on the National Mall.

In a letter to members of the House last week, representatives of Concerned Women for America (CWA), Heritage Action, Eagle Forum, March for Life, and the American Family Association signed on to a letter with a handful of “small government” groups that oppose the creation of more public lands, urging lawmakers to strip the lands package from the defense bill.

Although the letter makes a generic nod to preventing the government from gaining “more ownership over America’s lands,” it goes on to object specifically to the women’s history museum provision, using language copied and pasted out of a recent CWA press release.

CWA and its allies have been trying for months to stop Congress from authorizing a planning committee for the women’s history museum, claiming that the museum would end up being a “shrine to liberal ideology, abortion and liberal advocates” and complaining that the museum’s website doesn’t mention CWA founder Beverly LaHaye.

Back in May, the groups failed to stop the House from passing a bill authorizing the planning committee, in part thanks to the efforts of the bill’s main Republican sponsor, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who called their arguments “convoluted.” Heritage Action’s threat to score the women’s history vote against members of Congress ultimately only scared 33 Republicans into voting against it. 

Stan Solomon On Michael Brown: 'I'm Glad He's Dead. He Deserves To Be Dead'

Stan Solomon celebrated the death of Michael Brown on his talk show this week during an interview with Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. The far-right pundit, who marked Trayvon Martin’s death in the same vein, said that “Michael Brown was shot because he’s a thug. I’m glad he’s dead. He deserves to be dead. He was a thug. He had a lifetime of thuggery and his dad was a convicted drug dealer.”

Solomon made the remarks after his other guest, conservative commentator Brent Johnson, dared to suggest that the grand jury investigating Brown’s death was “conducted in an extremely biased matter.” Solomon responded that he was “embarrassed” for Johnson.

Schlafly and Solomon both pledged to give officer Darren Wilson money and defended his role in the shooting.

Phyllis Schlafly, Unsurprisingly, Does Not Think Pregnant UPS Employees Should 'Have It All'

When a number of prominent anti-abortion rights groups submitted an amicus brief defending the rights of pregnant workers in Young v. UPS, a case that was argued before the Supreme Court this week, we were not surprised that Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum was not among them. After all, Schlafly has built a long career out of arguing against protections for women in their careers.

In fact, it turns out, Schlafly submitted her very own amicus brief [pdf] in the case defending UPS’s right to suspend employees who become pregnant. And even thought the brief is written by Schlafly’s attorney Larry Joseph, it is full of classic Schlafly wisdom about how pregnant women most certainly cannot  “have it all.”

In the brief, Eagle Forum argues that the plaintiff, Peggy Young, was seeking “preferential treatment” by not being suspended from her job for getting pregnant. In fact, the brief goes on to argue, in enacting the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the interpretation of which is at issue in Young, “Congress never intended…to eliminate stereotypes of husband-breadwinner, wife-homemaker families” or “to have pregnant women work as package-delivering truck drivers” although the “eradication of typical – or even stereotypical – families was the goal of the feminist movement.”

In enacting PDA, Congress never intended: (1) to eliminate stereotypes of husband-breadwinner, wife-homemaker families; (2) to have women return to work immediately after giving birth to the exclusion of caring for their newborns; (3) to have pregnant women work as package-delivering truck drivers; or (4) to privilege the status of female truck drivers over either male truck drivers or the women married to male truck drivers. While the eradication of typical – or even stereotypical – families was the goal of the feminist movement, Congress generally has taken the more moderate path advocated by UPS here. By contrast, Young demands that UPS provide her with light duty for nine months when typical on the-job light duty lasts a month, so that she continues to draw her high pay while forcing her predominantly male coworkers – who support their own spouses and children – to do the heavy lifting. It insults pregnancy to characterize this situation as pregnancy discrimination.

The brief goes on to argue that Young and her allies want to “impose their pregnancies on coworkers,” thus “[f]acilitating single motherhood out of a strained sense of equality”:

At all times relevant to this action, Young herself was married to a man whose job provided medical insurance. Nonetheless, much of the advocacy and data submitted to this Court press the concerns of single women who work and want to have children. If PDA did allow women like Young and similarly situated single women to impose their pregnancies on coworkers, PDA might provide enough of a cushion for Young, but it would leave similarly situated single women short, once their children were born. Facilitating single motherhood out of strained sense of equality does not do the women or the children a significant or long-lasting favor[.]

Finally, Eagle Forum argues that for “both married women like Young and especially for single mothers” there is no right to work while pregnant. “Life is a series of tradeoffs,” it concludes, “and ‘you can have it all’ does not mean ‘having it all given to you.’”

Third, although Young herself was married when the underlying facts unfolded, the position pressed by Young and her amici also extends to single working mothers. For both married women like Young and especially for single mothers, neither this Court nor this Nation have ever recognized a “fundamental right to bear children while also participating fully and equally in the workforce.” Senator Williams – as quoted in Guerra – should not be construed to mean that women can “have it all” through some “fundamental right” to avoid the inevitable tradeoffs between work and family life. Life is a series of tradeoffs, and “you can have it all” does not mean “having it all given to you.”

[Citations removed for clarity]

Via Wonkette

Phyllis Schlafly And Alex Jones Have Immigration Meltdown: We Are On 'Accelerated Collapse-Of-Rome Timetable'

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones hosted legendary conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly on his “Infowars” program today to talk about President Obama’s executive action granting deportation relief to some undocumented immigrants, which both agreed would inevitably lead to the collapse of the nation.

“This really is the end of the republic, the end of Congress,” Jones said. “There’s been a lot of signposts on this road to perdition, but I don’t think I have strong enough words for the constitutional crisis we’re in, where on guns, UN treaties, our military, our power plants, our borders.”

“Well, Alex, you’re absolutely right in what you said and there are several items that you pointed out that I haven’t seen in any other news media,” Schlafly replied. “It’s just an outrage, and it does spell the death of probably the country.”

Criticizing Republicans in Congress for doing too little to stop the immigration action, Schlafly said of Obama, “He’s doing it for Democratic votes and he’s doing it to really break down the American system the way it is and make us a different kind of country.”

“And it’s not like we’re getting immigrants from high-skilled areas, we’re getting people that almost vote to a man for the most radical socialist communist agendas,” Jones interjected.

“That’s all they know,” Schlafly agreed. “They come from a country where big government was everything. They don’t know anything about our constitutional principles of limited government and balance of budget and keep spending down, they’re not familiar with any arguments like that.”

Jones warned, “We are going the way of Rome bringing in the giant third-world populations, and it seems to be an accelerated collapse-of-Rome timetable now.

“Yes, you’re absolutely right and I think that’s what Obama wants,” Schlafly responded. “He does not want America to be exceptional. He does not want us to be religious or Christian. He wants to absolutely change us so we are no better than any other country.”

Schlafly On Immigrants: 'The Class Of People Coming In Now' Just Don't Understand America

In an interview with WorldNetDaily published on Friday, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said that while previous generations of immigrants “became 200 percent Americans,” the “class of people coming in now…don’t really have any comprehension of our system of government and look to big government to be their guide of whatever they want to do.”

Schlafly has previously said that Latino immigrants “don’t understand” the Bill of Rights.

“Obama’s moving ahead with his attempt to do all kinds of illegal things in order to bring in illegal aliens and give the Democrats more votes,” she said. “That’s what it’s for.”

The veteran activist said she has talked to many immigrants who came to the U.S. as teenagers two or three generations ago. Their parents taught them to leave their native ways behind and fully immerse themselves in America.

“Those people came in and became 200 percent Americans,” Schlafly said. “But that’s not the class of people coming in now, who don’t really have any comprehension of our system of government and look to big government to be their guide of whatever they want to do.”

Schlafly also told WND that President Obama is to blame if riots break out after the grand jury verdict in Ferguson, Missouri because he “fomented [unrest] in order to hopefully win the election”:

But conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly believes Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder also used the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, for political purposes.

“I think that Obama and his attorney general really fomented [unrest] in order to hopefully win the election on November 4,” Schlafly said. “They wanted to inflame people in order to get their voters out to vote. I think it was deliberately done, and they weren’t content to just let the process take its course.

“I think it has backfired, and the Republicans won a tremendous victory despite everything,” she added.

A grand jury is deciding the fate of Officer Darren Wilson. An announcement on whether there will be charges could come any day.

Schlafly, whose recently published book “Who Killed the American Family?” came out just days before she turned 90, said Obama and Holder will be culpable if riots break out in Ferguson.

“But whether the public will see it that way, I don’t know,” she said.

Five Of The Craziest Conservative Reactions To Obama's Immigration Action: Impeachment, Race War & Rebellion

In this special edition of Paranoia-Rama, we look at five of the most incendiary and unhinged responses from our friends on the Radical Right to President Obama’s announcement that he would grant temporary deportation relief to some unauthorized immigrants and his speech last night laying out his plan.

Phyllis Schlafly: Obama Immigration Announcement Could Lead To Civil War

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly believes that President Obama’s upcoming announcement on new steps to relieve some undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation could trigger a second Civil War.

She told WorldNetDaily’s Paul Bremmer yesterday that Obama’s executive action on immigration resembles the Southern bombardment of Fort Sumter, which led to the beginning of the Civil War, adding that the move is even more inscrutable than Pearl Harbor bombing because “with Pearl Harbor, the American people knew what was happening.”

President Obama’s looming executive action on immigration reform represents a Fort Sumter-type moment, according to conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly.

Schlafly at first considered comparing the Obama amnesty to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but decided that Obama’s plan is much more subtle.

“With Pearl Harbor, the American people knew what was happening,” she said.

But Fort Sumter, where the opening shots of the Civil War were fired, represented the beginning of a ruinous conflict, and Schlafly, like fellow conservative luminary Richard Viguerie, speculates that an executive amnesty might touch off a sort of modern-day conflagration.



She is also skeptical of the idea that beneficiaries of Obama’s amnesty will be barred from receiving health-care subsidies.

“No, I don’t think he will deny them Obamacare,” she said.

So is the president lying?

“I think he lies about everything,” Schlafly said.

Schlafly: Impeach Obama For Advocating 'Suicide For America,' Turning U.S. 'Into Something Like The Third World Countries'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly believes that President Obama’s upcoming announcement on temporary relief for some undocumented immigrants will lead to “suicide for America because he would be bringing in people who will vote Democratic.”

“I think it’s worth impeachment, but I don’t think that’s going to happen,” she told the far-right outlet WorldNetDaily, adding that the president wants to “bring us down” and “fundamentally transform our country into something like the Third-World countries.”

“If he goes ahead with his plans, I think it’s suicide for America, because he would be bringing in people who will vote Democratic. That’s his plan,” Schlafly said. “And bringing people the American people do not want, and he’s already bringing in all kinds of diseases.”

Schlafly doesn’t think the United States would survive in its current form under a massive grant of amnesty. She even agreed the collapse may happen by 2025, as conservative author Patrick Buchanan suggested in the title of his 2011 book, “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

“[Obama] is trying to fundamentally transform our country into something like the Third-World countries, because he thinks it’s just really unfair that we’re better, richer, freer and more prosperous, and he’d like to bring us down to the level of other countries,” Schlafly said.

The longtime conservative activist said she expects another border surge, like the one this past summer, once word of Obama’s “deferred action” plan spreads throughout Central America. She also thinks amnesty by executive action rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor.

“I think it’s worth impeachment, but I don’t think that’s going to happen,” Schlafly said.



She sees Obama and other Democratic Party leaders as complicit in the importation of people who don’t share the American value of self-reliance.

“The Democrats know perfectly well that the people coming in are people who are not accustomed to our ideas of self-government and limited government, and they expect government to take care of them, and that’s what we’re doing,” Schlafly said in an interview.

Phyllis Schlafly: Obama Doesn't Love America, Dares To Send Women In Combat

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly chatted with “Infowars” host Alex Jones on Monday, where the two discussed the Pentagon’s decision last year to lift the military ban on women serving in combat positions.

Schlafly raised her concerns about the lifting of the ban after Jones worried that the military might be used as a “domestic force” to “go after the Tea Party,” telling the fringe conspiracy theorist: “I don’t have any respect for the military who send women into combat.”

After Jones suggested that Reagan went silent on criticizing the “New World Order” after a failed assassination attempt against him, Schlafly conceded that “Reagan wasn’t perfect” — a blasphemous claim in certain right-wing circles — but still loved this country.

Unlike Obama!

“You’re saying, bottom line he was a good guy who loved this country,” Jones said. “That’s a big difference from Obama who obviously wants to destroy it.”

Schlafly agreed: “He obviously doesn’t love this country, he doesn’t want us to think we’re better than anybody else and of course we are.”

Right-Wing Activists Now Attack Obama For Doing Too Much To Fight Ebola

Several GOP politicians campaigned this year on stoking fears about the Ebola virus, warning that an Ebola epidemic was about to sweep the United States and it was all President Obama’s fault for failing to handle the crisis appropriately and shut down the border with Mexico.

The Obama administration is focused on stopping the epidemic in West Africa, where this year’s outbreak started — rather than blocking it from coming in from Mexico, where there have been zero Ebola cases — by building up the region’s wrecked health care infrastructure. And thanks to aggressive monitoring and treatment, as of today there is not a single known case of Ebola in the U.S.

So, after criticizing Obama for doing too little to fight Ebola, now several conservative commentators are attacking Obama for doing too much to quell the spread of virus.

Betsy McCaughey, the conservative columnist behind the “death panel” smear of Obamacare, derided the administration’s latest proposal, which she calls “Ebolacare,” to help build a stronger health care system in West African countries as “a typical Obama administration spread-the-wealth scheme kicked up a notch to redistribute American resources to poor countries.” Writing in her syndicated column yesterday, McCaughey lamented that the potential “shifting [of] resources to Africa” is “twice what we give Israel.”

McCaughey previously accused the Centers for Disease Control of “lying” about the ways people can contract Ebola and said Obama was putting American lives “at risk for the sake of political correctness.”

George Russell of Fox News writes today that conservatives fear “the crisis is being used to jam a massive dose of spending through the lame-duck Congress. He interviews Dr. Tom Stossel of the American Enterprise Institute, who says that the plan to fight Ebola is just an excuse for “throwing money at various government agencies.”

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, who warned last month said Obama was “letting these diseased people into this country to infect our own people” in order to make the U.S. more like Africa, urged Republicans to resist bipartisanship and refuse to fund the proposed measures to fight Ebola.

She told notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on Monday that Obama “said he won’t close our borders to people with Ebola. He wants $6 billion so he can set up a plan to stop Ebola in West Africa, now we didn’t elect him for that and Congress, which holds the purse strings, they shouldn’t give him the money.”

Schlafly: GOP Senate's First Priority Should Be Blocking All Judicial Nominees

In a post-election interview with WorldNetDaily — “It’s a terribly important election, and I’m thrilled with it because it’s almost as big as our Republican victory in 1946” — conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly insisted that the first priority of the new GOP-controlled Senate should be to block every single one of President Obama’s judicial nominees:

Now Schlafly said it’s time for the new Republican majority to get to work by stopping President Obama from packing the judicial system with his preferred judges.

“I think the most important job of the Republican Senate is to defeat or reject, or not even take up, any of Obama’s court nominees,” she said. “He’s already put too many liberals on the court, and we don’t want any more.”

Last year, the Senate lowered the vote threshold for ending most judicial filibusters after Republicans had abused the process to routinely block even noncontroversial, bipartisan nominees.

Five Crazy Conspiracy Theories About Ebola That Conservatives Actually Believe

As of today, there is only one person undergoing treatment for Ebola in the United States, and only two people have contracted the disease in the U.S., both of whom are healthcare workers who survived.

But the U.S.’s success in fighting the disease at home has not stopped Republican politicians and their allies in the conservative media from turning it into a political issue, warning of an impending massive Ebola outbreak in the U.S. and declaring that when that happens it will be all President Obama’s fault.

Here are five of the most common conspiracy theories that conservative commentators and their Republican allies are pushing about Ebola:

1. Obama Will Bring Ebola To The U.S. Through The Southern Border

Never mind the fact that the countries hit hardest by the Ebola outbreak are all in Africa. Or that there hasn’t been a single case of Ebola in Latin America, let alone among migrants crossing the southern border. Republican politicians aren’t going to waste a good opportunity to gin up vague, unfounded xenophobic fears by claiming that people infected with Ebola are about to cross the southern border. (That is, if they haven’t already!)

Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., said in July that he had heard “reports” of undocumented immigrants infected with the Ebola virus coming into the U.S. through the southern border. When asked about these “reports” by journalists, Gingrey admitted that they did not actually exist. Indiana GOP Rep. Todd Rokita similarly warned that undocumented minors from Central America could represent a threat “from a public-health standpoint, with Ebola circulating and everything else.”

This month, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., warned conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck about the prospect of the Ebola virus jumping the southern border, and in another interview speculated that Obama’s policies may cause thousands of U.S. troops to contract Ebola.

Thom Tillis, the North Carolina House speaker challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, said his plan to deal with Ebola is “to seal the border and secure it,” while Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican locked in a tight re-election race, cited Ebola as a major reason why “we have to secure the border and we cannot have amnesty.”

Mike Huckabee warned his Fox News audience that people with Ebola will begin to fly from West Africa to Mexico in order to sneak into the U.S.: “If someone with Ebola really wants to come to the U.S., just get to Mexico and walk right in."

Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who is now running for Senate in New Hampshire, said that America’s “porous” southern border will let people with Ebola just “walk across it.” He later claimed that “if Mitt [Romney] was the president right now,” then he could “guarantee you we would not be worrying about Ebola right now.”

2. Obama Will Bring Ebola To The U.S . In Order To Impose Martial Law

Naturally, the White House “orchestrated” the Ebola epidemic in West Africa to justify its Big Government agenda, according to several conservative commentators and at least one actual member of Congress.

Rep. Steve Stockman, Republican of Texas, said this month that Obama has laid the groundwork to use “emergency powers to take over control of the economy and everything” and speculated that the president might intentionally slow the government response to Ebola in order to create a crisis situation that he could then exploit:

Their terminology is there’s always a crisis which they want to use to their benefit, I would not be surprised that the reason that you see a lack of response is so that it becomes a real crisis and things can be used to correct the crisis, you know. It’s just bizarre there’s not enough action up front and I’m wondering if that’s — I’m not saying this — but I’m wondering if that’s intentional in order to create a greater crisis to use it as a blunt force to say, well in order to solve this crisis we’re going to have to take control of the economy and individuals and so forth. I don’t know. It’s just a strange non-response, a strange way of handling it and I think that if it does go forward and we do not control it, there may be an overreaction where the government starts taking away the rights of those that aren’t that necessarily involved or need that to happen. I hope that’s not that case but as you know this current government uses crisis to advance their philosophy and their agenda.

Laurie Roth, a conservative talk show host, predicted that Obama would “create a guise to declare martial law due to created outbreaks” and introduce a fake Ebola vaccine that would “act as a tracker.”

Another radio broadcaster, Rick Wiles, feared that Obama would use Ebola to “round up patriots,” shutter churches and set up “re-education camps.”

The conspiracy theorists of WorldNetDaily are sounding similar themes.

Erik Rush, a columnist for the conservative media outlet, wondered if Obama administration officials actually “want Ebola to spread in the United States,” creating a crisis “orchestrated by the White House in order to ultimately ‘legitimize’ a declaration of martial law in America.”

Mychal Massie also took to WorldNetDaily to suggest that Obama will manufacture an Ebola crisis in order to achieve his goal of cancelling the 2016 elections and staying in office indefinitely.

WorldNetDaily’s Morgan Brittany claimed that the government is showing “no urgency to stop the disease from entering the U.S.,” which she said betrays the administration’s intention to make use of its non-existent FEMA coffins, declare martial law and seize guns.

“Questions were then brought up about the stockpiling of ammunition and weapons by Homeland Security over the past couple of years and the $1 billion worth of disposable FEMA coffins supposedly stored in Georgia. Why was there preparation being made for FEMA camps to house people in isolation?” Brittany wondered. “My fear is that this has all been orchestrated from the very beginning. Who knows? Maybe the current administration needs this to happen so martial law can be declared, guns can be seized and the populace can be controlled. Once that happens … game over.”

3. Obama Will Bring Ebola Outbreak To The U.S. To Help His ‘African Brothers’

Conservatives frequently insist that none of their criticism of Obama has anything to do with race, and more than a handful have claimed that the president’s handling of the Ebola outbreak proves that he is the real racist.

Conservative columnist and Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman cited Obama’s response to the Ebola outbreak as proof that he favors “his African brothers, putting the interests of fellow blacks, with whom he feels a kinship, ahead of others.”

“Obama has favored his African brothers over the rest of us by allowing them free entry into this country,” Klayman wrote in another column. “As a result, Ebola has now been introduced into the United States, may be on the verge of spreading rapidly, with the end result being potential massive death to our citizenry.”

“Regrettably our Muslim commander in chief has favored his own creed over the rest of us,” he added.

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly also claimed that Obama is “letting these diseased people into this country to infect our own people” in order to make the U.S. more like Africa.

“Obama doesn’t want America to believe that we’re exceptional,” she wrote. “He wants us to be just like everybody else, and if Africa is suffering from Ebola, we ought to join the group and be suffering from it, too. That’s his attitude.”

Rush Limbaugh argued that “leftist” elected officials believe that Ebola “is ultimately traced back to us; because of our slavery, we kind of deserve a little bit of this.”

Not to be outdone, Laura Ingraham maintained that Obama’s “familial connection to Africa” and “core ties to the African continent” are shaping the president’s response to Ebola to the detriment to the U.S.

4. Obama Will Bring Ebola Outbreak To The U.S. Because He Hates America

Public health experts have consistently said that knee-jerk reactions like stopping travel from West Africa and quarantining healthcare workers will do nothing to lessen the Ebola risk in America (and may in fact make it worse), and that the best way for the United States to protect itself from the disease is to help fight it at its source in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea.

But we all know not to trust scientists!

Republican politicians and conservative commentators have expressed outrage that President Obama has put resources into fighting Ebola in West Africa and is ignoring their calls for counterproductive flight bans and quarantines. They remind us that the president is, after all, an anti-American radical so everything he does should be held in suspicion.

Fox News commentator Keith Ablow speculated this month that “the president may literally believe we should suffer along with less fortunate nations,” arguing that Obama wants Americans to experience an Ebola epidemic out of a sense of “fairness” since he thinks the American people have “been a scourge on the face of the Earth.”

“We don’t have a president who has the American people as his primary interest,” Ablow said. “We’re not even voting for somebody who likes us. This guy, who has names very similar to two of our archenemies, Osama, well, Obama. And Hussein. Hussein.”

The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer said recently that he was just asking the question whether Obama wants to “punish” America with Ebola: “It looks like he actually wants Ebola to come to the United States. Why would he want that? Well, remember President Obama thinks that this country is racist to its core, it’s been racist since the beginning, it’s an evil, colonial force that’s been the root of all kinds of evil all around the world, it needs to be punished, it needs to be brought down to size, it needs to be disciplined.”

Conservative talk show host Michael Savage suggested that Obama “wants to infect the nation with Ebola,” insisting that Obama’s handling of Ebola “rises to levels of treason, it actually exceeds any level of treason I’ve ever season.”

“Obama wants equality and he wants fairness and it’s only fair that America have a nice epidemic or two or three or four in order to really feel what it’s like to be in the Third World. You have to look at it from the point of view of a leftist,” he added.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, also posited that Obama and other Democratic officials say “don’t quarantine, let’s don’t close our borders” because they “feel like we want everyone to feel included” and “don’t want anybody to feel like they’re being left out.”

Glenn Beck speculated that Obama may be allowing the disease to take hold in conservative parts of the country, telling Fox News host Bill O’Reilly earlier this month that the president was ignoring the cases of two nurses who contracted Ebola in Dallas, perhaps because the city “doesn’t particularly care for the president.”

If this were happening in Washington, D.C., right now, do you think the President and his administration would be acting like this? Do you think the Congress would be acting like this? This is happening in Dallas, Texas, this is a top-ten city in the United States of America. Happens to be one that doesn’t particularly care for the president all that much and his policies, one that the president has not been too favorable on. We are already being squeezed on our southern border, now we’re being squeezed by Ebola. Is there an agenda here? Is that possibly the reason, because I can’t figure out any other reason.

5. Ebola Is God’s Judgment On America (Especially Obama)

Of course, several Religious Right figures are responding to the Ebola epidemic by suggesting that it is divine punishment on America.

The televangelist John Hagee said this month that Ebola is a sign of God’s disapproval of Obama’s foreign policy in the Mideast.

“Our president is dead-set on dividing Jerusalem. God is watching and he will bring America into judgment,” he said, and as a result “we are now experiencing the crisis of Ebola.”

Ron Baity, a North Carolina pastor who worked with the Family Research Council and other anti-gay groups to pass a marriage equality ban, blamed Ebola on the gay community.

“We are bringing the judgment of God on this nation,” Baity said. “As sure as Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, don’t be surprised at the plagues, don’t be surprised at the judgment of God. You think Ebola is bad now? Just wait.”

“Trunews” host Rick Wiles also linked Ebola to homosexuality, but had a slightly different view. As Wiles explained, “Ebola could solve America’s problems with atheism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, pornography and abortion.”

Phyllis Schlafly: 'So-Called Kids' Crossing The Border Just Want Welfare

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly appeared on “Secure Freedom Radio” with Frank Gaffney last week to point the blame at undocumented immigrants for increasing the national debt, overburdening social welfare programs and inciting a health crisis in the United States.

To supposedly remedy these issues, Schlafly called for a moratorium on immigration, arguing that the most recent waves of immigrants aren’t willing enough to integrate into American society. “The American people want the borders closed and we need a pause in our immigration. That’s what happened after the big immigration of the 1920s,” she said. “We had a pause and they all assimilated and they learned English and they learned to adapt to American ways. But the people coming in now, it’s not even clear they want to be Americans.” 

She said that she learned from Rep. Michele Bachmann that the border is insecure and that “there’s no fence, they’re bringing in all kinds of disease and Obama’s not doing anything to stop it.”

Schlafly added that “a lot of these so-called kids who are coming in” are “tough cookies.”

Schlafly breathlessly described a scenario in which the knee-jerk dependency of immigrants on federal assistance programs would cripple the economy.

“They’re people who have no understanding or familiarity with the concept of limited government,” she added. “When you let these people in who will immediately go on the welfare system — you know, the Boston bombers came in, went right on the welfare system. That’s the reason for the enormous spending and debt we have, because we keep bringing in people who really can’t support themselves.”

Schlafly brought up her childhood during the Great Depression — arguably an era that saw one of the largest periods of federal government intervention — claiming that Americans were resilient enough to fend for themselves and didn’t need to seek out government aid. “[Immigrants] expect big government to take care of them, to solve their problems, and that’s not the way most Americans think,” she said.

“I grew up during the depression, and we didn’t look to government to solve our problems. And we grew up to be what they called the Greatest Generation.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious