Rep. Renee Ellmers explains why she endorsed Donald Trump: "Women are forward thinking and they don't care what's happened in the past."
The Alabama State Republican Executive Committee passed a resolution in support of Roy Moore that calls on "the Court of the Judiciary to drop the politically motivated charges against" him.
Phyllis Schlafly says that "our society was built on a foundation of the traditional family unit with men and women accepting their responsibilities. Transgenderism is a threat to traditional gender roles and to the foundation of American society."
The Illinois Family Institute declares that "the public school system is not broken. On the contrary, it is doing exactly what it was designed to do: indoctrinate the next generation into a socialist perspective of voluntary slavery."
Finally, Judith Reisman warns that gays "aim to wipe out all morality – whatever legal mechanisms that have protected the weak from the strong for thousands of years, to allow hypersexualizing all, expecting still normal folks to 'get over it.' It will be all ages for sex and include no limitations. There are to be no boundaries or regulations with regard to sexual identity or behavior. Indoctrination of all, at least by kindergarten, that one’s sexuality is a fluid, changing construct."
The family feud over who is in charge of Eagle Forum, the conservative “pro-family” group, got even nastier yesterday when the organization’s founder, Phyllis Schlafly, sent out a robocall to members giving them the phone number of her daughter, Anne Cori, and urging them to call her and “ask her to stop all of this.”
“Would you please help me stop these people from going after me and the organization that I have devoted my life to building?” she asked.
Martin, for his part, says that the dissident board members are just upset that Schlafly endorsed Donald Trump rather than their preferred presidential candidate, Ted Cruz.
Pointing her finger at the Cruz campaign, Schlafly has alleged that the Texas senator’s aides tried to make it appear that her group endorsed had Cruz and that the campaign underhandedly gotten its hands on Eagle Forum membership lists.
Schlafly has said that her two sons — Cori’s brothers — are also in the crosshairs of the rebellious board members.
“The only thing they’ve done is divide my family,” she said last month. “My daughter is with the group that is leading the assault on my leadership and they want to get rid of my son,” John Schlafly, the treasurer named, along with Martin, in the lawsuit brought by Cori and the other board members. She said that the dissident group also wants to get rid of her son Andy Schlafly, who does legal work for Eagle Forum.
Schlafly also claimed last month that Cori “is trying to tell me that she’s just doing this for my benefit, but I don’t need somebody to do something for my benefit, I’ve gotten along quite well all these years,” alleging that her daughter “lined up with some of the people who thought they could get good jobs at Eagle Forum if they got rid of me.”
Indeed, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has touted the endorsements of several politicians and activists who have done everything from denounce women’s suffrage to deny the existence of marital rape.
Schlafly is the founder of the anti-feminist group Eagle Forum and is best known for helping defeat the Equal Rights Amendment.
Among her anti-feminist beliefs is the claim that marital rape does not exist.
“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape,” she said in 2007, later explaining that marital rape is simply a fabrication invented by feminists who want to levy the accusation when “they get tired of a husband” or “want to fight over child custody.” (Trump’s own lawyer has similarly claimed that marital rape is not rape).
Besides denying the existence of marital rape, she has blamed reports of sexual assaults on college campuses on the rising number of female college students, criticizing policies to combat assaults for turning college campuses into “a dangerous place for men.”
“There isn’t any rape culture,” she said in 2014. “There is a war on men.”
Colleges, according to Schlafly, should stop enforcing Title IX and install gender quotas to protect male admissions.
As Ian Millhiser noted in Think Progress, the Justice Department’s complaint cataloged instances where Arpaio’s deputies were “forcing women to sleep in their own menstrual blood,” “assaulting pregnant women,” “stalking Latina women” and “ignoring rape.”
Last year, The Guardian reports, Arpaio’s office “agreed to pay $3.5m to settle a lawsuit that alleged metro Phoenix’s sheriff botched the investigation into the rape of a 13-year-old girl and failed to arrest the suspect who then went on to sexually attack her again,” a case that “was among more than 400 sex-crime cases that were inadequately investigated or not looked into at all by Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office during a three-year period ending in 2007.”
3) Ann Coulter
While Trump has been campaigning with conservative columnist Ann Coulter to promote her attacks on immigrants, we wonder if she will ever lead one of his campaign rallies in a chant against women’s suffrage.
Indeed, Coulter hasrepeatedlyvoiced her opposition to women having the right to vote, saying that revoking women’s suffrage is necessary to help elect Republicans.
This is far from Coulter’s only controversial views on women’s issues.
Among the first members of Congress to endorse Trump was Tennessee Republican Scott DesJarlais, who along with some of his fellow GOP lawmakers met with Trump in March to work on ways to unify the party.
As we’ve noted, the GOP congressman has quite the record on women’s issues:
Before running for Congress as a “pro-life” and “pro-family” Republican, “DesJarlais, a physician, pressured a patient who was his mistress to get an abortion. It was later revealed that the pro-life congressman had approved of his first wife having two abortions, and that he’d had sex with at least two patients.” He also had affairs with “three coworkers and a drug representative,” and was later fined for violating medical ethics.
DesJarlais’ ex-wife also accused him of “dry firing a gun outside the Plaintiff's locked bedroom door, [admitting] suicidal ideation, holding a gun in his mouth for three hours, an incident of physical intimidation at the hospital; and previous threatening behavior ... i.e. shoving, tripping, pushing down, etc.”
5) Robert Jeffress
Texas-based pastor Robert Jeffress is one of Trump’s most outspoken Religious Right supporters and campaign surrogates. For instance, Jeffress rushed to Trump’s defense when he said that women who have abortions should face “some form of punishment.”
Conservatives' outrage over @realDonaldTrump abortion comments hypocritical. Maybe they don't really believe abortion is murder.
Religious Right leaders typically claim that the Bible speaks to most political issues of the day. Once voters agree with their conservative take on what the Bible says about such matters, they argue, then Republican candidates will win elections in a landslide.
Rarely do we hear a movement leader urge pastors to quit talking about a political issue in biblical terms, but that is exactly what Eagle Forum founder and Donald Trump endorser Phyllis Schlafly did in her syndicated column today, telling Christian leaders to stop pursuing the cause of immigration reform.
Noting that the “immigration issue may be preventing some church leaders from siding with Donald Trump,” she wrote that it “is the time for church leaders to listen to their own flock on the important issue of immigration.”
Faith leaders, she said, need to recognize that the “amount of immigration allowed by a nation is a political matter, not a religious one” and that they cannot hold out for an ideal candidate because “Jesus will not be on the ballot.”
Touting the rise of a far-right party in Austria, Schlafly said conservatives who have religious reasons for supporting immigration reform should instead get with Trump’s anti-immigrant message because it has proven to be more politically popular.
“No church would urge people to unlock their doors at night in order to allow anyone in, and we should not persist with open borders to welcome hordes of illegal aliens who include many hardened criminals,” she wrote. “When an unwelcome ‘neighbor’ comes into our home, we ‘deport’ him out of our house, and Trump’s leadership on the immigration issue has earned him the support of millions of Democrats and Republicans alike. Loving our neighbor does not mean unlocking our doors to any and all comers.”
The immigration issue may be preventing some church leaders from siding with Donald Trump now. While opposition to Trump is expressed in moral terms – even though they had no trouble supporting the divorced Ronald Reagan in 1980 – a real motivation is that church leaders do not want Trump’s criticism of immigration.
Rev. Luis Cortes, as president of an Hispanic Christian network and nonprofit legal organization that helps immigrants, declared after the White House meeting that “the entire religious community” supports an Obama-style immigration reform package. “For the first time … all the major denominations and churches and religious bodies of this country believe that it is a moral imperative that we get immigration reform done,” he asserted.
But churchgoing voters indicated otherwise during the Republican primaries, by nominating Donald Trump. Now is the time for church leaders to listen to their own flock on the important issue of immigration.
The amount of immigration allowed by a nation is a political matter, not a religious one, and this issue has become the elephant in the room impossible to overlook. The stunning election results in Austria two weeks ago demonstrate that those who try to duck or downplay the immigration issue are headed for defeat.
As in the United States, the leaders of both major political parties in Austria ignored the problems caused by immigration. A candidate emerged there named Norbert Hofer, who campaigned on “putting Austria first” despite the media giving him little chance of winning.
On April 24 Austrians voted with a large turnout, and the candidate opposed to permissive immigration won the first round in a stunning double-digit landslide. The two major parties that had echoed failed immigration policies, as Democrats and Republicans here have done, fared so poorly that they failed even to qualify for the upcoming runoff, which the Trump-like Austrian candidate is also expected to win.
Church leaders should recognize that responsibility is just as important as charity. No church would urge people to unlock their doors at night in order to allow anyone in, and we should not persist with open borders to welcome hordes of illegal aliens who include many hardened criminals.
When an unwelcome “neighbor” comes into our home, we “deport” him out of our house, and Trump’s leadership on the immigration issue has earned him the support of millions of Democrats and Republicans alike. Loving our neighbor does not mean unlocking our doors to any and all comers.
There will not be a third-party candidate who is as good as Trump on immigration. There will be only two viable candidates to choose from this fall, only one of whom will safeguard our country against immigration – and Jesus will not be on the ballot.
Phyllis Schlafly insists that ex-felons should never be allowed to regain the right to vote: "We do not want convicted murderers and rapists sitting on juries in criminal trials, and we do not want convicted felons to be picking the next leaders of our nation. Elections are for law-abiding citizens to pick law-abiding leaders, not for criminals to elect fellow criminals."
Peter LaBarbera informs Target that "my family and I are joining the Target boycott and will no longer shop at your stores."
Don Boys says that Target must not just be boycotted, but completely destroyed: "Target must be destroyed, not just boycotted and humbled into submission regarding their love affair with the LGBT crowd ... When Target goes belly up, it will send a loud message to other businesses that it is not wise to use perversion to antagonize principled people."
Tony Perkins says that "the Left is never going to be satisfied if faith-based groups can contract with the government at all! They want to squeeze Christians out of government at the same time as they're forcing them out of the marketplace, Public Square, and schools."
Finally, Bill Kristol explains that #NeverTrump apparently doesn't actually mean "never Trump."
Phyllis Schlafly is totally unconcerned about Donald Trump's position on abortion because "the grassroots is not looking to Trump for their guidance for a lot of these moral issues."
Bobby Knight has endorsed Trump because Trump is "the most prepared man in history to step in as president of the United States."
Conversely, Ted Cruz supporter Ken Cuccinelli says that Trump is "the biggest whiner in American political history."
The National Organization for Marriage is vowing to defeat three Missouri lawmakers who voted against an anti-LGBT bill: "This act of betrayal by three cowardly Republicans will not be tolerated."
Finally, MRC's Dylan Gwinn goes after ABC's television program "Blackish" for apparently suggesting that white people are racist ... or something: "Is that why so many white people vote to have their money taken away from them by the government, and spent on often-useless and wasteful, but well-meaning government programs to improve health care and education in black neighborhoods?"
In his speech yesterday announcing Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential running mate, Ted Cruz said that his campaign presents Republican voters with “a choice, not an echo,” a line he lifted directly from legendary conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who happens to be a prominent supporter of his GOP rival Donald Trump.
Schlafly, who is locked in a bitter war for control of her organization, Eagle Forum — a fight motivated in part by a split between Trump and Cruz supporters in the organization — told WorldNetDaily today that she didn’t like Cruz using her famous line.
“That’s my phrase, and Ted Cruz knows it,” Schlafly said. “But as far as I’m concerned, ‘a choice not an echo’ this year applies to Donald Trump, not Ted Cruz.”
In his Wednesday speech announcing Carly Fiorina would be his vice presidential candidate if he becomes the GOP nominee, Cruz said the American people wanted a president who could present “a choice, not an echo” in public policy.
The reference clearly was to Schlafly’s seminal 1964 book, “A Choice Not an Echo,” written to support the presidential candidacy of Sen. Barry Goldwater. “That’s my phrase, and Ted Cruz knows it,” Schlafly told WND. “But as far as I’m concerned, ‘a choice not an echo’ this year applies to Donald Trump, not Ted Cruz. Trump is the only one in the Republican Party who can take on the king-makers in the GOP leadership establishment.”
Schlafly is currently fighting a court battle with a group of dissidents on Eagle Forum’s board, led by her daughter, Anne Cori, whom she claims are trying to remove her from the organization she founded.
Cori and her allies have filed a lawsuit against Martin and John Schlafly, Schlafly’s son and Cori’s brother, in order to gain control of Eagle Forum’s political division, insisting that a majority of board members have voted to remove Martin from his post.
The lawsuit alleges that Martin has been “posting on Facebook as Phyllis Schlafly” and “personally authored content which he has nonetheless styled as information from Phylis Schlafly.”
“John Schlafly denied Anne Schlafly Cori access to the Illinois Headquarters and prevented her from obtaining or inspecting Eagle Forum Property,” the suit continues. “When Anne Schlafly Cori insisted on her right to obtain and inspect Eagle Forum property, the Alton Police were called to remove Anne Schlafly Cori from the Illinois Headquarters.”
Meanwhile, Martin told WorldNetDaily that Cori and others did not show up to court, unlike “the iron lady” Schlafly.
“The iron lady of Eagle Forum sat there in the courtroom from 1:30 p.m. until 5 o’clock, as a thunderstorm went through, the power went out briefly; and the elevator in the building didn’t work when the hearing ended,” Martin said. “Phyllis walked down the stairs with the rest of us. Meanwhile, none of the six opposition board members showed up; only their three high-powered lawyers.”
He also said that Cori gave leaked Eagle Forum membership information to the Cruz campaign and that the senator’s campaign tried to contact the group’s South Dakota leader, Kitty Werthmann, to seek a personal endorsement.
The defendants’ attorneys further said that since January 2016, the plaintiffs “have endorsed and have sought to get other persons affiliated with Eagle Forum to endorse Ted Cruz in a letter that misleadingly suggests that Eagle Forum as an organization endorses Senator Cruz.”
Further, they alleged the six board members misappropriated Eagle Forum membership lists as well as contact information for leaders, volunteers and other followers in direct violation of an Eagle Forum policy that prohibits providing such lists to political campaigns.
According to affidavits submitted by the defendants, Cori allegedly handed over the Eagle Forum membership and leaders lists to the Cruz campaign, which used them to make marketing calls.
Martin, in his affidavit, noted Kitty Werthmann, the Eagle Forum state leader for South Dakota, made him aware that the Cruz campaign was contacting her by telephone, soliciting her personal information and endorsement, and urging Eagle Forum to endorse Cruz for president.
“Ms. Werthmann provided me the number from which the call had been made,” Martin said. “I then looked up that phone number and determined that it was registered to a company with the Cruz campaign.”
Tracing the information back through the Eagle Forum organization, Martin determined a contractor to the Eagle Forum Education Fund, who was a part-time employee of Cruz’s presidential campaign, had requested and obtained the Eagle Forum lists from Eagle Forum staff, following instructions by Anne Cori.
Jeff Roe, Cruz’s campaign manager, did not respond to a WND email request for comment.
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly offered more details about the turmoil within her organization, Eagle Forum, in an interview with far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones yesterday, claiming that the group of dissidents who she says are trying to oust her from her position in the group are also targeting her son and disclosing that she once considered former Rep. Michele Bachmann to be a potential successor before deciding against it.
The group voted to install Schlafly’s daughter, Anne Cori, as the organization’s new executive director, and insists that removing Martin, not Schlafly, is their only objective.
Schlafly, however, believes that the board vote was invalid and actually directed at ousting her, claiming that the dissidents, including her daughter, are targeting her because she didn’t join them in supporting Ted Cruz.
She gave more information to Jones yesterday, alleging that Cori was “at one time” in line to succeed her at Eagle Forum but that she decided against naming her daughter to lead the group, a move which may have helped to motivate Cori to launch the supposed coup.
Bachmann, Schlafly revealed, was also floated as a potential successor, but the former Minnesota congresswoman was taken out of the running due to concerns about her experience and the breadth of her knowledge.
“A lot of our people wanted us to pick Michele Bachmann, and she certainly has a lot of talent, a very fine speaker, and so forth,” she said, “but she knew nothing about running an organization and she knew nothing about politics outside of her own domain.”
Schlafly says her daughter “lined up with some of the people who thought they could get good jobs at Eagle Forum if they got rid of me” and that Cori “is trying to tell me that she’s just doing this for my benefit, but I don’t need somebody to do something for my benefit, I’ve gotten along quite well all these years.”
Schlafly said that the turmoil started when the Eagle Forum leaders who endorsed Cruz “did it in a way that made it look like it was Eagle Forum doing it” and leaked membership lists to the Cruz campaign. She alleged that Cori and others are now also trying to remove her sons, John and Andy, from their posts in the organization.
“The only thing they’ve done is divide my family,” she said. “My daughter is with the group that is leading the assault on my leadership and they want to get rid of my son, so extremely valuable in my organization, one of them is both a lawyer and an accountant and he’s very good with the money, he always errs on the safe side of things ... Then we’ve got another son they want to get rid of and he’s the one who has written a lot of these amicus briefs that we’ve filed with the Supreme Court in important cases.”
“I represent Eagle Forum and they tried to throw me out but, at any rate, I’m still here,” she said.
Some sober analysis from Michele Bachmann: "The Muslim Brotherhood together with its myriad fake front groups, like a demon, first charms then disarms, then contorts itself into a seemingly friendly face. Once it’s beguiled its unsuspecting victim, it mercilessly unleashes death and destruction upon its unwary victims, like a viper."
William Gheen says the outcome of the immigration case at SCOTUS will determine "whether we continue this country as a functioning republic or as a totalitarian dictatorship."
The National Organization for Marriage calls upon supporters to "Demand that Congress Get Off Its Rear and Prohibit Government Discrimination Against People of Faith."
Paul Hair tells his fellow right-wing Christians that Hollywood hates them and everything they represent.
Finally, Phyllis Schlafly has released a video informing Eagle Forum members that she remains in control of the organization.
Last night, Rachel Maddow reminded us of how Phyllis Schlafly helped transform the GOP into the far-right party that it is today, dating back to her efforts to help Barry Goldwater win the 1964 Republican nomination.
The GOP found Goldwater’s ultraconservativism much more acceptable than Nelson Rockefeller’s divorce and remarriage, even though Goldwater’s views set him up for a landslide loss in November. Now, Schlafly is getting behind Donald Trump, a reality TV star notorious for his divorces and extramarital affairs.
Schlafly called her pro-Goldwater treatise, “A Choice Not An Echo,” which Maddow described as “a clarion call-to-arms from the social conservative wing of the Republican Party.” She now hails Trump as “the candidate who will give us ‘a choice not an echo.’”
Maddow noted that Schlafly’s group, Eagle Forum, “played a central role in defining social conservatism —anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-abortion politics — and putting them right at the heart of the Republican Party and its platform,” including at the 1992 Republican National Convention. That convention became notorious for the social conservative red meat thrown by the likes of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan, who used the platform to deliver his polarizing “Culture War” speech.
Ever since, Maddow explained, Schlafly has successfully push backed against “moderating influences to make sure the Republican Party never gets any less conservative on issues like homosexuality, abortion and feminism.”
But Schlafly may now be a victim of her own success.
“Phyllis Schlafly and her organization have been at the heart of the conservative movement inside the Republican Party for over 40 years and something is happening now to blow it up,” Maddow said. “Right now, finally, with Phyllis Schlafly at age 91, after everything she’s been through, it appears to be finally blowing up because of Donald Trump.”
In a radio interview yesterday, conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly insisted that she is still in charge of Eagle Forum, the group she founded and has led for decades, despite reports that several members, including her daughter, were working to remove her from the organization.
Schlafly told St. Louis radio host Mark Cox that nothing has changed in the organization because she did not recognize the meeting at which the vote to remove Martin took place and therefore the vote was invalid.
“I built the most prestigious and good conservative organization on the planet, and all of the sudden there are some people who think they can run it better than I can,” Schlafly said. “So it’s a takeover attempt. We’re not going to let them do it.”
The discussion then moved to Trump’s presidential bid, with Schlafly praising the GOP billionaire mogul for his vocal opposition to “the immigration of a lot of people who don’t share our values and seem to want to spread their way of life in our country” and his fight against “the kingmakers” who “think they are appointed by God or something to run the party and select the nominee.”
She acknowledged that “large numbers of Eagle Forum are for Cruz” and that she even suggested to Trump that he appoint Cruz to the Supreme Court, saying that he called it a “good idea.”
Schlafly said she will attend the GOP convention to make sure that the party doesn’t “change a comma” in its platform because it is already a hardcore conservative document. “When I took over this fight in the platform, the Republican Party was pro-abortion and I’m happy to claim that I am partially to be credited to changing the Republican Party to be pro-life so that you almost have to at least say you’re pro-life in order to run on the Republican ticket,” she said.
Yesterday, several members of the board of the conservative group Eagle Forum convened a meeting at which they reportedly voted to oust the group’s president, Ed Martin. Martin, a Republican activist in Missouri, was named president of Eagle Forum last year, while its founder, legendary anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, remained chairman of the board and CEO.
Schlafly is a conservative icon who has drawn plaudits from the Right for her vocal opposition to feminism, LGBT rights and immigration. But the 91-year-old activist has seen her organization thrown into chaos this week.
Over the weekend, Martin emailed Eagle Forum members warning that six state-level leaders of the group were “pushing a scheme to push Phyllis Schlafly out of Eagle Forum.” He dubbed this group, which included Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori, the “Gang of 6” and said that the planned coup was motivated by differences of opinion about whether the U.S. should hold an Article V constitutional convention.
At yesterday’s meeting, Eagle Forum’s board reportedly removed Martin from his post as president and installed Cori as the group’s executive director. Two other women who were mentioned in Martin’s “Gang of Six” email, Eunie Smith and Shirley Curry, were named interim president and head of the search committee for a new president, respectively.
“I am honored and excited to be working with our wonderful state volunteer leaders from across the country. We are continuing the incredible legacy of our Founder Phyllis Schlafly,” Cori said in a statement posted under the Eagle Forum banner on the website of Eagle Forum of Alabama.
Schlafly, however, released a statement on her official Facebook account alleging that she was “muted from the call” on which the decision to oust Martin was made and that the “meeting was invalid under the Bylaws but the attendees purported to pass several motions to wrest control of the organization from me.”
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Cori implied that some of the criticism of the board that has been attributed to her mother is actually coming from Martin.” The newspaper noted that “Schlafly and Martin have been releasing apparently coordinated messages on Facebook, Twitter and email.”
In an interview with a St. Louis radio station yesterday, Martin said that the turmoil was actually a result of Schlafly’s prominent endorsement of Donald Trump, arguing that the six activists were upset about “Phyllis endorsing Trump.” (He also suggested that they are “greedy for power or money.”)
“Phyllis is very discreet,” he added. “Some of the stuff that’s gone on, Phyllis didn’t want to have out there. There is a connection to the Cruz campaign and we’re figuring out how to talk about that.”
At least five of the six Eagle Forum activists who were behind the move have publicly endorsed Ted Cruz, and one of them went so far as to suggest that Schalfly was “manipulated” into backing the billionaire mogul. However, Cori and Smith denied that the vote to remove Martin had anything to do with Schlafly’s support for Trump and insisted that they do not wish to remove Schlafly from the organization.
Smith said in a post on Eagle Forum of Alabama’s website: “It is because of our love and respect for Phyllis and our years of camaraderie that we remain dedicated to protecting her legacy and Eagle Forum.”
Over the weekend, Eagle Forum president Ed Martin emailed the group's members about a recently uncovered “scheme to push Phyllis Schlafly out of Eagle Forum.”
Schlafly, the nonagenarian conservative icon who is best known for her role in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), founded and chairs Eagle Forum, which opposes not only feminism but also LGBT equality, immigration reform and vaccines.
One of the Cruz supporters, Cathie Adams of Texas Eagle Forum, delivered a low blow to Schlafly after her campaign stop with Trump, speculating that Schlafly's age had allowed her to be manipulated into the endorsement. "At 91, it is just totally unfair to impose upon someone who has such a beautiful legacy … I think this was very much a manipulation," Adams said. "When you’re 91 and you’re not out with the grass roots all the time, it is very much taking advantage of someone.”
This obviously did not sit well with the national organization. In Martin’s email this weekend, he said that Adams was part of a “Gang of 6” seeking to oust Schlafly from the group she founded.
Five of the “Gang of 6” have publiclyendorsed Cruz. The group includes Adams and even Schlafly’s own daughter, Anne Cori.
The email from Martin, however, does not mention the Cruz-Trump split, although he does mention that Adams “disparaged and insulted Phyllis.” Instead, he says that the “Gang of 6” are moving against Schlafly because of her opposition to holding a new constitutional convention.
Several conservative activists such as radio host Mark Levin and homeschooling activist Michael Farris have called for a convention of states in order to amend the U.S. Constitution with a litany of right-wing items. Schlafly, however, has repeatedly said that there would be no way to limit a constitutional convention to just advancing conservative causes like a Balanced Budget Amendment, warning that liberal activists could use it to ratify proposed amendments like the ERA.
“The rogue members have a hidden agenda, and most refused to return phone calls personally made to them by Phyllis to ask what their concerns are,” Martin wrote. “They are being guided by a big, liberal law firm that they refuse to identify (but the press has identified). They also refuse to say who is funding the high paid liberal lawyers.”
Schlafly herself wrote to members about what she called “the hostile takeover of Eagle Forum,” writing that for “reasons that are not entirely clear to me, some people have been working to attack me and Eagle Forum. My disappointment is compounded by the fact that these are people with whom I have worked closely in the past. I have asked them to resign from the Board immediately so that we may continue our important work.”
In a letter addressed to the so-called “Gang of 6,” Schlafly said that while she has “fond memories of our work together and our friendships,” she has asked them to “resign immediately” from the group’s board.
“[T]his morning Eunie said that this is about my judgment on personnel,” she said. “I don’t know what is the true plan but I believe it is an attack on me and my work.”
Martin added: “Phyllis has always stood up to bullies wherever they are found: the Soviets, the feminists, liberals of every stripe, and those who would undermine Phyllis’ successful leadership of Eagle Forum.”
UPDATE: In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Schlafly said that the attempt to remove her from Eagle Forum was, at least in part, a result of her Trump endorsement and that “the leader of the coup is my daughter Anne Cori and her husband at Eagle Forum Missouri.”
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly confirmed to WND that six board members of her group Eagle Forum have called a special meeting Monday that she believes is an attempt to remove her as CEO because of her support for Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House.
“This may be my Dobson moment,” Schlafly told WND, referring to the 2010 board vote that forced James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, to discontinue his popular national radio show.
“The six board members calling today’s telephone meeting won’t tell me what the meeting is about, but I think it’s an attempt to vote me out,” Schlafly said. “It’s disloyal and it’s terribly shocking, and I’m completely depressed about it.
“I may be one vote short to win today,” she conceded.
“This is a complete takeover attempt,” she said.
“I think the leader of the coup is my daughter Anne Cori and her husband at Eagle Forum of Missouri,” Schlafly said. “I think she and her husband want to take over the organization.”
Her son John Schlafly, the treasurer of Eagle Forum and a board member, explained to WND that among the six board members calling the meeting are several “who feel Donald Trump is unacceptable as the GOP presidential candidate in 2016.”
“Cathie gave this very disparaging interview to the press,” Phyllis explained to WND. “It was a very offensive interview about me. She finally called to apologize, but she didn’t retract anything she told the Dallas Morning News.”
Schlafly maintained that Cathie was one of the “ringleaders” of the six dissident board members seeking her ouster.
Adams, in an interview with WND, denied her goal was to take over the organization or remove Schlafly from heading the organization she founded.
“The six board members calling the meeting are among the most loyal to Phyllis,” Adams insisted. “Together we have over 200 years combined service to Eagle Forum among the six of us.”
Adams said the six disgruntled board members were angry at the management style of Ed Martin, a social conservative from Missouri who has served as a member of the Republican National Committee.
At Cruz’s victory party, a Milwaukee television reporter asked Grothman why he thinks the GOP has a chance to win Wisconsin in the general election, since no Republican has won the state since 1984. Grothman replied by arguing that “Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up and now we have voter ID and I think voter ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well.”
Mike Turzai, who is now the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, confidently predicted at a GOP gathering in 2012 that a new restrictive voter ID law would secure Romney’s victory in the swing state.
“Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: done,” he said.
John Fund, a conservative commentator who has frequently warned of the scourge of voter fraud, once admitted that voter ID laws do little to stop absentee ballot fraud, which he called “the tool of choice amongst fraudsters,” since voter ID laws only impact in-person voting.
“I think it is a fair argument of some liberals that there are some people who emphasize the voter ID part more than the absentee ballot part because supposedly Republicans like absentee ballots more and they don’t want to restrict that,” he admitted, before adding: “But the bottom line is, on good government grounds, we have to have both voter ID laws and absentee ballot laws.” (Indeed, while all types of voter fraud are extremely rare, PBS notes that “election law experts say it happens more often through mail-in ballots than people impersonating eligible voters at the polls.”)
Fund once pointed to 19 possible cases of voter fraud out of 421,997 ballots cast in one Ohio county as proof that voter ID laws are necessary. Out of the already small number of cases that authorities were investigating, just two involved alleged in-person voter fraud and neither involved someone impersonating someone else, the supposed target of voter ID laws.
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly cheered on another way the GOP has tried to suppress the vote: by reducing voting hours.
Democrats promote early voting for the same reason they oppose voter ID: because they view early voting as helping their side. In the absurdly long 35-day period of early voting in Ohio in 2012, Democrats racked up perhaps a million-vote advantage over Republicans before Election Day was ever reached. Republicans have been slow to realize how early voting helps the Democrats.
Georgia state Sen. Fran Millar, like Schlafly, has condemned attempts to increase voter turnout. He was particularly critical of an effort in DeKalb County, the state’s third largest, to open an early voting center in a mall near a predominantly black megachurch and “dominated by African American shoppers.” Millar wrote in 2014:
Now we are to have Sunday voting at South DeKalb Mall just prior to the election. Per Jim Galloway of the [Atlanta Journal-Constitution], this location is dominated by African American shoppers and it is near several large African American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist . Galloway also points out the Democratic Party thinks this is a wonderful idea – what a surprise. I’m sure Michelle Nunn and Jason Carter are delighted with this blatantly partisan move in DeKalb.
Is it possible church buses will be used to transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the mall opens? If this happens, so much for the accepted principle of separation of church and state.
He later added: “I would prefer more educated voters than a greater increase in the number of voters.”
Doug Preisse, the chairman of the Republican Party in Franklin County, Ohio, the home of Columbus, plainly admitted in the run-up to the 2012 election why he believed the state should curb early voting hours: “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter turnout machine.”
The state party chairman later defended Preisse by explaining that his statement wasn’t meant to be on the record.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is currently running for president, signed legislation in 2014 that cut early voting and eliminated same-day registration in his state.”
In 2012, after stepping down as chairman of the Florida Republican Party, Jim Greer told the Palm Beach Post that GOP strategists are committed to restricting voting access in order to hurt Democrats and simply use the menace of voter fraud as “a marketing ploy.”
Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.
“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”
One GOP official in North Carolina, Don Yelton, was quite candid about why he thought the state should enact voter restrictions.
“This law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt,” he said. “If it hurts a bunch of college kids that’s too lazy to get up off their bohunkus and go get a photo ID, so be it. If it hurts the whites, so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that wants the government to give them everything, so be it.”
Brian Kilmeade, the co-host of the Fox News program “Fox & Friends,” will be the featured speaker at two Eagle Forum PAC fundraisers in Pennsylvania this summer, helping the conservative group raise money to support congressional candidates in the state.
Courting Extremism is a weekly feature on conservative responses to the Supreme Court vacancy.
Unable to come up with any honest attacks against Judge Merrick Garland’s record, conservatives continue to try to find new ways to justify the Republican leadership’s refusal to even hold hearings on Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. At least one activist, Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt, even suggested that the Second Amendment was designed in part to stop people like Garland.
Here are the five most ridiculous conservative pro-obstruction arguments of the week:
5) The NRA Rule
Mitch McConnell continues to move the goalposts on his party’s Supreme Court blockade. First, the Republican leader flatly declared that the Senate would not consider any nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court until a new president is in office.
Then, in an interview on Sunday with Fox News, McConnell added a new caveat, declaring that as long as Republicans hold a majority, the Senate would not confirm Garland because he is facing opposition from conservative groups like the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Rifle Association.
McConnell’s comments are particularly revealing, as he and other Republicans have insisted that their Supreme Court blockade isn’t about politics but is about a (nonexistent) Senate tradition to refuse to hold confirmation votes for Supreme Court nominees during election years.
If McConnell was taking this stance truly out of principle rather than partisanship, there would be no need to cite pressure from the NFIB and NRA. His statement also seems to imply that Republicans may obstruct any nominee if a Democrat succeeds Obama, seeing that the two right-wing groups are unlikely to support anyone nominated by a Democratic president.
4) Perpetual Obstructionism
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly appears to be on the side of those who think that only a Republican president should be allowed to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
She told Armed America Radio this week that Senate Republicans need to clearly state that “we don’t want any new nominee on the court until we have a Republican who will appoint somebody of the nature of Scalia.”
“The Court can continue to function indefinitely with fewer than nine Justices, as it has many times in our history,” Schlafly wrote in an op-ed. She then suggested that if a Republican becomes president, a Republican Senate could use the opportunity to pack the court with more than nine justices:
If Republicans elect the next president and retain control of Congress, there will be plenty of time to add new Justices to the Supreme Court. One scholar proposed expanding the size of the Court to 11 or more Justices, since a larger Court reduces the likelihood that any single appointee would fundamentally change the Court’s direction.
In addition to controlling the size of the Supreme Court, Congress could also authorize the President to nominate new Justices on a regular timetable — say, one during each two-year term of Congress. Under that system, a new Justice would join the Supreme Court every two years, regardless of whether an existing Justice dies or retires during that period.
3) If At First You Don’t Succeed…
Anti-choice activists are desperately trying to find reasons to oppose Garland’s nomination.
Now the outlet has LifeSiteNews run an article alleging that Garland “ruled against Priests for Life in a case involving the HHS mandate.”
Garland, however, wasn’t one of the three judges on the D.C. Circuit to hear Priests for Life’s challenge to the contraception mandate. LifeSiteNews was angry that Garland voted against rehearing the case — the three judge panel ruled unanimously against Priests for Life — before the full court of appeals, or an en banc review.
As Paul wrote, such a vote does not constitute a ruling against the group, despite LifeSiteNews’ claim:
A vote for or against en banc review, absent an accompanying opinion, does not necessarily tell you anything about why the judge voted that way. In fact, several of the judges wrote or joined lengthy opinions explaining why they were for or against an en banc review. Chief Judge Garland joined none of them. Neither did George W. Bush nominee Thomas Griffith or Clinton nominee David Tatel, both of whom voted along with Chief Judge Garland not to rehear the case. The majority of the court voted against en banc review, so we don’t know how Garland would have voted on the merits of the case.
The challenge to the contraception mandate was inevitably headed to the Supreme Court as several other circuit courts heard similar challenges. Indeed, the high court heard arguments on the Zubik case earlier this week.
2) He’s An Extremist!
After President Obama took office, the Judicial Confirmation Network changed its name to the Judicial Crisis Network and changed its mission from encouraging the speedy confirmation of judicial nominees to advocating for obstructionism and no-votes.
Just six years ago, JCN spokesperson Carrie Severino hinted that her group wouldn’t put up much of a fight if Obama nominated Garland to the Supreme Court. “[O]f those the president could nominate, we could do a lot worse than Merrick Garland,” Severino told the Washington Post at the time. “He’s the best scenario we could hope for to bring the tension and the politics in the city down a notch for the summer.”
Fast forward six years, and all of a sudden JCN is attacking Garland as a left-wing extremist in this new web ad:
1) ‘The Second Amendment Is All About People Like Judge Garland’
Conservative groups have repeatedly claimed that Garland opposed a challenge to a Washington, D.C., handgun ban and supported a national gun registry.
“He voted against Dick Heller,” Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt said on “Trunews” this week. “He voted against the idea that any citizen of the District of Columbia has an individual right to keep and bear arms.” “He also voted to uphold Bill Clinton’s registration scheme,” he added, claiming that the judge’s track record demonstrates “opposition to the Second Amendment.”
“This is the guy that has been told to us by many folks, including the president, that ‘this is a moderate,’” Pratt said. “Well, I guess in the Kremlin there are moderates but that’s not the kind of moderate we need on the Supreme Court.”
Phyllis Schlafly, the anti-feminist icon and enthusiastic Donald Trump endorser, characteristically abandoned all pretense of nonpartisanship when discussing the Supreme Court vacancy in a recent interview with “Armed America Radio,” saying that Republicans should hold firm in blocking a nominee until a Republican is in the White House.
“We need the Republicans to stand firm and say, ‘We’ve got a big election coming up and that should change the complexion of the Supreme Court and we don’t want any new nominee on the court until we have a Republican who will appoint somebody of the nature of Scalia,’” Schlafly told host Mark Walters on March 20. (She did not specify whether she was simply hoping that the next president will be a Republican or if she was suggesting that the GOP block all Democratic Supreme Court picks in the future.)
This prompted Walters to ask her about the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, which Schlafly said made her “scared to death.”
The solution, she said, was for Republicans to unite around Trump because “your gun rights and all kinds of other rights” are on the line.
“We have a two-party system in this country and if you want a third party I invite you to move to Europe, where they have lots of useless third parties,” she said.
In an op-ed yesterday, Schlafly invoked the late First Lady Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug campaign in urging the GOP to obstruct Obama’s Supreme Court nominee:
The U.S. Senate should follow the famous advice of the late First Lady Nancy Reagan and “just say no” to Obama’s nominee.
However, Schlafly stood by her position in an interview with WorldNetDaily today, even mocking the Cruz campaign’s failure to win support from a plurality of evangelical Republican voters in many of the early primary states: “The amazing thing is, Cruz based his campaign on courting the evangelicals, and the evangelicals voted for Trump!”
“Trump has got the energy to punch the kingmakers in the nose and take the selection of our nominees away from these losers who have been picking them every time,” she said, adding that “the most enjoyment I’ve had on television in years was watching the dismay of the kingmakers who are simply frustrated.”
She credited Trump’s draconian stance on immigration with his rise in the polls: “We can’t cope with all these immigrants coming in who don’t believe in America, and we can’t deal with them. We have a right as sovereign people to decide who comes and who stays out. And so Trump has spoken to the heart of America.”
Legendary conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, a WND columnist, is not surprised Trump is bringing so many primary voters out of the woodwork. Bush, McCain and Romney were all the top choices of what Schlafly terms the “kingmakers,” or GOP establishment. Trump, however, is not a “kingmaker” favorite.
“Trump has got the energy to punch the kingmakers in the nose and take the selection of our nominees away from these losers who have been picking them every time,” Schlafly told WND in an interview.
Schlafly, author of “Who Killed the American Family?” has played a leading role in the conservative war against the GOP “kingmakers” since the 1960s. The “kingmakers” have almost always been able to nominate the presidential candidate they wanted, but Schlafly senses things are different this time around – and she loves it.
“The grassroots are speaking out now; they’ve got a candidate,” the longtime activist said. “The kingmakers don’t know what to do. In fact, the most enjoyment I’ve had on television in years was watching the dismay of the kingmakers who are simply frustrated. They’ve tried everything, and they’ve convinced themselves Trump is going to self-destruct, and he didn’t. And it’s just amazing.”
Schlafly recalled being at the 1952 Republican National Convention and hearing Sen. Everett Dirksen thunder at Thomas Dewey, the establishment GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948: “We’ve followed you before and you led us down the road to defeat!”
That is precisely her message to today’s “kingmakers.”
It’s not just that Trump is frustrating the establishment; Schlafly noted the Donald has attracted much evangelical Christian support despite his many impieties.
“Plenty of [evangelicals] have never voted before,” she said. “The amazing thing is, Cruz based his campaign on courting the evangelicals, and the evangelicals voted for Trump!”
“Trump put his finger on the biggest problem, which is immigration,” she said. “We can’t cope with all these immigrants coming in who don’t believe in America, and we can’t deal with them. We have a right as sovereign people to decide who comes and who stays out. And so Trump has spoken to the heart of America.”