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.”
Phyllis Schlafly, the nonagenarian anti-feminist activist and founder of Eagle Forum, has been singingthepraisesof Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump for months and earlier this month finally came out and endorsed Trump onstage at a rally in St. Louis.
Schlafly’s endorsement puts her at odds with a number of Eagle Forum’s state-level leaders — including her own daughter, Anne Cori — who endorsed Trump’s rival Ted Cruz in a joint letter in January.
Now, one of the Eagle Forum leaders who endorsed Cruz is accusing Trump of manipulating the 91-year-old Schlafly into backing him. Cathie Adams, who served for decades as the leader of Texas Eagle Forum along with a stint as the head of the state Republican Party, told the Dallas Morning News last week that Schlafly’s endorsement of Trump was the result of “manipulation” that will mar the activist’s legacy.
“At 91, it is just totally unfair to impose upon someone who has such a beautiful legacy,” she said:
Cathie Adams, who served as Texas Eagle Forum president for the last 23 years, called Schlafly’s endorsement a disappointment. She backed recent claims by Cruz that Trump is taking advantage of supporters, including 91-year-old Schlafly, by making promises he can’t keep.
“We have no respect for that man,” she said of Trump. “[Schlafly’s endorsement] is going to be widely dismissed. 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. When you’re 91 and you’re not out with the grass roots all the time, it is very much taking advantage of someone.”
For what it’s worth, from all we can see, Schlafly still has all of her considerable wits about her. As little as her Eagle Forum colleagues might like it, Schlafly most likely endorsed Trump because she agrees with him.
The latest announcement in the Ted Cruz presidential campaign’s ongoing rollout of endorsements from right-wing leaders is a group of more than 50 “Catholic influencers” led by Robert George, the intellectual muscle for the Religious Right, and Ken Cuccinelli, former attorney general of Virginia and failed gubernatorial candidate. The campaign announced the endorsement of Robert George yesterday; some others on the list have also been announced previously.
Not surprisingly, the list of Catholics for Cruz is heavy on culture warriors who have been fighting to criminalize abortion and resist legal equality for LGBT people and same-sex couples. Although Cruz is not Catholic, he made a reference to the Year of Mercy announced by Pope Francis, saying “we have an opportunity to protect the most vulnerable and safeguard the truth revealed through Scripture and the tradition of millennia.”
Today in St. Louis, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly introduced and endorsed Donald Trump, lauding him as a true conservative who will appoint right-wing judges to the bench and thwart President Obama’s nefarious agenda.
In an interview earlier this week with Alex Jones of InfoWars, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly lavished praise on GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.
“Does he smell like Reagan to you?” Jones asked.
“Yes he does,” Schlafly said. “He’s just a guy who is not intimidated by the establishment and we like that. I like him especially because he made immigration the top issue, and nobody else wanted to talk about it except Ann Coulter.”
“To win, Republicans need to demonstrate that they care about the average person who goes to work every day,” he added. Average Americans are tired of paying billions in welfare handouts to immigrants who are undermining U.S. wages. “People should have total confidence and a clear commitment on those issues. If they don’t, then they don’t have my vote,” he said…
Our immigration policy has been anti-American, decade after decade, and the voters need to know that 2016 might be our last chance to elect a president who can reduce this tide of illegals crossing our borders. The interests of working Americans must “be put first,” Sessions urged. “We need a president with the credibility to tell the world that the time of illegality is over. Do not come to this country unlawfully,” he said.
In the same column, Schlafly praised “outsider” candidates like Trump and Ted Cruz, and warned against “the Washington-based Republican Establishment” who she said are plotting to “take back control of the party from the outsiders and grassroots.” Among those she names as would-be “kingmakers” are House Speaker Paul Ryan – “who is openly contemptuous of Trump and has little use for Cruz” – and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who offended Schlafly by using her response to the State of the Union Address “to slam the ‘angriest voices’ in the presidential campaign and disavow the Republican front-runner’s popular call for a temporary pause in Muslim immigration.”
Schlafly vows that the Republican platform will be written by GOP delegates who are disappointed with the ineffectiveness of congressional Republicans and who “will have no use for Ryan’s open-borders ideology, which holds that anyone who can find a low-wage job should be allowed to settle in the United States.” Schlafly warns that a deadlocked convention could make someone like Ryan the nominee. “Such an outcome,” she writes, “could destroy the Republican Party and guarantee a Democratic victory by causing disheartened grassroots voters to stay home and tempting an aggrieved candidate to mount a third-party or independent presidential campaign.”
In her latest radio commentary, the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly calls for a ban on foreign players in Major League Baseball because these players are taking "positions that should have gone to American players."
Schlafly insists that "American baseball players are better" and speculates that MLB team owners are using foreign-born players because they are "cheaper and easier to control":
When I was growing up, my favorite sport was baseball. One of my most exciting memories was attending the World Series in 1944 between the St. Louis Cardinals and the St. Louis Browns. Baseball is a wonderful activity for boys and young men. It helps develop mental discipline, patience and obeying rules. A lower percentage of professional baseball players have post-career troubles compared with football and basketball players, and baseball is a safer sport, too.
The best baseball players today are American-born. All six of the six recipients of the top awards this past season are native born American, but more than a quarter of Major League Baseball players are foreign-born, with whom our youth are less likely to identify. Some of these players cannot speak English and they did not rise through the ranks of Little League. These foreign-born players enter on visas and take positions that should go to American players. Fewer than four percent of the Baseball Hall of Fame is foreign-born, yet 27 percent of today's players are foreign-born.
This foreign influx into our National Pastime may help explain why our youth is abandoning baseball. Youth who play baseball have declined by more than 40 percent since 2000, and some communities where baseball was once booming now struggle to fill their teams. Television ratings for World Series games are less than half what they were three decades ago.
Baseball owners are doing the same thing that big corporations do: Bring in foreign labor to take jobs that ought to go to Americans. American baseball players are better, as the awards and Hall of Fame prove, but perhaps baseball owners think that foreign players are cheaper and easier to control.
It is time to cut off visas for foreign baseball players, and return our national pastime to Americans.
In a shocking development, both Rafael Cruz and David Barton support Glenn Beck's call to fast for Ted Cruz.
Bob Vander Plaats says that Cruz was right to fire campaign spokesman Rick Tyler because "Ted Cruz has such a high bar of integrity in this campaign."
Phyllis Schflaly declares that "homosexual marriage cannot be the stabilizing force that it claims ... Marriage has been and always should be about creating a stable environment in which to raise children and instill them with values and character. Homosexual marriage will never provide this environment."
Bryan Fischer cannot believe that self-identified evangelicals in South Carolina "voted for a man who seems proud of the fact he’s never asked God for forgiveness even a single time."
Finally, speaking of Fischer, he onceagain suggested that Janet Jenkins sexually abused her daughter while discussing the Lisa Miller case on his radio program today.
Right-wing activist Phyllis Schlaflywrote today that Justice Antonin Scalia’s death is “a terrible loss for our Nation” and “a reason for Republicans to rethink their approach to the judicial branch of our government.” The Eagle Forum founder agrees with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s pledge to block any nominee President Obama puts forward to fill the Scalia vacancy, but she wants much more — essentially a declaration of war on the federal judiciary by a conservative Congress.
Of course Senate Republicans should block President Obama from filling this Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, and they have 80 years of precedent on their side. But Republicans should go further and block nominations for all the other vacancies in the federal judiciary, too.
But even with that call for a total blockade of the federal courts, Schafly is just warming up. She wants Congress to cut funding for the courts, cut funding for the enforcement of what she believes are “bad” court decisions, and strip the courts of their jurisdiction over immigration, abortion, and marriage:
It’s fine for the Republican presidential candidates to point out that a vacancy on the Supreme Court is part of the upcoming election, and to promise to fill Justice Scalia’s immense shoes with someone similar. But even if a Republican wins the upcoming presidential election, even if he picks another Justice Scalia, and even if he is confirmed by the Senate, the federal judiciary will still be stuffed with hundreds of activist judges appointed by Obama, Clinton, and even Jimmy Carter.
The Founders gave Congress everything necessary to take power away from this runaway federal judiciary. Congress can deprive the federal courts of power over immigration, abortion and marriage, and can completely defund enforcement of bad federal court decisions that are already on the books.
Congress spent months trying unsuccessfully to defund Planned Parenthood, a laudable goal, but Congress can more effectively defund enforcement of the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage decisions by the judiciary without sparking a phony “war on women” debate.
Congress should also defund use of taxpayer money by the Department of Justice to push the liberal agenda in the liberal courts. Congress should cut back on the funding for the courts themselves, too, and eliminate rather than fill some of the vacancies.
While some presidential candidates promise to work with Congress, none of them promise to rein in the Supreme Court in the absence of Justice Scalia. None of them promise to stand up against an unconstitutional order by an activist court by refusing to enforce it, as the next president could do with respect to activist Supreme Court rulings on immigration, abortion, and marriage.
Schlafly started things out by alleging that the political problems of conservatives stem from the fact that “we’ve taken in millions of people who have no concept of the whole idea of limited government” and who “don’t even know what it means or have a desire to be American.”
Pratt agreed that we are “bringing in people who have never had any tradition of, never been schooled in what it means to have a limited government” and that “folks coming abroad are all natural Democrats, they’re looking, as you say, for big government, that’s their whole idea of what government is about, it’s there to give them more and more things.”
He added that Democrats are “eagerly bringing in these immigrants who at best don’t have an idea of what it means to be an American if they were to become one and may well be terrorists.”
“You know, I have friends who came in long ago,” Schlafly said, “and they told me with pride that after they got off the boat at Ellis Island to immigrate, their parents would stand them up and say, ‘And now we’re in America and we’re going to be Americans and we’re going to learn English and we’re going to learn a whole new set of laws and this is our country now, we’re going to be American.’ But you don’t find these immigrants saying this today.”
Now, she said, “anybody can come, no matter how much you hate us, no matter how you have no concept about limited government and the rule of law and the things that we believe in.”
Pratt added that this problem was especially acute with Muslim immigrants because “they’re taught from the Koran, they’re taught to hate people like us, they’re taught to want to kill people like us, and to the extent that they don’t, that’s taqiyya, that’s just a temporary lying to get along until they are tactically and strategically in a position to strike.”
But included in the list of Cruz endorsers are Schlafly’s niece and heir apparent, Anne Cori, as well as 19 other Eagle Forum leaders from 11 states.
Schlafly founded Eagle Forum in 1972 as part of her effort to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. Since then, she has expanded the organization’s focus to include not just fighting “radical feminists” and their “feminist goals of stereotyping men as a constant danger to women,” but also to opposing gay rights, immigration, U.S. involvement with the United Nations, and national curriculum standards.
The best-known Eagle Forum activist on the latest list of Cruz endorsers is Cathie Adams, a former chairwoman of the Texas GOP and longtime leader of the state’s Eagle Forum chapter, who has a record of extremism that will make her fit right in with her fellow Cruz endorsers.
“Texas’ laws should be aligned with nature and nature’s God, thus protecting children from the unnatural and unhealthy lifestyles of homosexuality and bisexuality,” she wrote to members of Texas Eagle Forum in 2003. When pro-choice protesters filled the Texas capitol in 2013, she called them “feminazis” and “stinky stalking feminists.”
Adams share’s Eagle Forum’s nativist priorities, defending abstinence-only education by blaming teen pregnancy rates on Mexican immigrants with inferior “morals,” opposing the Children’s Health Insurance Program because it might benefit “illegal aliens,” and warning that the Gang of Eight immigration reform bill would lead to the biblical Mark of the Beast through biometric scanning and bring about the End Times. She once argued that anti-tax activist Grover Norquist was secretly a Muslim and working for the Muslim Brotherhood, as evidenced by the fact that “he has a beard.”
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly onceagain praised GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, telling Breitbart yesterday that Trump “represents everything the grassroots want.”
She also hailed the business mogul as the only hope that conservatives have "to defeat the Kingmakers,” or the Republican elites whom she said “have picked our last bunch of losers.”
Schlafly said she was won over by Trump’s extreme anti-immigrant stances, warning that “this torrent of immigrants coming in” is “destroying our schools” and the character of America.
“[W]e’re not going to be America anymore because most of the people coming in have no experience with limited government,” she said. “They don’t know what that is. They look to the government to solve all of their problems, and as soon as we have a high majority of people who think that, it’s going to be a different country.”
“Trump is the only hope to defeat the Kingmakers,” Schlafly told Breitbart resolutely. “Because everybody else will fall in line. The Kingmakers have so much money behind them.”
“The Kingmakers,” Schlafly told Breitbart, “have picked our last bunch of losers. And there’s one loser after another because they were more interested in maintaining their flow of money from the big donors and their cooperation with the Democrats—their bipartisanship—and that’s not my goal. I’m for America [Schlafly slams hand on table] and America first [slams hand on table again].”
When asked what is the “most pressing issue facing the country today,” Schlafly—without a moment’s pause—said, “Immigration. And that’s why Trump is doing so well. People recognize that is the biggest thing. In the first place, it’s just about destroying our schools. All of these kids, who can’t read in any language, are coming in and expecting to be taught by our English-speaking teachers. And it’s not going to work. And yet we have to babysit them all day.”
Schlafly explained that immigration represents an existential issue for the nation: “If we don’t stop immigration—this torrent of immigrants coming in—we’re not going to be America anymore because most of the people coming in have no experience with limited government. They don’t know what that is. They look to the government to solve all of their problems, and as soon as we have a high majority of people who think that, it’s going to be a different country.”
“I certainly think he represents everything the grassroots want,” Schlafly said.
The Catholic League recognizes World AIDS Day: "[T]he real threat to gays comes from irrational gay activists and their equally irrational establishment allies."
Get ready for "Glenn Beck Presents: Christmas Cheer!," a one-night event where "Glenn shares some of his deepest feelings about the importance of family and service to others during this very important Christmas season."
Phyllis Schlafly says that she'll make a presidential endorsement soon and "it will be important because a lot of people seem to pay attention to what I say."
Franklin Graham has posted an open letter "to all lesbians, gays, bisexuals, & transgenders" to remind them that "God loves you and so do I."
Colorado state Rep. JoAnn Windholz blamed Planned Parenthood for the deadly shooting at one of its clinics: "The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves. Violence begets violence."
Finally, "Coach" Dave Daubenmire posted a video declaring that Planned Parenthood clinics are "the ultimate terrorists."
Excited about Donald Trump’s call for the mass deportation of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly told WorldNetDaily this weekend that she wants American railways to join the deportation effort, hoping to one day “see those railroad cars full of illegals going south.”
Blasting President Obama’s call for the U.S. to take in Syrian refugees as “ridiculous,” she warned that “Obama wants to change the character of our country” by bringing in people who “have no comprehension of our constitutional system, of limited government, of the people being in control.”
“Every time they say, ‘You can’t deport these people, in my mind’s eye, I see the picture of those railroad cars carrying the illegals out of our country when Eisenhower deported them. They say it was a failure. It wasn’t at all,” Schlafly told WND in an exclusive interview. “In my mind’s eye, I see those railroad cars full of illegals going south. That’s what they ought to do.”
“Obama wants to change the character of our country,” Schlafly charged, reacting to an expose highlighted at the top of The Drudge Report on Friday.
“These people come in and have no comprehension of our constitutional system, of limited government, of the people being in control, and I think it’s very tragic,” she continued.
“We had a wonderful country of freedom and prosperity, and that’s why everyone in the world wants to come here. But we can’t let everyone in the world in. And we need to be very persnickety about who we let in. We only want people who love America and want to be American.”
Schlafly said Obama’s plan to flood the U.S. with unscreened foreigners “certainly isn’t American,” and she never thought she’d see the day when a U.S. president failed to do his duty to protect the nation.
“I never did. Even the ones I didn’t vote for, I think, would have stood up for America,” Schlafly said. “Obama has told us that he doesn’t believe America should be thought of as better or exceptional. … Obama has a mystique about him, and he continues to go down what I think is the wrong path. We need a leader who’s going to stand up for America.”
Many politicians – Democrat and Republican – argue that the U.S. has a duty to accept “refugees.”
But Schlafly isn’t having any of that “ridiculous” nonsense.
“These ideas that they’re putting out, that we have some obligation to admit all these people, are just ridiculous,” she said. “We don’t have an obligation to admit anybody. A country that doesn’t have borders isn’t a country. We need to have borders.”
She added, “I think the grassroots are going to win out because there are more of them every day who are believing what Trump says and disbelieving what the elite are trying to tell us.”
In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Schlafly continued on the same theme, comparing Trump to President Reagan, who “was a real American and would stand up for America.” In contrast, she said, “I don’t think Obama ever did” love America.
On Trump, she recalled a similarly turbulent time for the GOP establishment when Ronald Reagan got the nomination.
“We survived that because Reagan was a real American and would stand up for America,” she said.
She said she believes that is Trump’s desire also.
Schlafly also noted the “kingmakers” in the party had difficulty then and likely will again when “they realize they can’t name the nominee and that Trump might be the nominee.”
But a key component of the presidency is love for America, she said.
“I don’t think Obama ever did. I think he wanted America to be like every other country. We don’t want to be like every other country. We’re better. We’re exceptional.”
Schlafly also told WND that President Obama’s immigration policy is sending America on the path of Germany, which she said “isn’t going to be Germany any more. It’s going to be Muslim.”
Schlafly said the resettlement of refugees and newcomers to the nation is getting out of control.
“Look what happened to Germany,” she said. “Germany isn’t going to be Germany any more. It’s going to be Muslim. We shouldn’t allow that to happen.”
It’s no surprise that virulent anti-immigrant activists likeAnnCoulter are flocking to Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy, and Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly is no exception.
Schlafly told radio host Marc Cox last month that the GOP should nominate Trump because “he acts like he loves America.”
“The Republicans would be doing themselves a favor by nominating Donald Trump,” she said. “He’s the only one, I think, who really talks the language of the grassroots and why we want to make America great again. That’s a great line.”
“Yes, and he’s speaking up for America,” she later added. “And your average person believes in America and wants to believe that America’s the greatest and doing the right thing and everything. And he acts like he loves America and is going to stand up for us and not let some of these other two-bit politicians in this country or other countries push us around.”
Alex Jones invited Phyllis Schlafly on to “The Alex Jones Show” yesterday to discuss the perils of PC culture. Jones brought up the Left’s supposed misrepresentation of slavery in American history, saying, “They have completely stolen our history: ‘It wasn’t the West that ended slavery. No, now we invented it, fellas!’ I mean, it’s crazy!” According to Jones, the way slavery is now taught in American does not put enough of an emphasis on the wonderful feat America achieved in ending the institution.
Schlafly agreed, stating that the Left “just lie[s] about everything.” She went on to point out that “it was the people in Africa that sent their own people into slavery” and “of course, [America] eventually abolished slavery” which is “one of the great achievements of our country.”