Eagle Forum of Sacramento

Please Contact the Members of the Senate Public Safety Committee!

On Tuesday, April 28, the Senate Public Safety Committee will hear Senate Bill 697.

SB697, authored by State Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-7), would prohibit the sale of handguns other than “owner-authorized (or ‘smart’) handguns” — that is, handguns with a permanent, programmable biometric feature that renders the firearm useless unless activated by the authorized user. No proven, viable handgun of this type has ever been developed. The bill would require the California Attorney General to report to the Governor and Legislature on the availability of owner-authorized handguns; once the Attorney General finds that these guns are available, only “owner-authorized” handguns could be approved for sale in California .

Please contact the Senate Public Safety Committee and respectfully urge them to oppose SB697. Contact information can be found below.

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3) – Chair
(916) 651-4003
senator.leno@senate.ca.gov

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37) – Vice-Chair
(916) 651-4037

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22)
(916) 651-4022

State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9)
(916) 651-4009

State Senator Robert Huff (R-29)
(916) 651-4029

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
(916) 651-4006

State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25)
(916) 651-4025

By TVC Chairman Louis P. Sheldon & TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty
We just spent 5 hours sitting in the House Judiciary Committee hearing room monitoring the debate over passage of the so-called hate crime bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation is designed to add “sexual orientation,” “gender” and “gender identity” as specially protected categories of persons under federal law.

During the debates between Republicans and Democrats, it became clear that Democrats were prepared to vote down every amendment offered by the Republican minority – and that’s what they did.

We were there to monitor the debate. Throughout the mark-up, we interacted directly with Members of Congress and their staffers on this dangerous legislation

By David E. Young
Published Wednesday, November 5, 2008 2:32 PM MST
Campaign Obama is deceptive about his views on firearms rights and sportsmen. He voted for banning almost every hunting rifle and shotgun in Illinois and authorizing state police raids of gunowners’ homes to forcibly confiscate banned arms. Richard Pearson, lobbyist of Illinois’ largest firearms organization, had numerous contacts with Obama on firearms legislation. Pearson’s article indicating Obama is misleading firearms owners and sportsmen on his Second Amendment views is at: www.isra.org/

A Joyce Foundation director for eight years, Obama helped Joyce bankroll gun control across America. During Obama’s tenure, projects lavishly funded academics in rewriting the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights to influence court decisions. Further information on the plan to undercut Bill of Rights protection is at: pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/ and my criticism of the history-rewriting recipients and results are at: hnn.us/articles/47238.html

Obama supported Washington DC’s draconian gun laws as “reasonable”. He will appoint judges to subjectively decide such issues based on amorphous fairness and justice standards rather than what the Constitution states. Do you want a government of laws, not men – or Obama’s frightening alternative?

Senator Obama stated he cannot ban guns because he cannot get enough votes. With Democratic control of Congress, he can get enough votes for gun control and sloppy judges . Concerned voters must inform themselves about Obama’s past gun control support and not rely on the slick information from his campaign. A concerted effort exists to mislead gun owners and sportsmen Obama is their friend and supporter, which evidence directly contradicts.

In the next few weeks Californians will be inundated with media messages about the
importance of allowing same-sex marriages. Voters will see TV ads telling them that
homosexual love deserves “equality” with heterosexual love. Voters will hear radio
reports about how all gays and lesbians want is to have the same “rights” as all
married couples. And the main message that will be repeated is that allowing homosexuals
to marry will have no impact on your marriage or your family-so what’s the harm
in giving gays their chance to marry?
Although on the surface these arguments appear convincing, they don’t tell the whole
truth.
Homosexual marriage will have a direct, intrusive and damaging effect on your family.
Public Schools will teach that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are normal and
acceptable-and if you disagree, you are a bigot. Books like “Heather has Two Mommies”
or “Daddy’s Wedding” will be used to teach kindergartners about homosexual relationships.
When parents in Boston complained about an eighth-grade teacher instructing students
about gay sex, the teacher responded, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.”

Churches will be required to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies or face prosecution
under anti-discrimination laws. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that
medical professionals may not defer treatment to another professional based on
their religious objections. In other words, Christians and those with moral beliefs
must check their conscience at the door when they arrive at work. The same case
law will apply to churches. Pastors will no longer be allowed to refuse marrying
homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.

Businesses will be prosecuted for not participating in homosexual ceremonies. A
New Mexico photography company is being prosecuted for refusing to photograph the
“commitment ceremony” of a homosexual couple. The full force of the government will
used to make citizens publicly accept homosexuality.

Married couples will no longer be considered “bride and groom,” but “Party A and
Party B.” A young couple in Placer County wrote the terms “bride” and “groom” on
their marriage license, which was returned from the state as an “unacceptable alteration.”
A husband and wife are legally referred to now as Party A and Party B according
to the California government. By redefining marriage, every marriage has already
been affected.
The role of parents will be diminished. The family unit is already under assault
with no-fault divorce, acceptance of single parenthood, and nanny government usurping
the role of fathers. Homosexual marriage worsens this trend by giving government
approval to single-sex parenting. Children need both a mother and a father. By
approving homosexual marriage, government and society denies children their right
and need for both parents.
These are just a few of the negative, damaging consequences of allowing homosexual
marriage in our society. When you encounter a neighbor, church member, work associate,
or family member who says, “I’m not a bigot-and homosexual marriage won’t affect
me,” remind them of just how much it will impact their family and all families.
This is not an issue of bigotry, but of ensuring marriage isn’t redefined by four
activist judges. Wanting children to be raised by both of their parents isn’t bigoted
either. What’s truly bigoted is telling Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people
of faith that their beliefs must be silenced.

The California State Supreme Court, lead by Chief Justice Ron George, repealed California law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman as set forth by both the Legislature and the people through the passage of Prop. 22.< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The Court’s ruling is breathtaking for its overreach. Using words like “dignity” (23 times), “liberty” (34 times), and “privacy” (37 times) to describe same-sex partners full right to marry, the Court overturned millennia of experience and more than 150 years of state law precedence. (For the ruling, see: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF.) In so doing, their strained justifications threw the door wide open to polygamous and incestuous marriage. How? By using the flawed logic that marriage is none of the government’s business insofar as marriage should be afforded to all to afford people privacy, liberty and dignity. The same weak logic can be applied to the “plural” marriages of the Fundamentalist LDS cult in Texas or to a devout Muslim citizen of Saudi Arabia who wishes to emigrate to California with his four wives. In fact, due to the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, both a Fundamentalist LDS cult member and a devout Muslim could argue that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion are being violated by any restriction on polygamy “after all, their ‘dignity,’ ‘liberty,’ and ‘privacy’” would be violated otherwise.

Allow me to close my comments with two political observations.

First, the Court’s sweeping ruling is likely to ignite support for the California Marriage Protection Act, a constitutional ballot initiative that would overrule the Court’s decision that should appear on the ballot this November. (See: http://www.protectmarriage.com/.) This, in turn, may have an impact on other California races, from the President on down to the legislative races. In this, liberal Democrats should be wary of what they wish for!

Second, I find it ironic to see commentators describe the Court as conservative since the majority of its members were appointed by Republican governors. Lest we forget, there is a simmering divide in the Republican Party over whether the label “conservative” includes social policy, or only tax and fiscal policy. Chief Judge Ron George was first appointed by Gov. Deukmejian, then appointed chief justice by Gov. Wilson. Justice Ron George has had a long history of very liberal rulings long before the same sex marriage ruling. In fact, back in 1997, I drafted a resolution opposing Justice Ron George for his election in 1998. It passed the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee, then stalled when it hit the California Republican Party. It was argued that Justice George was a Republican, so the Party should support him. The reason for my opposition to Judge George in 1997 was his ruling in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren which overturned a California law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions (“privacy” of the minor girl was the reason cited in that case too). Other bad rulings already made by Justice George at that time included: a pro-criminal decision in People v. Superior Court (Romero), three anti-private property rights decisions in Ehrlich v. Culver City, Smith v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, and Alcarez v. Vece, a pro-public union decision in Loder v. City of Glendale, and an anti-business decision in Stevenson v. Superior Court.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that Judge George’s terrible ruling really is a Republican plot in the vast right wing conspiracy to boost conservative turnout so much that McCain wins California and is elected President in 2008, stranger things have happened in the world of politics.

Just for old time’s sake, I’ve reprinted below the 1997 resolution that passed the OC Republican Party Central Committee only to fail at the California Republican Party convention. It was authored by me and my long time friend, Fred Whitaker, a respected Orange attorney who should someday be on the California Supreme Court.

*************************************
A Resolution Calling to Oppose Confirmation of Certain California Supreme Court Judges.

WHEREAS, The California Supreme Court overturned a 1987 law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions.

WHEREAS, The law in question was a carefully written to meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s strict guidelines for valid parental consent legislation.

WHEREAS, Chief Justice George, Justice Chin, Justice Kennard, and Justice Werdegar ruled that the parental consent law violated the “autonomy privacy rights” of minor girls. Further that a minor girl’s uninhibited right to an abortion “is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life, “we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution in making the decision whether to continue or to terminate her own pregnancy.” Yet, almost a year earlier, the court ruled that the same law was valid.

WHEREAS, Lower courts in California blocked enforcement soon after its passage in 1987, claiming that girls as young as 13 or 14 possess the necessary maturity and rationality to make informed decisions about abortion. Yet, under the law do not have maturity and rationality for ear piercing and medical treatment without parental consent until age 18.

WHEREAS, These arguments, aside from ignoring common sense and human experience, are irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality which is supposed to be the only reason for the court to overturn legislation.

WHEREAS, A parent’s right to direct his or her child’s upbringing is among the most basic of human rights.

WHEREAS, Justice Mosk, in dissent, pointed out that according to the ruling, the privacy rights for minor girls would reach to those who were as young as nine years old.

WHEREAS, Justice Brown, noted in her dissent that the California Constitution protects “a parent’s interest in directing his child’s upbringing” and that the “liberty interest of a minor is qualitatively different than that of an adult, being subject both to reasonable regulation by the state and to an extent not permissible with adults.”

WHEREAS, It is illogical and inconsistent to require that minors obtain parental permission for aspirin at school, tattoos, tanning salons, body piercing, drivers’ licenses, etc., but not for a dangerous and invasive procedure like an abortion.

WHEREAS, This Court’s judicial activism is reminiscent of the Rose Bird Court when, the rule of law in California succumbed to the whim of four justices occupying seats on its highest court.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the California Republican Party joins the Republican Party of Orange County in calling upon itself and all those of good will to actively oppose confirmation for any California State Supreme Court Justice who voted to overturn the 1987 law requiring parental consent for minor girls to obtain abortions.

Cosponsors:
Fred M. Whitaker, Member
Chuck DeVore, Member

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

Eagle Forum of California State President, Orlean Koehle, received word from Damon Conklin, aid to California State Senator Tom Harmon that Senator Harmon has already signed the Eagle Forum “Protect American Sovereignty” resolution, and will be urging other members of the Republican Senatorial Caucus to sign it as well.

The resolution was presented to Senator Harman and to all the California state legislators in individual packets by attendees and leaders of various grass-roots groups who were part of a two-hour “Protect American Sovereignty” Rally Monday, January 14, on the west steps of the Sacramento Capitol Building. The rally was organized and led by Eagle Forum of California.

The packets contained information about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the NAFTA Superhighway, and the movement towards forming a North American Union, similar to the European Union, all being done under the wire by the executive branches of the United States, Canada, and Mexico with no U.S. congressional oversight or oversight by the parliaments of Canada or Mexico.

After giving information about all of the above, the resolution states “…the Legislature of the state of California urges the United States Congress and California’s Congressional Delegation to use all of their efforts, energies, and diligence to withdraw the United States from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership…and to withdraw the United States from any other …activity with seeks to advance, authorize, fund, or in any way promote the creation of any structure to accomplish any form of North American Union.”

State President, Orlean Koehle, expressed her gratitude to Senator Harman who has taken the lead in the Senate on the resolution and in standing up for border protection in California. Mrs. Koehle stated, “It is wonderful to have a state senator who has the courage to take a stand for what he knows to be true, even though it may not be popular or deemed to be ‘politically correct.’ We need more elected officials like him.”

Other Eagle Forum leaders who spoke at the rally and did the lobbying that afternoon were: Georgiana Preskar, Director Sacramento Eagle Forum and author of a newly published book, Diversity Addiction; Jeanne Goodin, Vice President and Long Beach Chapter Leader and Anthony Moreno, 17-year old President of Teen Eagles of Sonoma County and first place state debate winner.

Other speakers at the rally and leaders of the grass-root groups that were part of the coalition were: Barbara Coe – Director California Coalition for Immigration Reform; Duane Wildie – Northern CA Leader for the John Birch Society; Brad Dacus – Director and Founder of Pacific Justice Institute; Lyman Stucky – Director of Sovereignty USA; Charles Bartlett – East Bay Immigration Reform and Golden Gate Minutemen; Art Bush – Redwood City Coalition for Immigration Reform; and Chelene Nightingale – Media Director of Southern California Save our State.Com.

All of the speakers were outstanding. Those in attendance felt it was well worth being there even though many of them had to travel several to attend. Several flew in from Southern California. Beautiful patriotic music and the sound system was provided free of charge by a great patriot disc jockey, Joe Oliver. Many attendees had never done lobbying before but were committed to protecting our nation’s sovereignty and actually ended up enjoying speaking to and passing out the packets to the legislators or their aids. All 130 packets were delivered to the various legislators’ offices.

The purpose of the rally was to do exactly what is now happening, to encourage state legislators to sign on to the resolution. It is based on a similar one that have been passed by at least one house of 19 state legislations and officially passed in both the house and the senate of three states: Idaho, Montana, and Oklahoma. Once the resolutions are signed by both branches of the state legislation they will be sent to the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the House and to members of the California congressional delegation urging them to do what the resolution says – take a stand and stop the movement towards a North American Union!

Special Note: Please forward this e-mail to all of your California friends and associates.
This will help us get out the news about the SB 777 referendum petitions!

Overview of SB 777

As average citizens become aware of the SB 777 referendum, they have several questions
that we would like to answer in order to further educate and inform. Authored by
lesbian state senator Sheila Kuehl, and signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Senate Bill 777 prohibits any classroom instruction or school-sponsored activities
that “promote a discriminatory bias” against homosexuals, transsexuals, bisexuals,
transgenders and other controversial lifestyles. This means equal time instruction
about these lifestyles for children as young as 5. It would “promote bias” against
homosexuals to only discuss heterosexual families. Students with religious or traditional
values will be victims of reverse discrimination if they voice their opinions at
school. This is one of the most outrageous assaults on traditional families values
that we have witnessed in California. The SB 777 referendum will “refer” the bill
to California voters and ask them to overturn this shocking new law.

Major Milestone Reached!

Save Our Kids is thrilled to announce that we have already counted 100,000 signatures!
Our volunteers are working around the clock to continue counting the petitions we
receive in the mail every day. We know that we have enough petitions circulating
to qualify the referendum, but we need them returned ASAP so that we can continue
counting and preparing the petitions for submission to the Secretary of State.

To date, we have mailed more than 400,000 petitions! With space for 10 signatures
each, that equals 4 million signatures!

We have done all that we can do on our end-now it is up to the People to gather
signatures and mail them back.

Please begin mailing your petitions right away! Each and every signature will be
vital to getting the 500,000 signatures we need.

Deadline Confusion

There has been some confusion about the actual deadlines for returning petitions.
Here are the official dates:

December 21st: Last day to request petitions from www.SaveOurKids.net [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001A1f2UKqHc_PFpv3SPw-DsyBXBugpGMRFrSNLwgxds1IhaWawqHZZCEBAmQdeLTxytU5FcwBnfz0YYP8EYojjvclxuRV9nJtR6hd4HFMf_57pCnWwbKd1_A==]
*
January 4th: Last day for campaign to receive petitions (they must be mailed a few
days prior to ensure their arrival by the 4th!)

Please keep working on gathering signatures until we reach our January 4th deadline!
We need every single signature we can get to qualify this referendum.

Save Our Kids Weekend!

December 28th-30th

With only a few weeks left in the campaign, Save Our Kids is encouraging families,
Bible study groups, political organizations and churches to make one last push for
signatures. December 28th-30th is Save Our Kids weekend!

During the Christmas and New Year season, many of our fellow citizens will be out
at shopping centers and stores. This is the perfect time to set up a table to gather
signatures. In just a few hours, you can make a huge difference by informing your
fellow citizens and gathering signatures.

Churches should host a petition drive this weekend to inform their members about
this assault on traditional values. Save Our Kids has several resources to assist
churches in hosting a petition drive. So far, churches have been an integral part
of this effort. These beacons of light can push us across the finish line if they
continue to host petition drives.

We need your help to make this campaign a success!

We are continually amazed by the dedication of our pro-family allies. Average citizens
are answering the call to protect and defend the innocence of our children. Thank
you for partnering with us in this historic effort to preserve our values!

Order Petitions

Just the Facts – The Truth About SB 777 [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001A1f2UKqHc_MbrVKNRF4FiUEV0aeAuPowr7BpY_lAt5kBjNkl4oXxUNjq-mApbUQ8pBXJDxr7hfwEcYaN02G_LoBTEyzZX3KJVVN1uFi_ZBRTZEnPQL3noxCy1LIcMb_AVcsFg2kDjhZiTmZG9ocGAA==]

Contribute to the Save our Kids Campaign [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001A1f2UKqHc_O40cyogX6lK2vWc8rdWREZWRujdoOJ9kme8dv8F2_Z60tU51eNnGTf----8fqBnYBrgqx1r77oh3HqB9HoiaFJf3Yi_JqW30dUWAwX2e3tH_2UgsJCKMxlbuAlOA4n269bznjJbNplslHQ6jyG0R6AhI1QqV7gYQUDMUbDdoRcEg==]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Save Our Kids Co-Chairs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senator George Runner
Assemblyman Joel Anderson
Assemblyman Bob Huff
Assemblyman Doug La Malfa
Assemblywoman Sharon Runner
Assemblywoman Audra Strickland
Senate Candidate Dennis Mountjoy
Assembly Candidate Larry Dick
Assembly Candidate Jim Nielson

By Robert Knight | November 15, 2007 – 11:42 ET
When California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two bills on Oct. 12 that essentially turn the state’s public schools over to homosexual and transgender activists, there was virtually no media coverage outside California. There still isn’t.

Beginning in January 2008, California public schools must teach children as young as 3 to 5 years old that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle and that kids can choose their “gender.” This means banning the terms “husband” and “wife” for the more progressively inclusive term “partner.” “Moms” and “dads” will morph into sexually neutral “parents.” Textbooks will be rewritten to blot out any reminder of married-couple-led families as a social norm. Gender-confused kids will get to use the restrooms of their choice. Any expression of negativity toward deviant sexuality will be punished as “bigotry.” The coming changes are so radical that they produce gasps or professions of disbelief from people who hear about it from sources outside the mainstream media.

Bruce Shortt, an advocate of private schooling who writes a periodic report called “the Continuing Collapse” about problems in government schools, provides this analysis:

So far, the media have maintained a near total news blackout on this development.

A recent article [at Medill Reports online] on homosexual gains in the schools reflects how the advocates of legislation to mainstream deviant lifestyles plan to respond to queries from naive or fellow travelling reporters:

With the October signing of Senate Bill 777, California is the most recent state to have seen a battle between the two sides. Its sponsor, state Rep. Sheila Kuehl of Los Angeles, said the bill did little more than make language in the education code consistent with language in the state’s other anti-discrimination laws. Discrimination based on sexual identity, she said, had been illegal in California for eight years.

So, the official story line is that SB 777 just makes technical changes that bring the Education Code into conformity with other laws that have been on the books for a long time. In other words, “nothing to see here folks, just move along.”

Of course, Kuehl is right in a sense. After all, we could pass legislation requiring Jack Daniel’s to be served in school cafeterias, and then claim that we are just making the Education Code consistent with other laws that have been on the books for years (the Volkstead Amendment was repealed over 70 years ago, and drinking alcohol is legal in California).

Leaving aside the question of any prior California legislation regarding deviant lifestyles and ADULTS, the relevant question is whether Zelda’s “advanced thoughts” on this subject should be inflicted on children. The reporter, as you will note, didn’t really get to this, and she entirely missed the importance of California’s brave new definition of “gender.”

Time to Bring an End to the DREAM Act

By Phyllis Schlafly

Monday, October 15, 2007

The American people rose up out of their usual apathy and soundly defeated the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 that would have given amnesty to illegal immigrants. Now, some senators are trying to get Congress to pass a backdoor amnesty by calling it the DREAM Act, and it’s really a nightmare for Americans.

The cutesy title DREAM, which is meant to be a double-entendre, is an acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors.

The DREAM Act would allow any illegal immigrant of any age who entered the United States before age 16 and has a high school diploma or equivalent to enroll in any state university and pay only the in-state tuition rate. Being an illegal immigrant is the prerequisite to getting this preferential treatment, which is denied to legal aliens with valid student visas.

In-state tuition can amount to a taxpayer subsidy of up to $20,000 a year, depending on what the university charges students from the other 49 states. The illegal immigrant also becomes eligible for taxpayer-paid federal student loans and federal work-study programs, for which lawful foreign students are ineligible.

There is no upper age limit; any illegal immigrant is eligible for this preference by declaring he entered the U.S. illegally before his 16th birthday. The illegal immigrant doesn’t have to prove when he entered the U.S.; he can simply make a sworn statement.

But that’s not all. The illegal immigrant would be rewarded with conditional lawful permanent resident, green card, status, which can be converted to a non-conditional green card. The immigrant can use his new legal status to seek green cards for the parents who brought him into the United States.

The student has six years to convert his green card from conditional to non-conditional. He just needs to complete two years of study at a college or serve two years in the military, and if he has already had two years of college, he can convert his green card to non-conditional immediately.

The illegal immigrant who applies for the DREAM Act can count his years under conditional green card status toward the five years needed to attain citizenship. That’s a fast track to citizenship that is not available to aliens who are lawfully present in the United States.

Section 4(f) provides that, once an illegal immigrant files an application, the government cannot deport him. A federal officer who shares with another federal agency any information on the illegal immigrant’s application, such as admission of illegal entry, can be fined $10,000.

Giving in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants is so unpopular with many Americans that the only way a Congressman could support this bill is by hoping it passes before the public discovers how bad it is. Arizona’s Proposition 300, which specifically bars Arizona universities from giving in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, passed in 2006 with a majority of 71.4 percent.

Support for in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants was the No. 1 issue that caused the upset defeat of former U.S. Rep. Tom Osborne, R-Neb. (the former University of Nebraska football coach) in his campaign for governor of Nebraska in 2006. He fumbled and endorsed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants while his opponent, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, vetoed it and ran campaign ads against it.

The DREAM Act would give amnesty not only to illegal immigrants, but also give amnesty to 10 states that have been flagrantly violating federal law. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act expressly forbids a state to give in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants unless that subsidy is also granted to all U.S. citizens nationwide.

The DREAM Act would retroactively repeal that law, thereby saving the 10 states from punishment and equal-protection lawsuits filed by out-of-state U.S. citizens and law-abiding foreign students. The 10 states that have been engaging in a 21st century use of the 19th century theory called nullification, defying a federal law the state doesn’t like, are California, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington.

We are indebted to professor Kris W. Kobach of the University of Missouri-Kansas City for publicizing how the DREAM Act treats illegal immigrants more favorably than U.S. citizens and legal aliens. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has not been successful in attaching it to a defense authorization bill, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says he will bring it up in November.

Tell your U.S. senators the DREAM Act must be defeated.

Transcription of Phyllis Schlafly’s Testimony

Before Arkansas State Agency & Governmental Affairs House Committee 

on ERA Bill, (HJR1002)February 7, 2007

(In less than ten minutes)

Schlafly Bio:  Phyllis Schlafly was recently named one of the one hundred most important women of the twentieth century by the Ladies’ Home Journal.  She is a Constitutional lawyer and  president of  Eagle Forum which has chapters in every state.  Her syndicated column appears in one hundred newspapers, her radio commentaries are heard daily on 460 stations, and her radio talk show, "Phyllis Schlafly Live" is heard weekly on forty stations. Schlafly is the author of twenty books and has testified before more than fifty Congresisonal and State Legislative committees.  The mother of six children, Mrs.Schlafly was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year. Friends and foes of  Schlafly give her credit for galvanizing the grassroots movement that defeated ERA in its ten-year battle from 1972to 1982 when Presidents of both parties and the media had all endorsed it.    [And all these feats were accomplished without an Equal Rights Amendment]

Transcription of Testimony:

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:  Thank you for allowing us to hear a non constituent.  I have a special place in my heart for Arkansas because my husband’s family owned the Mountain Valley Spring in Hot Springs from 1900 to 1987; and my husband brought me there on our honeymoon.  I still drink Moutain Valley water, now owned by Arkansas people, and it is the finest water in the world.  So thank you.

Now you have heard about an hour and half of advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment; but I note that you didn’t hear about one single law, federal or state, that discriminates against women that this amendment will remedy.  I note that you didn’t hear a single benefit that women will get out of the Equal Rights Amendment.  This thing was debated for 10 years, from 1972 to 1982;  and it was rejected by fifteen states outright and five more that rescinded and changed their mind.

I think the main reason it was rescinded and rejected was that it is a fraud.  It pretends to help women, but it does nothing for women; and they are not able to show any benefit, any correction of law that the Equal Rights Amendment will do.  You know that the amendment does not put  women in the Constitution, and it does not put gender in the constitution.  It puts sex in the Constitution.  Now we are at the mercy of the judges. The Equal Rights Amendment does not say whether it is the sex you are or the sex you do.  We leave all those decisions up to the judges.

Now in looking for what the Equal Rights Amendment will do, I look to the best top authority on that subject.  And the leading lawyer in favor of the  Equal Rights Amendment  those years was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is now on the United States  Supreme Court.  She wrote a book, a 230 page book, to tell exactly how the Equal Rights Amendment will affect federal law; and she is very explicit in it.  I think there probably  is no higher authority about what it will actually do. 

What it will do is make all our laws sex neutral.  Now we have the matter of the draft.  Now nobody denies that  if you have strict scrutiny you are going to have women not only subject to the draft, when and if there is a draft, but also subject to combat.  We know women are exempted from infantry combat and  submarines today.  Those differences are there.  Now a very powerful Democrat today, Congressman Charlie Rangel has got his bill to reinstate the draft; and, of course, it is sex neutral.  I am going to do everything I can to prevent his bill from passing.  But if it passed, there is no question about the effect of ERA.  It would treat women exactly the same as men, and women do not want to be treated the same as men in the military and in combat.

Now among other things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this, and what she doesn’t say, is that it is going to have no effect on the Constitution itself because the Constitution  is already sex neutral.  The Constitution  does not say men are created equal.  That is in the Declaration of Independence. Fortunately you are not amending the Declaration of Independence.  We are talking about the Constitution. And the Constitution uses exclusively sex neutral terms, we the people, citizens, residents, inhabitants, president, ambassador, representative. Women have every Constitutional right that men have.

Also this book makes clear that it has nothing to do with employment.  It is not going to give women a raise or make them equal in the board rooms or in the legislatures because our employment laws are already sex neutral; and this book makes that clear.

However, there are some differences.  One of the differences is the effect it would  have on homemakers in this country.  One of the most offensive things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this book is that the concept of  dependent wife must be eliminated from the code.  What does that mean?  The social security system rests on the concept of  the dependent wife.  I get my social security based on my husband’s income over the years, and I am sure that is true of many women here today.  Social security is a very pro-women institution because it gives the benefit to the dependent wife, the dependent wife  who is not, herself, in the workforce.  According to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that is a concept that must be eliminated from the code under ERA.  This book was written to describe how ERA will affect federal laws.

And then she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] goes into how it will change the words when  you say you can’t discriminate on account of sex.  She gives a whole list of words that will have to be changed.  And among the words that would have to be deleted from the federal code are husband and wife.  Now that is a direct attack on the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which says that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.  Feminists don’t like that.  They want to put us into a sex neutral world, and it certainly  would have a direct effect on the Federal DOMA.

She [Ruth Bader Ginsburg]  makes very clear that the ERA would require treating sex like we treat race.  That is one of their arguments.  And it would require everything that is separated according to sex to be sex integrated.  Now,  she specifically says that this would include the Scouts.  It is discriminatory to have Girl Scouts and Boy  Scouts. They would have to be put together.   She says  fraternities and sororities would have to be combined.  She says even prisons would have to be sex integrated.

There are all kinds of mischief she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] has in this book under her name, in a book published and paid for by the US government.  She makes arguments that I never dared to make, that it will wipe out the laws against prostitution and the laws against bigamy – that it would reduce the age of consent to 12;  She even goes after Mother’s Day because that would be sex discriminatory.

Of course, in the matter of marriage, it would open up the courts to all kinds of litigation by the gay rights movement which is working very hard on every type of  judge they can find to give them whatever they want to have.  Again, the Equal Rights Amendment  says you can’t discriminate on account of sex, and that is what you are talking about.  If you deny a marriage license to a man and a man, you have discriminated on account of sex. All of the highest legal authorities from Harvard and Yale have all said that the equal rights amendment would okay same sex marriage.

I was on the platform with the great Senator Sam Irvin, considered then the leading legal authority in the Senate, the great Watergate Senator, who said the only people who would profit by the Equal Rights Amendment would be the homosexuals; and you could have all kinds of litigation on that.

On the matter of abortion, we know that the New Mexico case is very clear.  The argument of the feminists is abortion is something that happens only to women;  therefore, if you deny any rights or any funding on abortion, you  have discriminated on account of sex within the meaning of the Equal Rights Amendment.   Now we do not have nineteen states with state ERA’s.  There are only six of the states that have ERA’s in the same language as the proposed federal ERA. One of those is New Mexico, and that is why New Mexico said that it is discrimination to deny funding for abortion in New Mexico. 

Another one of those states is Hawaii, which is where they okayed same sex marriage based on the state’s ERA.  Hawaii had to pass another Constitutional amendment saying in effect, "No, we didn’t mean that." 

So there are all kinds of problems that come along, and I think it would move the whole area of family law to the federal government because of Section II.  Section II says the Congress will have the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation and there are all kinds of family property laws, divorce, child custody, that would then become federal matters under the ERA.

This country wisely rejected it after long debate, and I think what it comes down to is how the judges interpret it.  And we have no confidence –  you asked for assurance of what the judges are going to do –  we don’t know what they are going to do.

But in any event, I think the country made a very good decision in voting it down in a ten-year battle that went on all across the country; and I hope that we a leave it decently buried.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for listening.

Chairman – Thank you very much and without pausing said,   Seeing there are no questions (then goes to next witness)

The committee defeated the ERA bill by one vote, 10 to 10.  They needed 11 votes to get it out of committee.

This article can be read online at this link:  http://www.wpaag.org/ERA%20-%20Schlafly%20Testimony%20in%20AR%202-7-07.htm