Offensive Verses Defensive

Eagle Forum of Sacramento
Georgiana Preskar-Director

The apology is destroying America! Last week John McCain took a defensive stand and apologized for radio talk show host, Bill Cunningham, for his supposedly rude language toward Obama, during a McCain rally. Cunningham used Obama’s middle name Hussein and made other humorous remarks that were no big deal.

McCain is not alone in being quick to apologize. Many Republicans, conservatives, and Christians find themselves in the defensive. Instead of being offensive, when it comes to comments or beliefs that are not inline with diversity thinking, there is a desire to make people “feel” good, thus the apology to anyone who claims being offended.

In Luke 13:51, Jesus says, “Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.” He never said we were to “feel” good because everything holds equal value, but that we would find peace if we followed His word, even if it meant division within our own families.

The Bible is clear on right and wrong, good and bad. Enforced diversity education encourages defensive action for those who are not tolerant or politically correct, and many fall into the compromise. But when we stand for God’s word then we push forward in offensive positions of truth that keep liberal activists on the defensive, instead of us.

If we want to take back America, we must become offensive and not wait for the evil ones to do their job. They are relentless and will never stop. They successfully degrade the American culture, the white race, and Judeo-Christian values, in order to make change, while traditional Americans continue to defend themselves.

We must become offensive by adopting attitudes, actions, and words that support the goodness of our nation and its culture. By being bold in the truth, we unwrap the deception of misguided activists and put them on the defensive, instead of us.

It is time for Republicans, conservatives, and Christians to change. We must stop apologizing for our heritage, our skin color, and for the Godly principles upon which our nation was founded.

No Diversity Status for Boy Scouts

Eagle Forum of Sacramento
Georgiana Preskar-Director

The voice was loud and filled with anger. No matter what Michael Medved said to him, the caller had his ideas about the Boy Scouts of America. The group was hateful and must be eliminated. The caller was homosexual.

There was no tolerance in this man’s voice nor in the many that followed. Even though the boy scouts in Pennsylvania had done remarkable things for the youth, these callers said it would be better for the entire organization to be dissolved than for them to continue doing good deeds. The suggestion to start their own Rainbow Scouts was unacceptable. Their desire is for the traditional organization to acknowledge that homosexuality is normal and even in line with “natural” law.

Each voice sent chills down my body. Hatred radiated through the radio and I knew that these callers had an agenda and nothing would stop them. Corporations, schools, government and churches have compromised to meet the needs and wants of homosexuals. Now there stands two groups who will not compromise; the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts of America.

How supportive will we be for their cause? Most people will just say in their usual apathetic voice, “Isn’t that a shame. They were such a wonderful group for children.” Then they will move on with their busy lives.

The voices filled with anger will continue. The owners of these voices will not hush until their lifestyle is accepted as natural and normal. Homosexual activists will trample everything in their way. Some churches still stand in dignity and the family unit is still somewhat strong on marriage between one man and one woman. But civil unions, partnerships, and same-sex benefits are commonly accepted.

Our last stand is the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts of America. As they stand their ground, the homosexual voices grow louder letting America know that they will not be silenced. They have no tolerance and the ugliness of the act to destroy this group of Scouts in Pennsylvania is truly the voice of hate.

I asked myself, as I read the attached article, how I missed this news in December. Was it ever a big news story? People I talked with today, had not heard of it either. But once again, diversity addiction has never been recognized for what it is, or for its incredible power to orchestrate change.

The homosexuals have won. We cannot erase this new form of love that allows the closing of the boy scouts’ building, over natural law and God’s way? We can, however, take action, and save any voice of liberty that we may have left!

Transformation Reality

Eagle Forum of Sacramento
Monday Morning Thoughts
Georgiana Preskar-Director

The dangers of diversity addiction are far reaching in the months prior to the next election. Many Americans are transformed already and countless people have moved into the compromise stage that encourages the acceptance of diversity thinking. The schools, workplace, and churches have done their job.

Already we see words being used that elicit feelings rather than reality. This is how diversity addiction works. Everyone wants to “feel” good and Obama mania offers “good” feelings of hope and security.

The new politics that Obama uses are front-row fainting females to show compassion and kindness. During each incident, he uses the same “caring” words as he throws the supposed fainter a bottle of water. Does he know they need one, or are his actions and words used to depict “healings” that move the audience toward feelings of euphoria?

He uses the words hope and change flippantly with shallow socialist programs to support them. Hope for what? Why are people so desperate to take the words hope and change and use them for solutions that are totally unrealistic?

Hope has become magic. All of a sudden everyone’s desires become possible through change and many American minds that have evolved into diversity thinking are vulnerable. Any methods to get what people perceive as their rights are acceptable and achievable by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

This is amazing since when you analyze who will be affected, it is the very people who thought they would be helped. Citizens will be shocked when the Obama’ hope becomes the reality that they are now the rich people who must contribute to socialist programs.

This great change, ruled by hope, will find people sacrificing more than they want to give. Suddenly when they have to pay for their own health insurance and their neighbors, and don’t forget the entitlements, the average citizen will face the reality of the phony utopia promised them by Obama or Clinton.

The more of our life and the more money taken away from us by the government, offers us less freedom, not greater freedom. But as long as “feelings” are ruling the schools, workplaces, and churches, liberal and pseudo conservative citizens will continue to believe misleading rhetoric of hope leading them toward a new freedom.

The “fainting” continues and the mouth of America shouts Obama hope as it is led to its destruction. The only hope for traditional Americans, in the months prior to elections, is that our shouts to win back this great nation will be loud enough to be heard!

Press Release:

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!

Do you know the Preamble for your state? . . . interesting:

Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking t he favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…

Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…

California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…

Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe…

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknow ledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.

Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…

Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…

Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance … Establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.

Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enj oyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
< FONT face=Georgia color=black size=5>
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…

Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We…the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of H is Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction .

Michigan 1908, Preamble le. We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Al mighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution…

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for theblessings of liberty establish this Constitution .

Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Ne vada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution…

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..

New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those…

North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…

Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common…

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, e stablish this

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance…

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing…

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina gratefu l to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…

Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man .

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other

Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution

West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God …

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility…

Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution..

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, the ACLU and the out -of-control federal courts are wrong! If you found this to be “Food for thought” copy and send to as many as you think will be enlightened as I hope you were.

(Please note that at no time is anyone told that they MUST worship God BUT YOU CAN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO.)

“Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Lodi Unified School District

November 7, 2007

Lodi Unified School District
Board Members
Superintendent William Huyett
James Areida Education Support Center
1305 E. Vine Street
Lodi, CA 95240

Re: Teacher Training Day, October 22, 2007

Dear Board Members and Superintendent Huyett:

Eagle Forum of Sacramento stands for the political, social and economic principles upon which our Nation is founded. We attempt to educate and inform citizens of issues that many times will affect the most influential unit of our society, the traditional family.

I have recently corresponded with you regarding the teacher training day you had on October 22, 2007. Some teachers in the Lodi Unified School District were concerned about the racial content of the programs and DVDs that you chose to introduce. In spite of my correspondence, LUSD continued with the programs.

If each of you stays current with news and media, you will know that the University of Delaware recently instituted a program by Dr. Shakti Butler, the same person that provided you with the “Making Whiteness Visible” video that you introduced in Lodi. Amid much public outcry and outrage, the University of Delaware immediately ceased the program. I find it very alarming that LUSD ignored public and employee alarm and instead went forward with this program.

Dr. Butler’s definitions include: “A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality”; “REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege”; and “A NON-RACIST: A non term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism….” (Emphases added.)

The Lodi Unified School District seems terrifyingly unaware that a state and federal sponsored public education institution in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscience—the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech. As the Supreme Court declared in the landmark case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943): “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” The Court concluded that “the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution” was precisely to protect “from all official control” the domain that was “the sphere of intellect and spirit.” The LUSD’s teacher training education program is an unconscionable and unconstitutional incursion into the private conscience of teachers whose greatest offense is simply choosing the LUSD as a place of employment.

When you have a black principal allowed to get up and rant about how she wakes up knowing she is black and does not have white privilege, and support a video talking about how whites are racists that whites think they are better than blacks, you are promoting racism. When this same black principal makes over $75,000 a year, and drives an expensive luxury sports car, and is talking to white teachers about how she is oppressed because she is black, you are promoting racism. When these same teachers are told that they cannot critique the comments made this day, you are engaging in denial of freedom of speech, and the right to freedom of conscience.

When you allow Kino Carson to go into children’s classrooms and tell them that the Statue of Liberty is a black woman, you are promoting racism. When you bring in “Cycle of Inquiry” where teachers are told to choose low-performing students and the only criteria is that at least one must be black, you are promoting racism and racial profiling. When Odie Douglas and Barbara Johnson are planning to go around talking with various teachers and at meetings, although the content of their speech is not yet known, Eagle Forum of Sacramento concerned that it will be promoting racism.

The legal problems posed by programs such as these are abundant and cut to the core of the most essential rights of a free people. Possible claims include violations of the right to privacy as well as federal and state constitutional claims for having and enforcing an unconstitutional speech code, and for violations of the right to freedom of conscience.

To be clear, however, Eagle Forum of Sacramento is not a litigation organization, and our objection to programs such as these is far more than legalistic. What makes programs like this so offensive is their brazen disregard for autonomy, dignity, and individual conscience, and the sheer contempt it displays for all of the District’s teachers.

As aggressive as organizations like Eagle Forum may seem, at the heart of all concepts relating to freedom of the mind is a recognition of our own limitations—like us, those in power are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and therefore have no right to dictate to others what their deepest personal beliefs must be. Concerns for free speech and freedom of conscience are rooted in the wisdom of humility and restraint. The teachers’ training day that you had on October 22, which presumes to show teachers the specific ideological assumptions they need in order to be better people, crosses the boundary from education into unconscionably arrogant, invasive, and immoral thought reform. We can conceive of no way in which teacher training programs such as this can be maintained consistent with the ideals of a free society.

We ask for nothing less than the immediate and total dismantling of the all such programs that promote racism and white privilege theory within the District.

Very truly yours,

TERI LAWRENCE
Education Director, Eagle Forum of Sacramento

DREAM Act

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.

Equal Rights Amendment

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

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican

by Frances Rice
Posted Aug 16, 2006

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King’s protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon’s "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party’s economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.



Copyright © 2007 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Homosexuals and Special Rights?

Gay demands shift from equality to special endorsement

By Michael Medved
Wednesday, December 6, 2006

In current debates over gay relationships and their position in society, we’ve moved beyond a plea for acceptance and equality to an increasingly strident claim of homosexual superiority and a demand for special status and endorsement.

In a recent syndicated column about Pastor Ted Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who confessed to a three year affair with a gay, drug-dealing prostitute, Ellen Goodman wrote of "people who heard a man wounded by the culture of demonization. Their sympathy was for a man primed for repression and deception by the teaching of homosexuality as a sin… More gays, more friends, families, co-workers have come to believe that gayness is not a choice, let alone a sin."

In other words, some tender-hearted Americans feel ready to forgive, even to embrace, a religious leader who routinely paid a sex-for-hire hustler to cheat in a Denver hotel room on his wife and five kids while getting high on illegal and dangerous methamphetamines. Try to imagine that Haggard had engaged in his extra-marital adventures with a female hooker, rather than a middle-aged call boy. Would anyone have come forward to express "sympathy" for the man or to view him as a sad victim of "repression"?

By the same token, former New Jersey  Democrat governor James McGreevy recently wrote a best-selling book called "Confession," describing his risky and degrading encounters in men’s rooms and back alleys. He even spoke of inviting his male lover (placed on the state payroll despite a total absence of qualifications) into his marital bed in the governor’s mansion while his wife struggled in the hospital with a troubled pregnancy. Oprah Winfrey (and others) now hail McGreevy for his "courage" in speaking so openly and proudly of his newly-discovered status as a "gay American." Would any public figure receive similarly indulgent treatment after confessing serial infidelity with a member of the opposite sex?

Finally, the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, made headlines as the first openly gay clergyman to reach such a leadership position in his denomination. The media paid little attention, however, to the fact that Bishop Robinson (who is currently undergoing rehab treatment for alcoholism) had initially embraced his gay identity when he left his wife and three children for a relationship with another man. Would the Episcopal Church or any other significant religious body so readily grant a position of spiritual leadership to a priest who had abandoned his family for an extra-marital affair with a partner of the opposite sex?

In high profile cases, in other words, we seem far more willing to forgive and forget faithless behavior if that infidelity involves a homosexual connection. This amounts to the granting of a special dispensation, a privileged position, to same-sex attraction-giving more latitude to gay relationships than we’d ever grant to straight romances. The justification for this attitude involves the notion that gay men who leave or destroy their families for the sake of homosexual affairs are simply discovering, at long last, their true identities after years of repression- coming to terms with "who they really are."

But what about those aging heterosexuals who may also suddenly discover– at age sixty, say-that they’ve been repressing their true identities? Couldn’t they also argue that it seemed suddenly inauthentic to remain trapped with a sagging partner of similar age, when a powerful, undeniable inner voice and the evolutionary imperative demanded they connect with nubile twenty-somethings eager for experienced and wealthy companionship?

In fact, every study of human sexuality would suggest that far more men feel tempted to heed their deep-seated, undeniable authentic desires to cheat with other (particularly younger) women than feel drawn into relationships with other men. Does this greater incidence of heterosexual temptation make it more – or less– "natural" and worthy of respect than homosexual impulses? The tendency to forgive, or even endorse, same-sex attractions while condemning the vastly more common opposite gender desires, amounts to the granting of a preferential position to homosexuality.

Protecting Our Children For Survival Of America