← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 19076 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2005-07-10
2005-07-10 12:29 | User Profile
**Phyllis Schlafly has one of the most brilliant minds in the world. Her reasoning is so clear and so logical. She is one great lady! **
[img]http://www.eagleforum.org/gif/ps-r3.gif[/img]Thank you Phyllis, for all your hard work!
Some of her works below:
"How To Celebrate Father's Day
by Phyllis Schlafly June 15, 2005
On this Father's Day, Americans should ponder the appalling fact that an estimated 40 percent of our nation's children are living in homes without their own father. Most of our social problems are caused by kids who grow up in homes without their own fathers: drug abuse, illicit sexual activity, unwed pregnancies, youth suicide, high school dropouts, runaways, and crime. Where have all the fathers gone? Some men are irresponsible slobs, but no evidence exists that nearly half of American children were voluntarily abandoned by their own fathers; there must be other explanations.
For 30 years, feminist organizations and writers have propagated the myth that women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal society and that marriage is an inherently abusive institution that makes wives second-class citizens. Feminists made divorce a major component of women's liberation and their political freedom.
For three decades, feminists have toyed with the question that Maureen Dowd chose as the title of her forthcoming book, "Are Men Necessary?" That's just the latest version of Gloria Steinem's famous line, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
College textbooks portray marriage as especially bleak and dreary for women. Assigned readings are preoccupied with domestic violence, battering, abuse, marital rape, and divorce.
During the Clinton Administration, the feminists parlayed their hysteria that domestic violence is a national epidemic into the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This created a gigantic gravy train of taxpayers' money, known as feminist pork, that empowers pro-divorce, anti-male activism.
Not satisfied with several billions from the U.S. Treasury, 67 feminist and liberal organizations supported a lawsuit to try to get private allegations of domestic abuse heard in federal courts so they could collect civil damages against men and institutions with deep pockets. Fortunately, the Supreme Court, in Brzonkala v. Morrison (2000), declared unconstitutional VAWA's section that might have permitted that additional mischief.
However, VAWA's billions of dollars continue to finance the domestic-violence lobby, and there is a deafening silence from conservatives who pretend to be guardians against federal takeovers of problems that are none of the federal government's business. Local crimes and marital disputes should not be subjects of federal law or spending.
Billions of dollars have flowed from VAWA to the states to finance private victim-advocacy organizations, private domestic-violence coalitions, and the training of judges, prosecutors and police. This tax-funded network is, of course, staffed by radical feminists who teach the presumption of father guilt.
Legislating a special category of domestic violence is very much like legislating a special category of hate crimes. Both create a new level of crimes for which punishment is based on who you are rather than what acts you commit, and the "who" in the view of VAWA and the domestic-violence lobby is the husband and father.
A Justice Department-funded document published by the National Victim Assistance Academy established a widely accepted definition of "violence" that includes such non-criminal acts as "degradation and humiliation" and "name-calling and constant criticizing." The acts need not be illegal, physical, violent, or threatening; "domestic violence" becomes whatever the woman says it is.
The Final Report of the Child Custody and Visitation Focus Group of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges admitted that "usually judges are not required to make a finding of domestic violence in civil protection order cases." In other words, judges saddle fathers with restraining orders on the wife's say-so without any investigation as to whether it is true or false.
The late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), a big advocate of VAWA, admitted that "up to 75 percent of all domestic assaults reported to law enforcement agencies were inflicted after the separation of the couple." Most allegations of domestic violence are made for the purpose of taking the custody of children away from their fathers.
The June issue of the Illinois Bar Journal explains how women use court-issued restraining orders (which Illinois calls Orders of Protection) as a tool for the mother to get sole child custody and even bar the father from visitation. In big type, the magazine proclaims: "Orders of protection are designed to prevent domestic violence, but they can also become part of the gamesmanship of divorce."
The "game" is that mothers can assert falsehoods or trivial marital complaints and thereby get sole custody orders that deprive children of their fathers. This "game" is based on the presumption (popularized by VAWA and the domestic-violence lobby) that fathers are inherently guilty and dangerous.
Congress should not be spending taxpayers' money to deal with marital disputes, and courts should not deprive children of their fathers on a presumption that fathers are dangerous. Congress can help us celebrate Father's Day this year by refusing to reauthorize the costly VAWA boondoggle."
"Women Don't Belong In Ground Combat
by Phyllis Schlafly June 1, 2005
Why are our generals trying to push women into ground combat in Iraq despite Pentagon regulations and congressional law against it? What is it about civilian control of the military that the generals don't understand? Current Department of Defense regulations exclude women from ground combat, as well as from assignment to forward support units that "collocate [i.e., are embedded side by side] with units assigned a direct ground combat mission." Federal law requires that Congress be given 30 legislative days' advance notice of any change to this policy.
Army Secretary Francis Harvey has been skirting (pardon the word) this policy by unilaterally rewording it to assign women to forward- support units except when "CONDUCTING an assigned direct ground combat mission." (emphasis added) When a ground-combat unit actually engages the enemy, the women (who are slated to be roughly 10 percent of the forward-support companies) will have to be evacuated from the battlefield.
How many ground and air vehicles, and how many extra men, will this ridiculous plan require? Will the enemy hold his fire until the evacuation is complete?
Frustrated by the Army's devious behavior, Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and John McHugh (R-NY) tried to add an amendment to the military appropriations bill to codify the current DoD regulations which the Army seems to have difficulty understanding. The feminists are lining up their media allies to demand that women be forced into land combat situations, while falsely asserting that Hunter-McHugh is "changing" the rule.
Much of the demand for women in combat comes from female officers who are eager for medals and promotions. Enlisted women are acutely aware of the heavy lifting that must be done by the combat infantry.
The Army's own opinion surveys prior to 2001 consistently reported that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women oppose "being assigned to combat units on the same basis as men." Women enlistees have a right to expect the Army to obey current policy and law.
The advocates of women in combat say the front line is everywhere in Iraq. They continually try to fuzzy over the difference between being subject to risk (such as being ambushed by a car bomb) versus the task of aggressively seeking out and killing the enemy.
Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker tried to laugh off the difference by saying that "maybe since we're killing 40,000 people a year on the highways, they [women] shouldn't drive. That's very dangerous, too." Comparing the risk of highway driving with engaging the enemy in combat is insulting to our intelligence and common sense.
Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society. Feminists are determined to impose what Gloria Steinem called "liberation biology" that pretends all male-female differences are culturally imposed by a discriminatory patriarchy.
History offers no evidence for the proposition that the assignment of women to military combat jobs is the way to win wars, improve combat readiness, or promote national security.
Women, on the average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, are about six inches shorter, and survive basic training only by the subterfuge of being graded on effort rather than on performance. These facts, self-evident to anyone who watches professional or Olympic sports competitions, are only some of the many sex differences confirmed by scholarly studies.
Denial of physical differences is an illusion that kills. That's the lesson of the Atlanta courtroom massacre where a 5-foot-one, 51-year-old grandmother police guard was overpowered by a 6-foot-tall, 210-pound former football linebacker criminal; so now three people are dead.
Every country that has experimented with women in actual combat has abandoned the idea, and the notion that Israel uses women in combat is a feminist myth. The armies and navies of every potential enemy are exclusively male; their combat readiness is not diminished by coed complications or social experimentation.
The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces voted to maintain the exemption of women from assignment to combat in ground troops, combat aviation, amphibious ships and submarines. But already 33 servicewomen including mothers have been killed and 270 wounded in the war in Iraq.
The Army is wondering why it can't meet its recruitment goals. It could be that the current 15 percent female quota is a turn-off to men who don't want to fight alongside of women who can't carry a man off the battlefield if he is wounded. Forcing women in or near land combat will hurt recruiting, not help.
No country in history ever sent mothers of toddlers off to fight enemy soldiers until the United States did this in the Iraq war. We hope this won't be the legacy of the Bush Administration. "
Bush Buries The Shame Of Yalta
by Phyllis Schlafly May 18, 2005
Thank you, President George W. Bush, for correcting history and making a long overdue apology for one of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's tragic mistakes. Speaking in Latvia on May 7, Bush repudiated "the agreement at Yalta" by which powerful governments negotiated away the freedom of small nations. Bush accurately blamed Yalta for "the captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe" and said it "will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history." This admission has been 50 years coming, and Bush's words assure that "the legacy of Yalta was finally buried, once and for all."
It was at Yalta, a filthy Russian port on the Black Sea, where our dying President in February 1945 made a secret agreement with Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin to surrender millions of people to Communist oppression behind what Churchill a year later labeled the Iron Curtain. No treaty was submitted to the U.S. Senate; indeed, the record of what went on at Yalta was not released until ten years later.
The Soviets demanded, and F.D.R. acquiesced, that the conference be held on Soviet soil (where they could plant listening devices). Churchill said, "If we had spent ten years on research we could not have found a worse place in the world than Yalta. ... It is good for typhus and deadly lice which thrive in those parts."
F.D.R. came home from Yalta and made a false report to Congress. Calling it "a personal report to you and to the people of the country" he asserted, "This conference concerned itself only with the European war and with the political problems of Europe, and not with the Pacific war."
Here is a list of the European AND Asian concessions he made to Stalin, which were confirmed by the Yalta documents released on March 16, 1955.
Poland was turned over to the Soviet Union. The United States and Britain agreed to recognize Communist stooges as the new Polish government and to withdraw recognition from the legitimate anti-Communist government of Mikolajczyk.
Germany was to be dismembered, its "national wealth" removed within two years, and several million Germans were to be sent to the Soviet Union to work as slave laborers. The record quotes Roosevelt as saying, "I hope Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German army."
All Russian citizens who had fled to Germany from Communism were to be forcibly returned to the Soviet Union (i.e., the gulag).
The Soviet Union was allowed to keep control of Outer Mongolia, which the Soviets had seized from China. The southern part of Sakhalin and all the adjacent islands were given outright to the Soviets.
The Kurile Islands were given outright to the Soviets, and Port Arthur was given to the Soviets for use as a naval base. The Soviets were given effective control of the commercial port of Dairen, the Chinese-Eastern Railroad and the South-Manchurian Railroad, using the subterfuge of assuring that the Soviet Union's "preeminent" interests would be "safeguarded."
The Soviet Union was given three votes in the United Nations, while all other nations got only one.
Roosevelt's defenders have tried to claim that his concessions were necessary to bribe Stalin to enter the war against Japan. The Yalta papers prove that was false: three and a half months before the Yalta meeting, Ambassador Averell Harriman had relayed to Roosevelt a "full agreement from Stalin not only to participate in the Pacific war, but to enter the war with full effort."
Russia wasn't needed in the Pacific war, and letting Russia in simply opened the way for a Communist empire in China and North Korea. This set the stage for the Korean War in the 1950s and for the son of the original North Korean Communist dictator to threaten us with nuclear weapons today.
News photos of the Yalta meeting reveal the hovering presence of the Communist spy Alger Hiss. As the chief adviser to Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, Hiss attended nearly all the Yalta meetings and could be reached on telephone number 3, right after F.D.R. with number 1 and Stettinius with number 2.
Hiss was given all top-secret files and documents about the U.S. position 19 days before the conference. Senator William Knowland (R-CA) said this made F.D.R. "like a man playing poker with a mirror at his back."
While Republicans and honest writers such as David Lawrence and John T. Flynn denounced the Yalta betrayal, the pro-Roosevelt media praised it. Time called Yalta "a great achievement," Life called it "a success," and the New York Times called it "a milestone on the road to victory and peace."
But truth finally overtakes lies and coverups. President Bush set the record straight when he repudiated Yalta as part of the "unjust tradition" of Munich and the Hitler-Stalin pact that carved up Europe and left millions in oppression. "
[url]http://www.eagleforum.org/column/index.html[/url]
2005-07-11 03:40 | User Profile
She used to be on C-Span more often. I haven't seen her interviewed in a while. She drove the liberals and feminists into a frenzy last time I heard her taking calls on C-Span.
Here is another good article by Phyllis.
Does Tom Ridge Believe in the Rule of Law? by Phyllis Schlafly
Jan. 7, 2004
Were Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's Miami meanderings (a) a gaffe, (b) a trial balloon, (c) an announcement of his department's policy, or (d) an announcement of Bush Administration policy? We are entitled to know the answer to that question.
His shocking words were a broadside attack on current law: "We have to come to grips with the presence of 8 to 12 million illegals, afford them some kind of legal status some way." He pointedly did not say we have to come to grips with 8 to 12 million persons who have violated our laws by entering our country illegally, and further violated our laws by using fraudulent documents to get a job and remain here.
Nor did he say we have to come to grips with the thousands of employers who are violating our laws by hiring illegal aliens, and violating additional laws by paying the illegals in the underground economy in order to avoid our laws about minimum wage, overtime, worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, family leave, Americans with disabilities, payroll taxes, etc., etc.
Ridge didn't elaborate on how he would award "some kind of legal status," nor explain how giving legal status is any different from granting amnesty. What part of illegal doesn't the Homeland Security chief understand?...
[URL=http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/jan04/04-01-07.html]article[/URL]
2005-07-11 15:22 | User Profile
Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society. Feminists are determined to impose what Gloria Steinem called "liberation biology" that pretends all male-female differences are culturally imposed by a discriminatory patriarchy.
Perhaps females need combat to help them evolve into men. Shlaffly is obviously attempting to slow down the process of biological evolution, thus keeping females under the oppressive thumb of males as long as possible. Phyllis is obviously in the pocket of male chauvanist lobbyists, who pay her to write such uncommon sense stuff. (sarcasm/off).
Sarcasm aside, I do support a 100% female USA armed forces. If all troops were female, it would be easier to carry the wounded off the field.
IMO, The United States of Amerika is hopelessly broken and corrupted past a point of no return. An all female military would make things like the Free State Project and Southern secession possible.
2005-07-11 15:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Gloria Steinem's famous line, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."[/QUOTE]
Talk about dangerous to our race: I once saw this rather unfunny line [I]crocheted, framed and mounted[/I] in the home of a (what else?) white gentile divorcee, who lived with her daughter and son. For God's sake --- what message does that send to the daughter? The SON?
2005-07-11 16:24 | User Profile
The Army's own opinion surveys prior to 2001 consistently reported that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women oppose "being assigned to combat units on the same basis as men."
Of course they don't want to fight in combat. They signed up for the perks, not the bullets. They want the benefits of military service without the peril.
2005-07-11 16:28 | User Profile
Thank you, President George W. Bush,
Schlaflea poisons her "conservative" image with statements like this. She's in the same cabal as the neo-cons. I'm not that impressed with her.
2005-07-11 16:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle] "How To Celebrate Father's Day [/QUOTE] I've always been against divorce and against men getting shafted in divorce court. If he was unfaithful and abusive (frankly, the only two reasons I think should be allowed for divorce), then he should be taken to the cleaners. But most divorces end because of "unreconciable differences." Puh-leaze. Anything can be worked out. Yeah, so you have to struggle for a little while and it may be hard. A little sacrifice now will go a long way later. I guess not many can understand that in this time of instant gratification and "I want, I want, I want!"
More on the need for fathers: [url="http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david1.htm"]http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david1.htm[/url]
As far as the women in combat issue goes, I don't tow the party line concerning that, but generally, women don't cut it in combat and the few who can aren't enough in numbers to even make it an issue. Despite the push or feminist agenda or whatever, women usually don't want to fight. They sign up for medical or clerical positions for the most part. If a few can meet the same standards as men, then I don't care what they do, as long as they're not leaving behind small children. I've always been against sending married people and anyone with small children away. I've also yet to see a person who doesn't sign up to get money for college, a job, or some other financial reason. Most of life revolves around the need for finances, rather than personal agenda.
I don't think 5 foot tall grandmas should be police officers, but I'm not going to feel sorry for anyone for the choices they make.
2005-07-11 16:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]Thank you, President George W. Bush, Schlaflea poisons her "conservative" image with statements like this. She's in the same cabal as the neo-cons. I'm not that impressed with her.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gabrielle] Phyllis Schlafly has one of the most brilliant minds in the world. Her reasoning is so clear and so logical. She is one great lady! [/QUOTE]
What gives here Gabby?
2005-07-11 17:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]Thank you, President George W. Bush,
Schlaflea poisons her "conservative" image with statements like this. She's in the same cabal as the neo-cons. I'm not that impressed with her.[/QUOTE]
Seems like Schlafly is correct here, and her stance is in opposition to most necons. FDR is currently a neocon hero of sorts, although they temper their admiration at certain times when necessary. And although Bush's apology means little, Schlafly and Bush are both correct in noting that Roosevelt's perfidy at Yalta was "part of the "unjust tradition" of Munich and the Hitler-Stalin pact that carved up Europe and left millions in oppression."
2005-07-11 17:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=CWRWinger]Thank you, President George W. Bush,
Schlaflea poisons her "conservative" image with statements like this. She's in the same cabal as the neo-cons. I'm not that impressed with her.[/QUOTE]
Don't you ever call her that again, you low life skunk!!!
2005-07-11 17:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Brian Hassett]What gives here Gabby?[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about?
2005-07-11 18:11 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
You are right, she is one of the few mainstream types who has not sold out.
My thread on Phyllis Schlafly [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4179[/url]
2005-07-11 20:14 | User Profile
Don't you ever call her that again, you low life skunk!!!
Phyllis could have said something like, "In a rare moment, Presidente Jorge Bush's handlers fed him a correct line....." I wouldn't thank Jorge Bush for anything. Nor would I thank FDR or Klintoon for anything either.
Jorge Bush's statement fell on ignorant ears. Most sheeple probably don't know even what he was talking about.
Phyllis can thank Bush after he has thrown Rove in jail, withdrawn all troops from Iraq, stopped foreign aid to the world and has apologised to America, then resigns.
I place Phyllis in the same category as Allan Keyes.
2005-07-11 20:20 | User Profile
Seems like Schlafly is correct here, and her stance is in opposition to most necons. FDR is currently a neocon hero of sorts, although they temper their admiration at certain times when necessary.
I doubt if Bush's or P.S.'s stance is offensive to any neo-con. Even the commies have debunked Stalin as evil. Neo-cons should be called "neo-commies". And commies don't hold up any myths about Stalin. Breshevnev (sp?) smashed Stalin's feet of clay to pieces.
2005-07-11 23:40 | User Profile
I would say that Schlafly is a genuine Paleo. I know she worked for at least one of the Buchanan campaigns and has an independent spirit. I met the ole gal a couple of times and she is friendly and cordial.
2005-07-12 10:21 | User Profile
Mrs. Schlafly is a definite Catholic. I am not sure how neo-con/neo-Cat she is (if she is, I definitely think she is much more aware than the typical neo-Con neo-Cat). Her sister is affiliated with the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation ([url]http://www.mindszenty.org/[/url]) which is an organization that is familiar with Vatican II's Ostpolitik sell-out, so that's a good sign.
Keyes -- a "Catholic" who requires quotes around that word -- is a neo-con sell-out who was only used to mess up Buchanan's chances. Zionist to the core.
2005-07-12 14:15 | User Profile
I like Schlafly quite a bit and her Eagle Forum website has some great information on local political precinct strategies and such.
2005-07-12 20:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I like Schlafly quite a bit and her Eagle Forum website has some great information on local political precinct strategies and such.[/QUOTE] Her Comments in re Mr Rich are spot on. The matter of enforcing a law is that if it is not enforced, what good is it?
[QUOTE]Nor did he say we have to come to grips with the thousands of employers who are violating our laws by hiring illegal aliens, and violating additional laws by paying the illegals in the underground economy in order to avoid our laws about minimum wage, overtime, worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, family leave, Americans with disabilities, payroll taxes, etc., etc.
Ridge didn't elaborate on how he would award "some kind of legal status," nor explain how giving legal status is any different from granting amnesty. What part of illegal doesn't the Homeland Security chief understand?...[/QUOTE]