Phyllis Schlafly: My Board Plotting to Fire Me Over Trump

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

...

 

[LibertyEagle]

She should be fired. The Eagle Forum is supposed to be a very Christian socially conservative group. For them to back Trump is unconscionable. It's like all she cares about is keeping brown people out of the country.

She cares about the country surviving. Which it will not if our borders continue to be overrun by illegal aliens, many of whom immediately attach themselves to the government teat; amongst other things. She also has a brain and sees our national debt spiraling out of control, while industry and jobs have left the country. She believes Trump is the best man running to address that.

 

[William Tell]

I have never been much of a fan of hers. Eagle Forum sometimes seems alright though, they are an issues organization and Trump is just a blowhard.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

She cares about the country surviving. Which it will not if our borders continue to be overrun by illegal aliens, many of whom immediately attach themselves to the government teat; amongst other things. She also has a brain and sees our national debt spiraling out of control, while industry and jobs have left the country. She believes Trump is the best man running to address that.

Then she's retarded. By most estimates, Trump is the worst for national debt.

His Great Wall with the Magic Amnesty Door is also a plan that doesn't do much for the immigration problem. Net immigration is extremely low so while a wall would help with security, it's can't be substituted as a prescription for our most important problems.

 

[LibertyEagle]

rinse and repeat. this is getting old.

 

[WTLaw]

Hey Guys, I know I just have 130 odd posts, but I happen to have direct knowledge about this situation superior to anything you will hear in any publication, some of it firsthand witnessed. (free of any pumping of national candidates, don't take this as a disparagement to your side but rather, a cautionary tale to all sides)


A few points;

1. This is not, merely, a Cruz vs Trump fight within the group. There were Rand supporters in that group, just not enough. The Rand people aren't supporting Cruz, they just see that Trump was a bad choice and probably regret that the group got so involved in the first place making candidate picks.

2. The story actually is less about Phyllis, and more about her children and the man who was brought in to replace Phyllis as president of the group last year, Ed Martin. Ed Martin was fired the other day, not Phyllis. Phyllis was never in any threat of having any of that happen to her. Everybody respects her too much. A lot of the people who were accused of a pro-cruz coup were friends with her for 50 years. Again, the fighting wasn't towards Phyllis, she even voted at the meetings I think with regard to Mr. Martin. And all the letters that have come out supposedly from her... I don't think that is actually coming from her...I believe she has two sons who run a lot of her media and also...I think...Ed Martin. They basically used Phyllis as a human shield in the media, and of course the media fell for it. Ed Martin was a poor president, even before the national election really set things on fire.

3. The national media totally screwed up the reporting of the story. Eagle Forum is a group, not a title for all of Phyllis' endeavors. Everybody is tied together in that group, for better for worse. It was not the Cruz people at first going rogue (and certainly not the Paul or Carson people), but rather, at first it became clear that most of the Schlafly family was in Donald Trump's quarter. Most, not all. There were discussions about this for a little while, but then the pro-Trump people, President Ed Martin in particular, acted to endorse Trump and throw cold water on all the people who differed. I wont go into their means, but it was actually the national organization that was trying to lead the state chapters around by the hair, and threatening firings and in some cases doing that. You just can't do that. That story in the media about how Phyllis' daughter tried to remove her? Not true, actually, they removed the daughter from the Missouri chapter. She wasn't disloyal. I think everyone in the state organizations were trying to be kind to her, and to just help her understand that Trump is not a family values candidate. She just wrote a book 2 years ago about what killed the american family after all...!

4. As someone else said, what has made Eagle Forum tolerable over the years is its an issues based organization, that doesn't delve down into personal politics. Well, used to be. But in laying the blame for it deviating from that course, I would share it around a lot more than the media has allowed. To the media, the only story is Phyllis, she is the sun and it all revolves around her and she is just a poor 91 year old lady...well, ok, but there are people who have been fighting just as hard as Phyllis in that group, are just as old, and are being trashed in the same exact way that the media has claimed Phyllis was trashed. Nobody cries for them. Nobody is shocked for them. Some wore Cruz pins, some wore Trump....lol

5. Last thing I will say... The Cruz people and the Trump people are so much alike in their means, in their aggressiveness, and sometimes in their inability to see truth. We make mistakes when we become disengaged from promoting policy, and then start just promoting these personality cults. Example A. is Ted Cruz, who claimed to be a libertarian but is actually very bad with regard to privacy concerns, and would make the middle east glow. Example B. is Donald Trump, who was for the Iraq War before he was against it, and is or was very pro choice before becoming very pro life. Example C. is Phyllis Schlafly, who fought all her life for conservative principles, morality, truth in her view, and then at the end endorsed a guy whose been divorced how many times and is currently married to a stripper. Example D. is Ron Paul. He has always been pretty consistent on the issues, and so I do respect him, but we have to be careful to understand that as libertarian ideas move forward, this cannot be just a coalition of the Pauls. I hope Amash and Massie are new blood to take the torch, as well as many whose names we might not yet even know.

 

[William Tell]

@WTLaw, thank you so much for the insightful post. Pushing state chapters around with regard to Trump would tear the group apart in places like Texas. Cathie Adams was the leader here for decades years, she recently stepped down to run for Texas GOP chair. She is a big Cruz supporter, I disagree with her. But she has generally been pretty friendly and supportive of liberty people. Although she's made a bad endorsement in a race recently. Eagle Forum is mostly a force for good here.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Interesting. But, Phyllis chose to endorse Trump and did it in full view of all to see.

Your comment about Melania Trump. She was a model. Please post proof that she was a "stripper", or recant your statement.

 

[euphemia]

But that's not the story coming directly to supporters and, for lack of a better term, affectionately interested people.

 

[WTLaw]

Interesting. But, Phyllis chose to endorse Trump and did it in full view of all to see.

Your comment about Melania Trump. She was a model. Please post proof that she was a "stripper", or recant your statement.

Oh lord of Trump propaganda, in a word: no.

If you want to find pictures of Mrs Trump online, google her. Model is one term. Stripper is another. But none of it is stuff that should have been supported by Phyllis, which is the entire point.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Oh lord of Trump propaganda, in a word: no.

No what? She, in fact, endorsed him in person in front of the media.

If you want to find pictures of Mrs Trump online, google her. Model is one term. Stripper is another.

She was on the cover of GQ. Most people would call that being a model.

But none of it is stuff that should have been supported by Phyllis, which is the entire point.

She wasn't endorsing the modeling Mrs. Trump did 10 years ago. She was endorsing her husband for President.

I was proud of her. Reminded me of the Phyllis of years ago. It had been awhile since she didn't endorse whomever pounded his/her Bible the loudest.

 

[WTLaw]

@WTLaw, thank you so much for the insightful post. Pushing state chapters around with regard to Trump would tear the group apart in places like Texas. Cathie Adams was the leader here for decades years, she recently stepped down to run for Texas GOP chair. She is a big Cruz supporter, I disagree with her. But she has generally been pretty friendly and supportive of liberty people. Although she's made a bad endorsement in a race recently. Eagle Forum is mostly a force for good here.

I've met some of the Texas group, they are nice people, actually I was talking to a lady earlier this year from Texas who didn't care for the Donald, but royally could not stand Ted Cruz, thought he was a total fraud. I agree with that.

LibertyE, this isnt really about trump or cruz but group dynamics, and that grassroots activists who were doing the logical thing were just slimed in the media. That matters more than your orange faced windbag, no? Go ahead and have your 5 or 6 threads on the board about captain hairspray. But yall want to talk about the eagle forum thing, know that for what it was.

 

[LibertyEagle]

LibertyE, this isnt really about trump or cruz but group dynamics, and that grassroots activists who were doing the logical thing were just slimed in the media. That matters more than your orange faced windbag, no? Go ahead and have your 5 or 6 threads on the board about captain hairspray.
But yall want to talk about the eagle forum thing, know that for what it was.

Too bad the post you made was not limited to just your take the Eagle Forum.

 

[WTLaw]

Theres not a way to tell the story without including that Donald Trump is a poor pick for eagle forum because of several reasons.
Actually, I didn't have to mention that Cruz was also a poor pick, so I guess I gave an undue assist to your side, since you are so particular, you should accept that more graciously.

Regarding the video you just sheepishly inserted into a previous post, I dont know why you thought I was saying that Phyllis never endorsed Trump...She did, we all know it. I am being careful because I don't want to say she is being manipulated, but, the endorsement just is something that is not consistent with her other statements going back to the 60s, all the way. That part is opinion, but others have rightly noted the same. You see the heavy set gentleman to her right in the video? That is Ed Martin, now former president of eagleforum, and the man whom this thread actually centers around. He was pretty much trying to save his ass this past week so he wound up the national media about Phyllis.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron and Rand Paul are socially conservative enough, but didn't emphasize those issues, nor run on them. The disaffected outsider voters don't just want assent, they want assurance action will be taken on them.

But Trump doesn't even support them. Really I'm on the local Eagle forum mailing list and last election cycle the only thing mentioned about Ron Paul was an attack on him for the horrible idea he had that we should seek *gasp* friendship with Iran. That's the elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to talk about. Eagle Forum is very much caught up in Sharia law fearmongering and Ron doesn't do that. So Ron actually proposing real ways to end Roe v. Wade and make sure that people aren't forced to violate conscience when it comes to gay rights doesn't matter because he's not anti Muslim enough.

 

[jmdrake]

She was on the cover of GQ. Most people would call that being a model.

But when Trump was criticizing Megan Kelly for modeling he called her a "bimbo."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-megyn-kelly-gq-photos-218320

That is what triggered the PAC ad showing Trump's wife doing her semi-nude modeling. And in response Trump threatened to smear Heidi Cruz and his associated floated the now dead "Cruz sex scandal" slime story, but rather than destroy Cruz, that likely helped him win Wisconsin.

But I don't care about Trump's wife. I do wonder how a Christian can endorse someone who brags about having committed adultery and who says he never apologized to God.

 

[WTLaw]

But Trump doesn't even support them. Really I'm on the local Eagle forum mailing list and last election cycle the only thing mentioned about Ron Paul was an attack on him for the horrible idea he had that we should seek *gasp* friendship with Iran. That's the elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to talk about. Eagle Forum is very much caught up in Sharia law fearmongering and Ron doesn't do that. So Ron actually proposing real ways to end Roe v. Wade and make sure that people aren't forced to violate conscience when it comes to gay rights doesn't matter because he's not anti Muslim enough.

I guess it depends on the chapter, and that goes to the point that this was supposed to be a decentralized group and instead certain people wanted to impose top down on it. The big issue for me was fighting common core, religious liberty issues, privacy, all before immigration. But I was hoping the group would be able to pivot more in a direction that was sustainable for the conservative movement (IE liberty first conservatism). Who knows, now?

 

[undergroundrr]

Well, it looks like trump took his wrecking ball to Eagle Forum. Is that part of the "establishment" trump fans are looking to him to destroy? I'm not an Eagle Forum fan personally (for the reasons jmdrake outlined below), but I know a lot of principled social conservatives looked on it as something of a beacon. Meanwhile the RNC is mustering forces and looks as strong as ever.

That's the elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to talk about. Eagle Forum is very much caught up in Sharia law fearmongering and Ron doesn't do that. So Ron actually proposing real ways to end Roe v. Wade and make sure that people aren't forced to violate conscience when it comes to gay rights doesn't matter because he's not anti Muslim enough.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

But when Trump was criticizing Megan Kelly for modeling he called her a "bimbo."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-megyn-kelly-gq-photos-218320

That is what triggered the PAC ad showing Trump's wife doing her semi-nude modeling. And in response Trump threatened to smear Heidi Cruz and his associated floated the now dead "Cruz sex scandal" slime story, but rather than destroy Cruz, that likely helped him win Wisconsin.

But I don't care about Trump's wife. I do wonder how a Christian can endorse someone who brags about having committed adultery and who says he never apologized to God.

Trump's "never apologized to God" quip was joking hyperbole. Kelly is indeed a bimbo, while the Cruz sex scandal was partially confirmed as to two of the particulars, but was successfully suppressed by the MSM. That act helped confirm that Cruz (despite his posturing) is actually an establishment-protected guy, along with the fact that the media failed to be just as outraged by the PAC ad (including failing to demand Cruz disavow the PAC, the way they demanded Trump disavow Duke). So it's OK to tolerate an adultery cloud over Cruz, but not an adultery cloud over Trump, because Trump must be painted as worse no matter what?

Eagle Forum is very much caught up in Sharia law fearmongering and Ron doesn't do that. So Ron actually proposing real ways to end Roe v. Wade and make sure that people aren't forced to violate conscience when it comes to gay rights doesn't matter because he's not anti Muslim enough.

Evidence that EF is not perfect, and susceptible to conservative fearmongering, but not much else.

 

[jmdrake]

Trump's "never apologized to God" quip was joking hyperbole.

When I grew up that was called being sacrilegious and something no Christian would actually tolerate.

Kelly is indeed a bimbo

Then by the same yardstick so is Donald Trump's current wife who did the same modeling that Trump criticized Kelly for and also is a homewrecker as Trump committed adultery with her when he was still married to his previous wife.

while the Cruz sex scandal was partially confirmed as to two of the particulars, but was successfully suppressed by the MSM.

LOL. The same MSM that gave Trump 25 times more coverage than any other candidate? Bollocks. It went nowhere for lack of hard evidence. No blue dress. No reliable and unbiased witnesses. On the other hand the Trump "sex scandal" has been admitted by the Trumpster himself.

That act helped confirm that Cruz (despite his posturing) is actually an establishment-protected guy, along with the fact that the media failed to be just as outraged by the PAC ad (including failing to demand Cruz disavow the PAC, the way they demanded Trump disavow Duke). So it's OK to tolerate an adultery cloud over Cruz, but not an adultery cloud over Trump, because Trump must be painted as worse no matter what?

Yeah. The establishment not running after a poorly sourced story with accusations of adultery designed to hurt the opponent of an admitted adulterer who gets more press coverage than anybody else. Okay. Whatever.

Evidence that EF is not perfect, and susceptible to conservative fearmongering, but not much else.

It's evidence of the conclusion as to why they didn't support Ron Paul, and even attacked him some, when he actually supports the Christian values they say they champion while endorsing Trump who doesn't share them at all. Ron Paul isn't anti Muslim enough. I saw the same thing in 2008 when the Home School Legal Defense Association endorsed Mike Huckabee over Ron Paul. Looking at the HSLDA's own website it showed that every action taken by Ron Paul with regards to homeschooling was helpful to homeschool freedom whereas governor Huckabee and signed some very anti homeschooling laws in Arkansas. But why did the endorse Huckabee? Because "He understands the threat of radical Islam." What the hell does that have to do with homeschooling? (Rhetorical question).