The women credited – or blamed – by many in America for halting the Equal Rights Amendment in its tracks is now warning that this is another “do-or-die” moment for the nation, and the fact that two top 2016 presidential candidates appear to be in virtual lockstep doesn’t make it look good.
Commentator and author Phyllis Schlafly is described by US History as a “career woman” who came out of nowhere to organize – and finally defeat – the ERA proposed during the 1970s and 1980s.
“She heckled feminists by opening her speaking engagements with quips like, ‘I’d like to thank my husband for letting me be here tonight,'” the report explains. And she warned of unwanted side effects like women being drafted, a loss of protective laws against sexual assault, and alimony, as well as suggesting “that single-sex restrooms would be banished by future courts.”
This, she said on Wednesday, is another such moment.
“It is do-or-die for America,” Schlafly said of the developing battle over mass amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in the country.
“Once you have one amnesty, people are lining up for the next one. It doesn’t stop or end anything. I think there are people who simply want to break up this country,” she said.
She said the critical time is coming when America will have to decide on open borders, amnesty, cheap labor and more, including its own future.
About the 2016 election, she pointed to the possibility it will be a Hillary Clinton-Jeb Bush fight for the Oval Office.
On one hand, she said, is a candidate who wants to give those already in the country illegally a chance to stay, and who recently claimed America has “11 million people that should come out from the shadows and receive earned legal status.”
On the other side is a candidate who recently proclaimed America must give illegal immigrants a path to “full and equal citizenship.”
If it comes down to Bush vs. Clinton, will the American people really have a choice on immigration? Schlafly doesn’t think so.
The author of “Who Killed the American Family?” sees Bush and Clinton as two branches of the same internationalist tradition that wants to fling America’s borders wide open in order to provide big business with a steady flow of cheap labor.
“That’s why they want to have Republicans cave in on amnesty, because that’s a big issue at the grassroots, and the Democrats are certainly all wrong on it, but if we have a bipartisan effort on it, the American people will not have a choice,” Schlafly told WND in an exclusive interview. “They will just get another loser like we’ve had in the past.”
At a time of high unemployment, some estimates range up to 20 percent in America now, it doesn’t make sense to bring in more cheap labor, Schlafly reasoned. She accused Clinton, who came out strongly in favor of amnesty this week, of being out of touch with working Americans.
“I think Hillary doesn’t have any regard for people who work for a living,” Schlafly said. “Of course, she’s in a class by herself right now in terms of having money to spend, so maybe she doesn’t understand people who have to work for low wages and need to compete for those entry-level jobs.”
The veteran activist also cautioned that trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership would create jobs in foreign countries, not in America, and would thus be counter to the national interest.
“All these trade agreements that Obama’s trying to sign are going to create jobs in foreign countries, in cheap labor countries,” she said. “They’re not going to help us here.”
If no one brings a halt to amnesty, she said, the nation’s future will be clouded by the weight of more invasions by illegal aliens and more amnesty programs.