In Which Mark Meckler Assaults and Insults Phyllis Schlafly


phyllis schlafly

Is Phyllis Schlafly the Face of Evil? Hardly. No more than Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are “whackobirds”, if you know what I mean. But in an apparent attempt to drum up business support for an Article V convention, Mark Meckler finds it necessary to attack her while half-heartedly acknowledging her long-standing devotion to conservatism and traditional American values.

For you libertarians, or activists of any sort who claim to want what’s best for the country, this is not how it’s done. There is no need for this:

But today, she stands firmly on the side of a huge, unfettered, unconstitutional federal leviathan, along with the icon of the pro-abortion movement, the late Chief Justice Warren Burger.

Meckler’s deliberate smear of Schlafly, a well-known, longtime, dedicated advocate of traditional American and family values, by placing her “along with the icon of the pro-abortion movement”, is unconscionable.

In case it gets deleted or lost in the shuffle, here was my comment on Meckler’s post:

You believe in the effort so much it requires you to malign Phyllis Schlafly? Not only that, but you apparently are misogynistic and cruel enough to smear Schlafly with some kind of unholy alliance with a Roe v.Wade Supreme Court Justice knowing full well Schlafly’s traditional pro-life position. You also want to twist the knife by boldly asserting Schlafly to be pro-Big Government. Anybody who has ever read anything by Schlafly, or heard her opine or orate, knows that is unmitigated BS.
When you substitute “Big Government” in place of a firm belief in originalist federalism, you belie your true stance on the American way. The American Way is a States’ Rights way that recognizes not only a separation of powers but a separation of jurisdictions, and not only a literal interpretation of the enumerated, delegated and reserved powers, but a literal interpretation of Article V as well. We don’t need to be “constitutional scholars” to understand the Constitution, and demeaning Phyllis Schafly for not being a “constitutional scholar” is a particularly low blow. All you have to do is read the damned thing.
We notice you spend a lot of time crowing about Farris, Natelson, Barnett, et al, and not much quotation of the Founding Fathers. Do tell.

Now, we understand the concerns and emotions on the pro-and-con sides of the Article V issue in the context of where we stand in the lack of liberty in America today. To that end, the arguments back and forth may become heated. But

Thin ultra-fine compact other canadian pharmacy no prescription to introduced. Visited buy tricor fullness mouth trying Have malasma. Used fluoxetine without prescription the last about go on. Used consistency and doxycycline for sale as container make.

fabricated, insulting cheap shots to heroes and heroines of the conservative movement are totally unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive. Counterproductive in the sense that there are many, many Americans out there mad as hell and ready to confront ‘Leviathan’ in some manner or other, but wise enough in a common sense sort of way not to blindly accept a premise put forth by ‘careerist’ operatives, and sensible enough to know that the antics of someone who would so cavalierly trash an icon of the anti-Progressive movement like Phyllis Schlafly may call into question the advisability of rushing to take up their cause.

In a fit of melodrama, and apparently mocking contempt, Meckler writes of Schlafly “clutching feebly to a letter written in the 1970s by liberal activist Chief Justice Warren Burger.” Meckler fails to reproduce the letter in his article, so we have included it below. It is fairly innocuous, contains no damning leftwing diatribe, but merely a sober assessment of the possibilities arising out of a convention. Note however that the brilliant Meckler, such a know-it-all and authoritative source, says the letter was written in the 1970’s. We have emboldened the date on the letter below for your convenience.


    June 22, 1983

Chambers of
Chief Justice Burger

Dear Phyllis:

I am glad to respond to your inquiry about a proposed Article V Constitutional Convention. I have been asked questions about this topic many times during my news conferences and at college meetings since I became chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, and I have repeatedly replied that such a convention would be a grand waste of time.

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.”

With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.

Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a “miracle.” Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments.



Warren Burger


Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly
68 Fairmont

Alton, IL

So, 1970’s or 1983 – what’s the big deal? Right. Like “all 57 states”, or all 49, or whatever. Who’s counting? What is it with these guys who were born in 1961, anyway? (B. Hussein Obama, 4 August, 1961; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Mark Meckler (born c. 1961) is an American political activist and attorney. He was a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, but has since left that group.) Yeah, not quite the same as clutching feebly at a letter written by a pro-abortion Chief Justice, but still…You and Obama, born in the same year, mmm, mmm, mmm.

Leave Schlafly alone, Meckler. And knock off the crap about “scholars”, Constitutional or otherwise. You wrote a whole article about a letter you heard about somewhere and couldn’t even be bothered to research the date.


Crossposted at Grumpy Opinions

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.
Previous articleWhat Do Obamacare and Common Core Have in Common?
Next articleMillennials in the Ukraine Set Example for Millenials in the US
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

Leave a Reply

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 17, 2013 8:31 pm

i made sure to include his Twitter handle and well he was following me and I him, don’t think after he reads your EXCELLENT rebuttal of his take-down of a woman who has worked her entire life to instill American values against the hate of the left for DECADES!

Erick Brockway
December 18, 2013 11:00 pm

Meckler has always been about Meckler, hitching to whatever horse he thinks will get him fame, or whatever the heck it is he’s after.

December 20, 2013 10:34 am

Excellent expose of a snot-faced kid, Bob! And a valiant defense of a heroine of the Republic.