buckley junior, phyllis schlafly. this is 45. >> i do want to point out one aspect or guest today is also a part-time commentator. millions of americans of course no bill o'reilly as the factor. malory in this case has been a factor long before the factor was cool. he is now professor of international politics and american government that the citadel and is the host and cofounder of the new york meeting a nationally recognized gathering of elected officials, journalists, business leaders and conservative authors in new york city and he also founded a similar charleston meeting that needs in south carolina. he previously authored "the new york times" bestseller which he is too modest to advertise, shadow boxes, government unions control america and abroad for taxpayers blind. he's a member of the council on foreign relations and served as the vice-chairman of the council on foreign relations task force financing. he's frequently testified before the house and senate committees on terror financing, regulation of the fin

and we saw the backlash, and we saw it was phyllis schlafly at the time. she was able to convince women that if they had the equal rights amendment, they would end up having to lose their husbands, their husband would thereafter have to pay them alimony, she said we'll have to have univex path rooms -- unisex bathrooms which made we wonder if she was ever on a plane. [laughter] and i debated her, she was there to protect the rights of an unborn child, and i said how many of your friends will adopt black baby? that's not the point. i said, yes, it is. so we used to have these big fights. but what i really wanted to say about this religious movement, the money is there. you know, you follow the money. the koch brothers, everybody else. the tea party for us is a gift that chemos on giving -- keeps on giving, because we can always fight back at it. and, you know, all the women -- i'm even tweeting, everybody. [laughter] anyway, on the internet you have all of these women writing everything. emily's list. every single one. a as soon as coke brothers do somethin

others. 001 is the fist lady of the conservative -- fist lady of the conservative movement, phyllis schlafly and 002 is dr. edwards. so i've been at the front lines of this movement for a long time, and i've seen us take loss after loss after loss. and so i wrote this book because i think for the most part conservatives haven't understood that they're in this battle. and you're not going to win a battle, much less a war be you don't know -- if you don't know you're in a war. and so i think it's very, very important for conservatives to understand the past. pause if you don't -- because if you don't understand the past, you're not going to know how to chart the future. we've had as a movement, in my opinion, our political guns pointed at the wrong target. we've been focused on the democrats; pelosi, reid, obama. and that has been a mistake, quite frankly. because the real opponent of conservatives is inside the republican party. we are like the biblical jews who had to wander through the desert for 40 years until that generation of failed, flawed leaders had passed from the scene. and we're n

buckley junior, phyllis schlafly.his is 45. >> i do want to point out one aspect or guest today is also a part-time commentator. millions of americans of

said well it's a bummer for mr scott but well here's what phyllis schlafly had to say here she is theonly objectionable supreme court decision i think everybody would agree in history was the dred scott decision and in faced with that supreme court decision at a point in the fed well we have to accept what the court did to poor old dred scott but we don't have to accept it as a national rule we don't have to accept it as a precedent that will bind other cases and we can hope that it's going to be overturned submit to that type of rule by the supreme court we've lost our right to self-government and we are subject to what he called that eminent tribunals that eminent tribunals ok so lincoln nothing that you said in particular about congressional authority to intervene here is inaccurate they do have the authority in fact when then majority leader tom de lay stood up and said he was going to aggressively challenge the supreme court changed. their compensation limit the number that serve on the court make other jurisdictional shifts in their authority it was the left that went wild boy a