Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Trump Should Stand Firm Against Illegals

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

The push for amnesty for illegal aliens is turbo-charged by stories of separating children from their parents at the southern border.  But children are often separated from lawbreaking and even law-abiding American parents, so it is curious why liberals and others would suddenly complain when it happens to families for entering our country illegally.

The critics do not provide an alternative to the current policy of prosecuting lawbreaking parents while allowing their children to go free.  If we had a border wall then these separations would not occur, and the critics of Trump are the same ones who oppose building the wall.

Migrant camps would be needed to keep all families together as the adults break the law, but that is a European rather than American approach.  There is no crisis in Central America that justifies establishing refugee camps.

“The United States will not be a migrant camp,” President Trump rightly declared, “and it will not be a refugee holding facility.  Not on my watch!”
The timing is suspicious for this media campaign about separating children from parents.  The push for an amnesty bill has reached a fever pitch for more than a million young adults, who are euphemistically called “childhood arrivals” because many of them crossed our border illegally while teenagers.

These migrants would be wonderful assets to their homelands, and they have more relatives back home than they do here.  Amnesty would merely encourage more illegality.

Lobbying groups in D.C. are turning up the heat on congressmen to get this amnesty passed, and the Koch donor network is demanding it, too.  Big business benefits from cheap labor that crosses our borders illegally.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law an immigration bill that granted amnesty and created the incentive for more illegal immigration.  Far from solving a problem, amnesty induces more illegal immigration in the future.

So to attract support by President Trump, the House compromise amnesty bill includes funding for construction of a border wall, to the tune of $25 billion.  But funding a wall is not the same as building a wall, because liberals run to court to block almost anything Trump does related to immigration.

Before the ink could dry on such a bill, even if it were to pass the Senate intact, liberals would file suit to obtain injunctions blocking the construction of a wall.  They would sue in predictably activist jurisdictions such as San Francisco and Hawaii, where multiple injunctions have already been issued to block Trump’s executive orders that were tame compared with a border wall.

Congress has the authority to “strip” federal courts of jurisdiction, and has done so on many occasions.  As explained by Phyllis Schlafly in her classic book The Supremacists, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) once stripped jurisdiction from federal courts over challenges to brush-clearing in his home state.

Before President Trump signs any immigration bill, he should insist on broad jurisdiction-stripping provisions.  He should demand that Congress remove federal court jurisdiction over his executive orders limiting travel from hostile nations.

If federal courts are allowed to wield authority over the construction of a border wall, then multiple Clinton – or Obama – appointed judges will surely enjoin its construction.  Reasons given will range from environmentalism to non-existent prejudice.

Fortunately, few Republicans who want to win reelection will cross President Trump at this point, after his tweet sunk Never-Trumper Congressman Mark Sanford in his own primary in South Carolina.  There is no reason for Trump to cave into Republicans now.

Lame duck House Speaker Paul Ryan, who is stepping down at the age of only 48 rather than fight for the Trump agenda, has long given priority to the agenda of the pro-illegal immigration lobbyists.  But their goals are not those of the American people who elected Trump as president.

Trump announced that he is not going to sign the Ryan immigration bill, which reminds us again why Trump is so much better than any other Republican presidential candidate.  Anyone else would have capitulated to the pressure from Republican mega-donors and lobbyists to sign into law an amnesty bill.

No immigration bill can become law without the support of President Trump, and House leaders are meeting with him on Tuesday to seek a compromise.  Trump should adhere to non-negotiable requirements, including a withdrawal of jurisdiction from the courts over issues relating to construction of the wall, Trump’s executive orders concerning immigration, and challenges to deportation.

Congressmen Steve King and Lou Barletta, who is a candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania against a Democrat incumbent, have long been leaders on this all-important issue of immigration.  Both oppose the compromise bill being pushed on President Trump, and no bill on immigration is worth supporting unless Representatives King and Barletta are on board.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Trump's Winning Economic Positions

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump reasserted American leadership on trade and security in the last week, sending his doubters into disarray.  Trump’s historic performance at the G-7 meeting in Canada, followed quickly by his meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in Singapore, left no doubt that America is indeed great again on the world stage.

Justin Trudeau, Canada’s leftwing prime minister, was unnecessarily belligerent to Trump at the end of the G-7 summit, and Never-Trump Republicans should not have piled on.  Lame duck Republican senator Jeff Flake, who is so unpopular in Arizona that he decided not to run for reelection, once again lashed out at Trump, as did other globalist Republicans.

But American workers are behind Trump, and the stock market shows no harmful effects of Trump’s pro-American, pro-tariff trade policies.  The G-7 summit, a gathering of the leaders of seven large economies, demonstrated that it has become a farce.

It held a breakfast meeting devoted to "gender equality," and we applaud how Trump showed up late for such an unproductive attempt at political correctness.  The politicians at the G-7 summit are in denial about how voters throughout Europe, as in the United States and more recently in Italy, are rejecting the business-as-usual approach of the Establishment.

Meanwhile, although Trump's pro-tariff positions receive all the attention, a little-noticed appointment back home may be nearly as important.  Makan Delrahim, Trump's handpicked leader of the antitrust division at the Department of Justice, is working hard to ensure more competition domestically and Silicon Valley monopolies are nervous about this.

Small businesses create far more jobs than big business does, a fact lost on the pre-Trump Republican Party.  President George W. Bush pursued policies favorable to big business and it all cratered in 2008, handling the election to Obama.

Once the home of countless tech start-ups, Silicon Valley has devolved into a two-tier society of haves and have-nots, and little real competition.  A mere handful of giant companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google have exploited the H-1B visa program and failed to compete with each other for labor, such that salaries have not kept up with the cost of living there.

The latest average salary increase of tech workers in Silicon Valley -- the region between San Francisco and San Jose that is the birthplace of many familiar technology behemoths -- is only 0.4% per year.  That is because there is not real competition there, but merely large companies that fight to maintain the status quo with them on top.

The cost of living goes up there, but real wages do not.  The result is a large homeless population of people who simply cannot earn enough, even working multiple jobs, to afford housing.

Worn-out RVs line one edge of Stanford University, and homeless camps of families litter the landscape close to wealth centers like Google's headquarters. Monopolies interfere with a healthy distribution of wealth, creating enormous disparities more familiar in countries like Mexico, where a few people control much of the property.

Big companies rarely innovate, and in fact often stifle inventions that threaten their dominance.  The largest Silicon Valley companies have been most responsible for changing our patent system from one that rewarded the inventor to one that favors big business.

Trump's outspoken criticism of Amazon.com has led others in his Administration and the Republican Party to look more critically at Silicon Valley monopolies like Facebook.  The scrutiny is long overdue, and some antitrust enforcement may be just what the doctor ordered.

This is welcome relief from the failed policies of the administration of President George W. Bush, which rolled over for the Microsoft monopoly and got nothing for the American public in return.  Bill Gates then poured some of his wealth into promoting Common Core and other liberal goals, which conservatives have fought ever since.

Many of these tech monopolies are too anxious to give away American trade secrets to China in exchange for making a few bucks in that market.  Already China is manufacturing cheap smart phones, but where did it acquire the secrets to do so?

Apple itself did not invent the smart phone, as the Blackberry deserves more credit for that.  But then Apple embarked on a business plan of selling in China, which typically requires giving China technology secrets to do so.

The profits Apple made on those sales have been mostly kept outside the United States, so they have not helped Americans at all.  The long-term effect of Apple's sales in China may simply be to transfer secret technology developed here to a foreign power hostile to the United States.

A strong antitrust policy against the monopolistic technology companies will complement Trump's principled support of fair trade.  Trump was right to reject the globalism of the G-7 summit, and to send a long-overdue message that the United States will no longer be taken for granted on trade.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Abortion Rights for Illegal Aliens Rejected

Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Promoters of abortion are aggressively pursuing a legal strategy to establish a new constitutional right to abortion for illegal aliens.  Young girls are entering our country unlawfully, while pregnant, and a cadre of attorneys demand that courts compel the Trump Administration to be complicit in facilitating abortions for them.

This combination of illegal immigration and demands for a right to abortion may be opening people’s eyes to both.  To those who support abortion, do they support a right for illegal aliens to abortion here?

The D.C. Circuit convened en banc, which is a rare sitting of all its active judges, for the majority Clinton and Obama-nominated judges to declare a constitutional right to abortion by illegal aliens.  Then the attorneys pushing this issue for a 17-year-old girl, who apparently entered our country unlawfully while pregnant, arranged for a middle-of-the-night abortion to circumvent timely review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The abortion mooted the case, and the precedent of the en banc D.C. Circuit ruling supposedly settled the issue for use nationwide.  Ordinarily there is nothing left to appeal when a case is moot.

But something did not sit well with the Supreme Court Justices, perhaps including Justice Kennedy.  He had silently sided with expanding the rights to abortion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), which overturned a Texas pro-life law, but is he really fine with establishing a new right to abortion for pregnant girls unlawfully entering the United States from countries having pro-life laws?

Perhaps not, and perhaps that is leading him and others to rethink their logic towards abortion.  Trump’s Solicitor General Noel Francisco brilliantly appealed the D.C. Circuit concerning the pregnant illegal alien to the Supreme Court, after finding a precedent that authorizes overruling decisions that were mooted by a subsequent factual development.

Solicitor General Francisco also requested that the High Court consider disciplining the attorneys on the other side who arranged for such an irregular abortion to evade Supreme Court review.  The lack of respect for the orderly administration of justice – not to mention the possible exploitation of the immigrant girl – should be troubling even to those who support abortion.

In a similar case, another immigrant changed her mind about having the abortion amid the legal maneuvering.  But a middle-of-the-night abortion does not lend itself to the clarity of mind needed for informed consent up until the operation, nor does it maximize the safety of the operation because complications are known to be higher for late-night surgeries.

Something evidently troubled at least five of the Supreme Court justices about this case of Azar v. Garza, probably including Justice Kennedy, because it bounced through an extraordinary 15 conferences before a terse decision emerged from the Court.  The opinion was obviously a compromise, as near the end two competing views of the tactics used by the attorneys in procuring the abortion were recounted without resolution.

It was probably to avert a worse defeat for the Left in this case that four Justices who typically side with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU joined the unanimous decision to overturn and vacate the D.C. Circuit opinion.  This wipes from the books that appellate precedent for a right to abortion by illegal aliens.

If this decision merely stood alone, one might be reluctant to read too much into it.  But it comes less than a week after a surprise denial of a petition for cert by Planned Parenthood to challenge a new pro-life law in Arkansas that is expected to cause some abortion clinics to close there.

There was no dissent from that denial of cert in Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, and the media was dismayed about how Planned Parenthood could lose before a Court that supposedly had five votes in its corner.  The lack of a dissent suggests that the 5-4 majority on the Court for the pro-abortion side is in jeopardy or may no longer exist.

Later this month we will learn if any retirements are forthcoming from the Court, which would give President Trump the opportunity to nominate a strong new Justice.  But even without a retirement, this pair of decisions and the spectacle of 15 conferences to issue a unanimous decision against an abortion precedent suggests that something is afoot internally at the Court.

A majority of the Court may feel, as they should, that illegal aliens from pro-life countries do not have a constitutional right to abortion here.  They need to return home to give birth, because their homeland prohibits abortion, or they should give birth here.

That means a majority on the High Court would give effect to the pro-life laws of South American countries.  If Planned Parenthood and the ACLU lose on that issue, as they should, then it follows that they should lose on their similar arguments that demand invalidation of pro-life laws enacted by democratically elected legislators in our country.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Media Smear of Trump Backfires

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Social media had a field day with a photo which appears to show that the Trump administration is keeping migrant children penned in cages along the U.S.-Mexican border.  A photo that went viral shows two Hispanic children sleeping on a concrete floor behind a chain-link fence.

A news report that confirms what you already believe to be true is said to be “too good to check.”  In this case, the photo seemed to corroborate what the media falsely believe about our President.

“Look at these pictures,” tweeted former President Obama’s chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau.  “This is happening right now, and the only debate that matters is how we force our government to get these kids back to their families as fast as humanly possible.”

The picture was retweeted by other anti-Trump personalities including Shaun King, an activist who supported Black Lives Matter.  “Take a look at these pictures,” tweeted Linda Sarsour, the radical Muslim activist who co-founded the Women’s March.

Donald Trump, as usual, had the last laugh on his critics.  The photo was actually taken in June 2014, when Barack Obama was President.
The picture was one of 10 photos published by a Phoenix newspaper, the Arizona Republic, under the headline: “Immigrant children flood detention center.”

The children, about 900 in all, had crossed the border illegally in Texas without their parents.  They were shipped to Nogales, Arizona where the U.S. government set up a makeshift processing center bigger than a football field.

“The children, mostly of high-school and junior-high-school age, are housed behind 18-foot-high chain-link fences topped with razor wire,” said the reporter who was allowed to visit the facility. “They pass the day sitting on benches or lying side by side on tiny blue mattresses pressed up against each other on nearly every square inch of the floor in the fenced areas.”

“Democrats mistakenly tweet 2014 pictures from Obama’s term showing children from the Border in steel cages,” President Trump tweeted on the day after Memorial Day.  “They thought it was recent pictures in order to make us look bad, but backfires.”

“Dems must agree to Wall and new Border Protection for good of country.”  Once again, Donald Trump emerges the winner while his critics, like Linda Sarsour, debase themselves.

“Our immigration system was a disaster long before Trump came along,” Sarsour insisted after her gaffe was exposed.  “Now it will become increasingly worse under this White Supremacist Administration.”

It’s all very frustrating to George Lakoff, a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California Berkeley.  Lakoff has made a second career trying to teach Democrats how to communicate the progressive agenda to ordinary Americans.
“When you repeat Trump, you help Trump,” Professor Lakoff wrote in an exasperated post to his friends on the left.  “You do this by spreading his message wide and far.

“Think about it: every time Trump issues a mean tweet or utters a shocking statement, millions of people begin to obsess over his words.
“Reporters make it the top headline. Cable TV panels talk about it for hours. Horrified Democrats and progressives share the stories online, making sure to repeat the nastiest statements in order to refute them.

“Nobody knows this better than Trump. Trump, as a media master, knows how to frame a debate” wrote the distinguished professor, who published a whole book on how to frame the debate.

“When the news media and Democrats repeat Trump’s frames, they are strengthening those frames by ensuring that tens of millions of Americans hear them repeated over and over again.”

The 900 children who were pictured in Nogales were among the tens of thousands of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) who flooded across the southern border in 2014.  Under the Obama administration, most UACs were placed with relatives living illegally in the United States, instead of being returned to their parents in Honduras or Guatemala, as they should have been.

President Trump is determined to change the system that allows UACs from countries other than Mexico (OTM) to remain here indefinitely.  When the number of UACs spiked this spring, Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions took several steps to stem the flow.

Meanwhile, pro-immigration Republicans are pressuring Trump to cave by extending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) without building a border wall.  A pro-immigration group funded in part by the Koch brothers, LIBRE, is running ads urging Congress to pass “a permanent solution for Dreamers.”

In the pro-amnesty Koch orbit is Colorado Senator Cory Gardner, who complained about Attorney General Sessions considering enforcement of federal laws against marijuana sales.  Legalizing marijuana is another hobby horse of the Koch network of donors, to the detriment of average Americans.

President Trump is welcome relief from politicians who care more about donors than voters.  Trump should continue to be a “choice, not an echo” on immigration, and stand firm for a border wall.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Santa Fe School Was Victimized by Censorship of Prayer

Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Another tragic shooting at a public school leads to another round of liberal demands for gun control.  But missing from their clamor is how this shooting by a former football player occurred at the very same high school where the Supreme Court censored prayer at football games in a ruling in 2000.

The ACLU insisted that student-led prayer be banned at this same high school, and the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the ACLU and against the school in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe.  Ever since, prayer has not been allowed over the loudspeakers at games, prayer that the shooter would have heard because he played in many football games there.

Liberals are notably quiet in commenting on how prayer was eliminated at this same school by judicial activism from the Supreme Court.  The gun control typically proposed would not have stopped this crime, because it was perpetrated by a shotgun, which is not semi-automatic, and a revolver.

The student killer should have attracted immediate scrutiny for how he would wear a black trench coat on hot Texan days, and had postings on Facebook that included a “Born to Kill” t-shirt and images of Satan and atheistic communism.  Likewise, the former student who shot up Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, was widely known to be a risk for violence, and multiple complaints about him to law enforcement fell on deaf ears before he massacred 17.

Had either student been profiled based on his public behavior, then both tragedies might have been averted, or at least curtailed.  A reasonable dress code would have prevented hiding a shotgun in a black trench coat on a hot day, or at least allowed immediate preventive action to be taken.

Nobody wants airport-style security at every entrance to a public school, but no one wants more carnage either.  Yet rather than suggest workable approaches to prevent copycat incidents, senseless attempts to blame President Trump fill the airwaves.

Entering stage left is Jimmy Kimmel, the late-night comedian who broke the record for the lowest Oscars audience ever when he hosted it in March.  He insisted that Trump and the GOP are somehow “cowardly” because they supposedly “care more about the support of the NRA than they do about children.”

But none of the usual liberal remedies such as banning assault rifles, a ban on high capacity magazines, stricter background checks, tougher mental health screening, or closing the so-called gun show loophole would have prevented this tragedy.  Yet that hasn’t stopped gun controllers from proposing the same litany of legislation.

Knee-jerk appeals to political correctness might boost Kimmel’s career after tanking in his Oscars performance.  In his record-setting ratings failure for the annual show, Kimmel paid homage to the feminist Me Too movement without challenging the industry for the hypersexual content of so many of its movies.

“The only way we can make a meaningful impact,” Kimmel pontificated, “is if we vote for politicians who will do something,” without saying what that “something” might be.  If he meant banning shotguns and revolvers in Texas, perhaps Kimmel himself was too “cowardly” to propose something so absurd.

An assistant secretary of education in the Obama administration suggested that parents keep their kids out of school until Congress passes “background checks for all gun purchases, a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and funding for gun research.”

His former boss Arne Duncan, who was Obama’s longest-serving Cabinet member, tweeted: “This is brilliant.  What if no children went to school until gun laws changed to keep them safe?”

Not attending public school is something some conservatives have been saying for years, after witnessing the rapid deterioration in culture and values there.  It is ironic that Obama’s Secretary of Education might finally be right for the wrong reason.

But missing from the script is any criticism of Facebook for how it has been the common denominator for many of these school shootings.  The killers use Facebook to publicize their wanton desires in seeking their “15 minutes of fame,” to paraphrase Andy Warhol.

Meanwhile, if anyone hoped that the courts would defend the Second Amendment based on Justice Scalia’s 5-4 decision in D.C. v. Heller, that optimism has proven to be unfounded.  Only one Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, defends the Second Amendment there, and he alone dissented in criticizing his colleagues’ refusal to review a pro-gun control decision from the Ninth Circuit.

Make no mistake: if the Democrats take control of Congress and have the votes to block Trump’s nominees for judges, courts will toss out the Second Amendment by permitting severe restrictions on gun ownership, and mandatory gun registration to be followed by gun confiscation.  This has already happened in Great Britain and Australia, followed by predictable rises in non-gun crimes.

John and Andy Schlafly are the sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Floodgate Opens to Sports Gambling

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

The $250 billion domestic gambling industry gains access to a new $150 billion market, thanks to the Supreme Court.  The 6-3 decision by the Court in Murphy v. NCAA opens the floodgates to sports gambling, while naively inviting Congress to clean up the mess that the Court just created.

Gambling wrecks families with a vengeance.  The suicide rate among gamblers is higher than for any other addiction, and estimates are that a wagering habit pulls down ten people associated with the addict.

A family can lose its entire savings in one gambling binge, and many do.  Gambling also corrupts our political system more than other addictions, as casino owners toss donations to candidates who then return the favors in spades after their election.

Gambling afflicts the poor more than the rich, and the uneducated more than the college graduates.  Minorities and youth are particularly exploited by gambling.

Congress and most states have repeatedly expressed the strong public policy against gambling, which was illegal nationwide at the turn of the 20th century but expanded during the Great Depression.

Today 60% of Americans are sports fans, most of whom rearrange their schedules to watch their favorite teams.  Until now, it has generally been illegal to target those sports fans with solicitations to bet on games.

But the Court dealt the gambling industry a royal flush on Monday, when the Court held that Congress was wrong, the Trump Administration was wrong, and conservative groups (including these authors) were wrong in urging the Court to uphold the federal law against sports gambling.

Justice Sam Alito wrote this decision that struck down an Act of Congress, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which has worked well for 26 years in limiting sports gambling.  This ruling illustrates that when the Court makes headlines, it is almost never in a good way.

As a result, the task of defending against the scourge of sports gambling falls on state legislatures and the Department of Justice.  Families will need to be more vigilant to keep their sports-fan children from getting pulled into the dark underworld of gambling that will destroy their lives.

Professional sports leagues, from the NFL to Major League Baseball, are making a colossal mistake if they think gambling will boost their declining attendance.  Changing Yankee Stadium from “The House that Ruth Built” to “The Casino that Gamers Built” is not a way to fill seats in a ballpark.

It was nearly a century ago when professional baseball saved its sport by taking a strong stance against betting on the World Series, and college basketball did likewise in the 1950s.  But future scandals seem inevitable under the Court’s decision allowing nationwide wagering on sports.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions should beef up enforcement of the Wire Act, which is a federal law enacted in 1961 to limit interstate betting.  Professional and amateur sports are inherently interstate, and the Department of Justice should announce that it will enforce the Wire Act to shut down all attempts to ramp up betting on interstate sports.

State legislatures should pass strong laws prohibiting betting in their states, and can do even more than that.  States should require all the teams based in their jurisdictions to take affirmative steps to discourage wagering on games by fans.

Perhaps Justices on the Supreme Court thought they were doing something good for states’ rights, but what about states wanting to be free from the plague of gambling?  Texas has long stood strong against gambling, but soon its beloved Dallas Cowboys football team could become the object of multi-million-dollar gambling schemes nationwide.

Absent from the 49 pages of opinions of the Court was any observation that gambling is a vice, for which there is voluminous evidence about the enormous harm it causes to individuals and communities.  Instead, the Court did selective research on the internet to paint an illusion that gambling somehow has a respectable history in our country.

The Court espoused euphemisms like “Americans have never been of one mind about gambling,” which is a vacuous statement that could be said about anything.  Three hundred million Americans, of course, are not “of one mind” about anything, and that is a meaningless cliché.

The Court’s opinion epitomizes a “law without values” judicial philosophy, which is as morally bankrupt as it sounds.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was a famous advocate of this approach a century ago, and it led to some dreadful rulings such as upholding the forced sterilization of a woman because she supposedly had a very low I.Q.

Hopefully Attorney General Sessions, state legislatures, and families themselves will stand up now against gambling.  They have trump cards of their own they can play to halt sports gambling.

John and Andy Schlafly are the sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. John and Andy Schlafly are the sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

Standing Up to Globalism

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump’s stand against world pressure for him to continue the one-sided deal with Iran is a defining moment in world history.  His announcement at 2 p.m. on Tuesday to terminate the agreement is a watershed as the end of globalism.

One small event for man, one big moment for mankind, to paraphrase Neil Armstrong’s words when he landed on the Moon.  It is not the interaction between the United States and Iran that is so significant here, but the rejection of the world order that has reigned supreme since World War II.

The wrong path of globalism will no longer be the road for our country, as President Trump wisely charts a new course in which international deals must be as fair to the United States as they are to foreign countries.  Just as important is how the United States will no longer bow to pressure from Western Europe or anyone else about how we manage our foreign policy.

A few days earlier, the use of the word “Orwellian” from the White House in rebuking China for trying to boss around our airlines likewise signaled the dawn of this new era.  Communist China insisted that airlines stop referring to Taiwan because China is in denial about the independence and freedom of that island nation, which was formed by those who fled the communist Chinese revolution in 1949.

In 1971, globalists seeking to appease communist China arranged for the United Nations to expel Taiwan, whose real name is the Republic of China.  Early the following year, globalist Henry Kissinger persuaded President Richard Nixon to turn his back on Taiwan by visiting communist China and giving it legitimacy.

Then, in over-the-top bravado by Nixon that would have made Trump blush, Nixon declared that his trip to China was “the week that changed the world.”  Eight months earlier Phyllis Schlafly published her P.S. Report warning that Nixon could lose the confidence of the grassroots, and the subsequent Watergate operation that got him in trouble arose from doubts about his winning reelection.

China and globalists have been trying to ostracize Taiwan ever since.  They have even prevented Taiwan from competing in the Olympics as the independent country that it is, since 1976.

But the sentiment on the island of Taiwan is increasingly independent, as globalism is being rejected there like almost everywhere else.  Taiwan’s current president, Tsai Ing-wen, is more willing to assert the nationalism that Trump asserts for Americans.
Recently China demanded that businesses stop referring to Taiwan, Tibet, and Hong Kong as countries.  Quickly Marriott, the hotel chain associated with globalist Mitt Romney, caved in and pandered to communist China by apologizing to it.

China made its demand on 36 foreign airlines, insisting that they stop referring to Taiwan as a country.  Many of these airlines are American carriers, such as Delta which has already apologized.

But President Trump, more so than any president since World War II, rejects globalist pressure like China’s demand.  Trump will “stand up for Americans resisting efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to impose Chinese political correctness on American companies and citizens,” press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced.

Sarah Sanders declared that the Trump Administration is telling China “to stop threatening and coercing American carriers and citizens.”  That’s right:  China has no authority to push around our citizens and our businesses.

Then Sanders used the “O” and the “C” words, which not even past Republican presidents were willing to do enough.  “This is Orwellian nonsense and part of a growing trend by the Chinese Communist Party to impose its political views on American citizens and private companies,” Sanders observed.

George Orwell was a visionary in criticizing the communist mindset, as a former Leftist himself.  It is doubtful that any press secretary has ever applied Orwell’s truths so properly to the communist attempts at mind control, as Sarah Sanders just did.

Meanwhile, the disastrous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is up for renegotiation, and Trump’s rejection of globalism bodes us well for this issue also.  Far from seeking to renew that deal, Trump should look to terminate as much of it as possible.

Economically, NAFTA has been far more harmful to the American economy than the Iran deal was.  Trump’s criticism of the Iran deal as one-sided applies with greater force to NAFTA.

The flood of illegal drugs into our country, along with illegal aliens, has been facilitated by NAFTA.  The loss of manufacturing jobs to south of the border is the result of NAFTA, too.

NAFTA was never properly ratified as a treaty because it never had the necessary support in the Senate.  The agreement should be terminated and any replacement should only be considered under the 2/3rds ratification requirement of the Treaty Clause, which is the provision that globalists hate most about the Constitution.

John and Andy Schlafly are the sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

New Trump-hater book

About once a month, the news media promotes some new anti-Trump book by some Trump-hater. Here is the latest:
THE SOUL OF AMERICA: The Battle for Our Better Angels, by Jon Meacham. Random House, 416 pp., $30.

Historian and journalist Jon Meacham has written biographies of, among others, George H.W. Bush, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson; that last book won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009. With “The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels,” Meacham addresses a decidedly loftier subject: the very essence of the nation. He does so by documenting the words and actions of presidents and other historical figures who helped shape the nation’s culture and politics to make the United States into the country it is today.

Meacham’s book arrives at a time when much about the American political system seems broken. People are angry, ambivalent, anxious. But Meacham, by chronicling the nation’s struggles from revolutionary times to current day, makes the resonant argument that America has faced division before — and not only survived it but thrived. “This book,” Meacham writes, “is a portrait of hours in which the politics of fear were prevalent — a reminder that periods of public dispiritedness are not new and a reassurance that they are survivable.”
I heard this guy on the radio plugging his book, and his two favorite presidents were FDR and LBJ!

Historians like him credit FDR with getting the USA out of the Great Depression, but you get a different story from economists. The consensus there is that almost all of FDR's policy made the economy worse.

LBJ was a terrible president for a long list of reasons.

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Visas Plague Baseball Like Everything Else

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Alarm bells are sounding across Major League Baseball as attendance at ballgames has plummeted.  One recent game drew less than a thousand fans, prompting some to wonder if there were more players than spectators.

Half of the major league teams have already broken their records of 2017 for their smallest attendance at a game, including traditionally popular franchises like the St. Louis Cardinals and Chicago Cubs.  The Miami Marlins are doing so poorly in attendance this season that they have repeatedly drawn less than 50% of their record-low attendance for all of last year.

Baseball has been in a slow slide in fan attendance, and the dismal attendance last year was the lowest in 15 years.  But the particularly poor start this year should spark some soul-searching about what has happened to our national pastime.

The rules of baseball have not significantly changed over the past century, but the players certainly have.  Today baseball has become a sport for foreigners playing on workers’ “P-1” visas, which are every bit as objectionable as the “H-1B” visas that Phyllis Schlafly and other Trump supporters have complained about for years.

Roughly a quarter of Major League Baseball consists today of foreign-born players, and an even higher percentage of foreigners have flooded the minor leagues.  Today, some minor league rosters look more like a World Cup soccer team than a baseball squad.

Owners have figured out that they can sign foreign players to smaller bonuses, and have greater strings attached, than give nice contracts to American youngsters.  The foreigners do not play baseball any better than Americans, and few of the foreign players are genuine Hall of Fame candidates.

In sharp contrast with a quarter-century ago, every baseball team today has a high-paid foreign player.  Free traders brag about this as a model that Americans should imitate in other industries, but the reality is that fans prefer rooting for hometown heroes like Lou Gehrig, who grew up in New York City, played baseball for Columbia University, and then became the “Pride of the Yankees.”

The primary reason given by the so-called “free traders” for workers’ visas is that they are supposedly needed to fill jobs that Americans refuse to do.  That’s a comical excuse when it comes to professional baseball, which are the most desired jobs in all of the American economy.

With less risk of injury than football, basketball, or boxing, professional baseball players enjoy a greater career income than any of those other sports.  Players are not even required to be in particularly good physical shape to play the game, as Babe Ruth famously demonstrated.

Images of near-empty baseball stadiums during games leaves a lasting impression in sports fans thinking about where to spend their money.  Atlanta saw an attendance boost in its new stadium last year, but a city cannot build a new stadium every year to try to prop up the fan base.

Baseball owners have exploited the P-1 visa to get bargain players who are cheaper than the top American talent.  Apparently no one told the owners that foreign players with names no one can pronounce are not going to fill a stadium the way that Stan Musial, Ted Williams, and Jackie Robinson did.

Jackie Robinson, and Willie Mays and Hank Aaron after him, inspired a generation of young African-Americans to become baseball stars like them.  That motivation is gone today with the deluge of foreign players on P-1 visas, and without enough black baseball stars hardly any young African-Americans play the sport anymore.

While major league teams have an oversupply of foreign players, and even more in the minor leagues, nearly one-third of the Big Leagues today have only one black player on their roster.  Last year there were fewer black players in major league baseball than 1958, shortly after Jackie Robinson retired.

Like the H-1B worker visas for ordinary employment, the P-1 visa rules are twisted to allow foreigners to take jobs away from Americans despite how that was not the original intent.  P-1 visas were supposed to be limited to athletes who want to come to the United States "temporarily to perform at a specific athletic competition," such as the Olympics, explains the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

But later the same website says that P-1 visa holders can stay for a whopping five years in order to "complete the event, competition or performance," even though no athletic events last anywhere as long as five years.  Even worse, the government website explains further that the total stay can actually be up to ten years, by which time the professional baseball player will have found another way to stay here permanently.

Baseball was a fabulous way to inspire multiple generations of boys to play a healthy game that emphasizes the virtues of teamwork, patience, discipline, and following rules.  But something is lost in the translation, and the motivation is lost, when the visa program is abused to reward foreigners rather than American youth.

John and Andy Schlafly are the sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Travel Ban’s Moment of Truth for GOP, Court

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

After being routed in the 2016 presidential primaries, a motley band of unreformed Never Trump Republicans gathered this week to make their last stand in the Supreme Court.  They are asking the court to overturn what, other than the wall on the Mexican border, was the most decisive promise of the Trump campaign.

The group includes Republicans who were prominent on the national scene ten, twenty and even thirty years ago, including former New Jersey Governors Tom Kean and Christine Todd Whitman, who publicly declared in February 2016 that "I know I won't vote for Trump."  Others, such as failed Utah candidate Evan McMullin, had a brief flicker of fame in 2016 before flaming out.

In case anyone needed a reminder why grassroots conservatives support Trump, the divide in the GOP on this case is conclusive evidence.  Phyllis Schlafly's classic book, "A Choice Not An Echo," explained how an Establishment within the Republican Party works perpetually to withhold power from the conservative wing of the Party.

Trump ended the insiders' control of the GOP.  These filings by Republicans of yesteryear, however, illustrate that the Establishment is still fighting back.

Trump's proposal for a temporary halt to immigration from Muslim countries was first announced in December 2015, following the massacre in San Bernardino, California, where a husband-and- wife team of legal Muslim immigrants shot and killed
14 people and seriously wounded 22 others at a Christmas party.

It was one of Trump's campaign promises that drew wide support and helped Trump win the primaries and then the election.  After Trump became president, the campaign promise was refined (some would say watered down) in versions 1, 2 and 3 of an executive order, which is now before the Supreme Court.

Trump tweeted that his restrictions "should be far larger, tougher and more specific."  Polling showed the public agreed more with Trump than with his detractors on this issue.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted immediately after Trump signed the first and strongest version of what has come to be known as the travel ban, found that 48% of Americans agreed and only 41% disagreed.  A Rasmussen poll of likely voters found
57% agreed and only 33% opposed.

Support for Trump increased when the current version of the policy was issued last summer.  Some 60 percent of Americans in an AP-NORC poll said they support the "new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominantly Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country," while only 28 percent were opposed.

Among Republicans surveyed in the same poll, 84 percent of respondents supported the policy, while 9 percent opposed it.  That poll demonstrates that liberal Republicans who signed the briefs in the Supreme Court are out of step with the base, even in California where a recent poll by the University of California at Berkeley showed that 59% favor an increase in deportations.

Yet that public sentiment has not taken hold in many federal courts, and particularly not in the Obama-dominated Fourth and Ninth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.  The federal judiciary, which is supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch in terms of power, has embraced a relentless agenda to block Trump's actions at every turn.

Time and time again, from as faraway places as the federal district court in Hawaii, activist judges repeatedly enjoined Trump's travel ban.  Hawaii, of course, sees little harm from illegal aliens because so few can travel there, and California already benefits from a southern fence to stem the flow of illegal migration from Mexico.

The Supreme Court has allowed Trump's restrictions to go into effect during the pendency of this appeal, so the Court should have no difficulty affirming presidential power to control our borders in this manner.  President Trump acted property to suspend, temporarily, migration from North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.

Yet the resistance to Trump's protection of our country against foreigners continues to be intense, as the briefs filed in the Supreme Court opposing Trump far outnumber those which support him.  Even a group of former national security and so-

called intelligence officials ask the Supreme Court to strike down Trump's travel ban, despite how it obviously enhances our security by keeping potential enemies out.

Andrew C. McCarthy, as the former prosecutor of a terrorist, filed a brief in support of Trump's position.  "At the end of the day," he points out, "it is not the role of the judiciary to intercede in such matters, and this Court should clearly say so."

Fourteen States, including immigrant-popular Texas and Arizona, weighed in with the Supreme Court to support President Trump's travel ban.  The Court should listen to these States that are on the front lines of illegal migration into our country, and to the grassroots that support Trump.

John and Andy Schlafly are the sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Trump Should Turn to His Solicitor General

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

The most powerful position in the world has apparently become one of the weakest, with the spectacle of the office, home and even hotel room of President Trump’s own attorney being ransacked without warning.  The shocking seizure by government of attorney Michael Cohen’s files, including attorney-client communications, happened because Robert Mueller’s runaway investigation wanted some dirt on Trump.

Republicans in Congress stand silently by while this unfolds, with some even wanting to support this with special new legislation to protect Mueller’s wrecking crew.  Fortunately, there is one person to whom Trump can turn to put the GOP back on the right path.

President Trump should look to his top advocate in his own Department of Justice, Solicitor General Noel Francisco.  He may be the only man willing to assert proper presidential authority to stop the circus caused by the blank check given to Mueller’s out-of-control inquisition.

The Solicitor General argues cases on behalf of the executive branch before the U.S. Supreme Court, and is well-versed in constitutional law.  “General Francisco,” as he is addressed by the courts, is not the famous “General Francisco Franco” who ruled Spain for nearly four decades, but “General Francisco” is the man who can restore presidential power.

In contrast with the liberal Republicans on Capitol Hill, General Francisco has strongly asserted the authority of President Trump to fire underlings in the executive branch.  General Francisco argued in support of executive power to deport illegal alien law-breakers, while on Tuesday Neil Gorsuch just sided with the Left on the Supreme Court to block deportation.

Francisco is pro-life too, asserting the right of the executive branch to reject demands by illegal aliens to have abortions.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly dodged and ducked petitions for cert brought by the pro-life side, including the case of a middle-of-the-night abortion performed on an illegal alien which Francisco has appealed.

The Left is most agitated about Francisco’s support of presidential power.  In the case of Lucia v. SEC, Francisco quotes Supreme Court precedent to argue that “the Constitution gives the President what the Framers saw as the ‘traditional’ means of ensuring accountability: the ‘power to oversee executive officers through removal.’”

“The removal power thus is a key safeguard of democratic self-governance, preserving an unbroken chain of responsibility from the American people to the public officials who serve them,” Francisco tells the High Court.  The Court seems likely to agree, and granted Francisco’s request to participate in the upcoming oral argument on April 23rd.

Although relatively unknown to the public, Francisco is in line to replace Mueller’s supervisor Rod Rosenstein if he were terminated by Trump.  All agree that that Trump has the authority to fire Rosenstein, and reports have even circulated that Rosenstein would not be surprised by it.

Francisco could step into Rosenstein’s shoes, and then Francisco could fire Mueller.  The tyranny of the witch-hunt against Trump and his supporters would be over.

In contrast with that scenario is an unconstitutional approach being taken by liberal Republicans in Congress, who are pandering to the media by pushing legislation to make Mueller above the president.  The irony is that while Never Trumpers insist that the president is not above the law, they try to make Mueller above the law instead.

Retiring Pennsylvania Representative Charlie Dent, a strident Never Trumper who just announced that he will quit his seat even before his term expires, is a sponsor of this silly legislation in the House.  With a straight face, Dent declared that “independent investigations must be given the resources needed to carry out their investigations.”

Mueller has already burned through tens of millions of dollars, achieving the destruction of the lives of Trump supporters and forcing them to waste many millions of dollars of their own.  All told, Mueller may have already caused the waste of $100 million, with no end in sight.

Dent continued by pompously declaring that Mueller must have “the authority and public confidence to see [his investigation] through to conclusion.”  But Dent provides no guide on when that conclusion will be, and it is obvious that Mueller will continue until he is fired or shut down.

Congress extended Mueller’s blank check for his expenses into 2019.  All indications are that Mueller is widening the scope of his Grand Inquisition, rather than trying to wrap it up promptly.

If Trump does not take steps now to end the anti-Trump project, then it will become an issue in the presidential campaign that will begin soon after the midterm elections.  Already a significant chunk of Trump’s campaign dollars are being diverted to legal fees.

Republican Senators like Lindsey Graham are hurting the GOP by siding with far Left Senate Democrats Chris Coons (Delaware) and Cory Booker (New Jersey) in promoting the pro-Mueller legislation.  No Democrat would support such a bill if the shoe were on the other foot.

John and Andy Schlafly are the sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Winning the ‘Trade War’ with China

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

From the day he announced for president, Donald Trump spoke of how the United States was losing ground to other countries, especially China, in international trade.  We’re not winning anymore, Trump complained throughout the campaign, and he promised to change that.

Trump has fulfilled every expectation on the trade issue.  Unlike most politicians who promise one thing and then do another after the election, Trump has followed through on his campaign promises on trade.

As Trump tweeted last Saturday:  “The United States hasn’t had a Trade Surplus with China in 40 years.  They must end unfair trade, take down barriers and charge only Reciprocal Tariffs.”

“The U.S. is losing $500 Billion a year, and has been losing Billions of Dollars for decades,” Trump added.  “Cannot continue!”

Trump tweeted again on Monday, April 9:  “When a car is sent to the United States from China, there is a Tariff to be paid of 2 1/2%.  When a car is sent to China from the United States, there is a Tariff to be paid of 25%.”

“Does that sound like free or fair trade.  No, it sounds like STUPID TRADE - going on for years!”

With his new actions on trade with China, President Trump has brought the era of bipartisan pusillanimity to an end.  Trade wars always exist, and now our side is finally going to fight back.

For at least two decades, Republicans and Democrats alike have known about and tolerated China’s systematic violations of trading rules that the United States observes.  Our leaders have refused to do anything about China’s lawless behavior, primarily because the Wall Street donors who finance both parties have fomented fears about a trade war.

The China problem emerged in the year 2000, when Republican Congressional leaders (including the future Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and the future Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) conspired with President Bill Clinton to give China preferred access to the American consumer market.  Normal trading privileges paved the way for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, despite its failure to meet basic requirements for membership.

Phyllis Schlafly strongly opposed the trade giveaway to China, which never would have attained the 2/3rds vote required by the Treaty Clause in the Constitution in order to pass.  So instead this handout to China was passed as a non-treaty.
One-fourth of House Republicans voted against their leadership in 2000, while two-thirds of House Democrats voted against their president. The naysayers were proved right as China continued to flout the rules for the next 18 years and still shows no sign of real reform.

In its early years of access to the American market, China profited by paying extremely low wages to people making ultra-cheap products.  Now China is rapidly moving up the food chain to sell us high quality products containing innovative technology that was created and developed in the United States.

How did the Chinese get their hands on the latest American high tech know-how?  First, by stealing it:  China’s commercial espionage is estimated to cost U.S. companies over $20 billion a year, with a cumulative total of $600 billion over 20 years.

China also forces American companies to share their technology as the price of access to the Chinese market.  Such requirements are supposedly prohibited by the WTO, but with no one stopping them, the Chinese trade surplus in goods reached a new all-time record of $375 billion last year.

“We have a tremendous intellectual property theft situation going on,” the president said on March 22 as he signed an order that could eventually impose tariffs on hundreds of Chinese products.  As Peter Navarro, director of the White House National Trade Council, explained, “What the United States is doing is strategically defending itself from China’s economic aggression.”

Even long-time free-traders are starting to see the light.  Last Sunday Lawrence Kudlow admitted that “the whole world knows China has been violating trade laws for many years” and “President Trump is the guy calling them on it, and he’s right.”

“This is a problem caused by China, not a problem caused by President Trump.  I would go so far as to say Trump is there to fix the problem,” Kudlow explains. 

“His argument, and it’s a good one” is this:  “You can’t have free trade unless China brings down its barriers, opens up its markets, and stops this technology steal that they’re doing,” Kudlow adds.

Peter Navarro properly observed last Sunday, “What we want from China is very clear.  We want fair and reciprocal trade.” 

“We want them to stop stealing our stuff.  We want them to guard intellectual property, not take it from us,” Navarro concluded.

China has far more to lose in a trade war than the United States does.  Indeed, our job market would improve if tariffs reduced our massive trade imbalance with China, and Trump is right to take strong steps toward that goal.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously in 2016. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

The ‘Caravans’ Are Coming

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

During the Easter weekend, when many Americans were watching the college basketball championships, President Donald Trump kept his eye on America’s southern border.  It’s long overdue for a president to defend our borders.

“Getting more dangerous,” Trump tweeted on Easter Sunday before attending church with his wife, Melania, in Palm Beach.  “‘Caravans’ coming.”

The president was referring to the “caravan” (their word) of some 1,200 men, women and children who were spotted in southern Mexico, heading toward the United States.  Photographs showed a massive column of people walking north, herded by a few vehicles alongside.

A “caravan” is a group of migrants traveling together with all their belongings, often on foot or with covered wagons, stopping at makeshift camps along the way to eat and sleep.  The word originated in the Middle East centuries ago when crossing the desert by caravan was a common sight.

In the frontier era of the 19th century, Americans traveled west by covered wagon for mutual protection as they crossed through hostile Indian country.  Caravans are rarely seen in modern America, but it’s a different world south of the border, where millions of people live in primitive conditions that would have challenged our ancestors.

In this case, a caravan consisting of hundreds of men, women and children from Central America, mostly Honduras, crossed into Mexico on March 25, heading north.  By April 1 they had traveled 140 miles to the town of Matías Romero.

A thousand people do not embark on a journey of over 1,000 miles without organization and financial support.  The caravan now making its way through Mexico is being coordinated by a group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which means Town Without Borders (or People Without Borders).

The New York Times describes Pueblo Sin Fronteras as a “transnational advocacy group” whose leader, Irineo Mujica, is a “Mexican-American who holds dual citizenship.”  There are so many things wrong with those phrases that it’s difficult to know where to start.

To begin with, the United States does not recognize dual citizenship, except in rare cases.  A person from Mexico or anywhere else who goes through the process of becoming a U.S. citizen is required to take an oath swearing to totally renounce his previous allegiances.

Similarly, a “transnational” group is not allowed to exist in many countries without first registering to do business or conduct its activities legally in that country.  We have enough problems with the outlaw transnational group called MS-13, which has committed murders of incredible savagery, primarily in areas populated by recent immigrants from Central America.

The caravan’s next stop is the town of Puebla, near Mexico City, which the migrants hope to reach by April 5.  There they expect to attend two days of “workshops, led by volunteer lawyers” to learn about “their options for legal protections in the United States.”

During the Obama administration, lawyers would coach illegal migrants, who do not speak English, how to keep repeating the English phrase “credible fear.”  When people show up at the border claiming a credible fear of persecution in their home country, they are treated as refugees with a right to stay here indefinitely until their claims are adjudicated.

“As ridiculous as it sounds,” Trump tweeted on Monday, “the laws of our country do not easily allow us to send those crossing our Southern Border back where they came from.  A whole big wasted procedure must take place.”

If those people truly have a credible fear in Honduras or Guatemala or El Salvador, why don’t they apply for asylum right where they are, in Mexico?  Under international law, according to a ruling of the European Court of Justice last year, migrants must seek refuge or claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, which in this case is Mexico.

Fortunately, the Trump administration has tightened the requirements for would-be refugees and expedited the processing of their claims. But there’s still a huge backlog of refugee cases from the Obama administration, so we need to pressure Mexico to cut off the caravan before it gets here.

The renegotiation of NAFTA gives Trump leverage, as he tweeted on Tuesday:  “Mexico is making a fortune on NAFTA. With all of the money they make from the U.S., hopefully they will stop people from coming through their country and into ours, at least until Congress changes our immigration laws!”

The alleged rights of illegal aliens know no bounds.  Last week an Obama-appointed federal judge entered a sweeping order that teenage girls who illegally crossed our southern border without their parents have a constitutional right to an abortion in the United States.

An American teenage girl cannot ordinarily obtain an abortion in Texas without parental consent.  But according to Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was born in Jamaica, an illegal alien teenage girl can get an abortion here without parental notice or consent, even though abortions are illegal in her home country.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously in 2016. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Census Should Ask About Citizenship

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

American citizenship is the most valuable status in the history of the world, worth more than even Roman citizenship was.  It is elementary that a census of the people in our country should include in its questions whether someone is a citizen.

Yet asking for that basic information has created a massive firestorm among liberals who want to blur the distinction between those who are American citizens, and those who are not.  No one can claim it is an invasion of anyone’s privacy to ask about citizenship, given that it should be a matter of public record.

The genteel industrialist who runs the obscure 115-year-old U.S. Department of Commerce appears to be an unlikely person to cause such controversy.  Wilbur Ross, who will never light up a room or catch fire on social media while presiding over one of the grandest but least-visited buildings in Washington, holds a position that is considered a backwater in the president’s cabinet.

But Secretary Ross has become the most valuable player of the Trump administration.  Not only has he provided critical support for the president’s America First trade agenda, but he has laid the groundwork for the president’s reelection by restoring the citizenship question to the census.

The importance of his decision is shown by the fact that Democrats in California immediately filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to stop it.  Federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and even Jimmy Carter have become the first stop in the resistance to President Trump carrying out the will of the American people who elected him in 2016.

The initial lawsuit against Wilbur Ross was filed by the attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, who should have his hands full defending his state’s unconstitutional sanctuary laws against a federal lawsuit by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  San Francisco is not only a sanctuary for illegal aliens, but it is also a popular venue for liberals seeking judicial supremacy to block Trump at every turn.

Another lawsuit against Ross is being threatened by Obama’s disgraced attorney general Eric Holder, who was found in criminal contempt of Congress for his role in covering up the Fast and Furious scandal.  That should have derailed Holder’s legal career, but instead it’s treated as a badge of honor by those who advocate the alleged rights of illegal aliens.

The Constitution requires the federal government to conduct an “actual enumeration” every 10 years primarily because, as the Constitution also says, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective Numbers.”  This month is the deadline for finalizing plans for the next census that must be completed by April 1, 2020.

The census has always included all residents in its total enumeration, including both legal and illegal immigrants who are not U.S. citizens, and even slaves when slavery was legal.  But how many residents are citizens has also been counted throughout U.S. history, as far back as the fourth decennial census in 1820.

Until 1950, all respondents were asked to report whether each person being counted was a U.S. citizen.  From 1960 to 2000, the citizenship question was demoted to the “long form” census questionnaire that went to 1 in 6 households, and thereafter it was included in the American Community Survey which samples 3.5 million households per year.

As Secretary Ross explains in his decision, a sample of just 1 in 6 households is not accurate enough to determine how many citizens are living in small election districts. To obtain numbers accurate down to the level of small census blocks, which are required to enforce the federal Voting Rights Act, every person who is a U.S. citizen must be counted (in addition to every resident who is not a citizen).

Liberals claim that the citizenship question will discourage illegal residents from responding to the census, thereby undercounting them.  Even worse, in the critics’ view, is how this might result in a reduction of taxpayer funding of agencies that dole out massive benefits to the illegal population.

The wily Wilbur Ross anticipated those objections, pointing out in his 8-page statement that “no one provided evidence that reinstating a citizenship question would materially decrease response rates.”  On the contrary, there’s plenty of evidence that the citizenship question has no effect on response rates, even among “those who generally distrusted government and government information collection efforts, disliked the current administration, or feared law enforcement.”

Perhaps opponents of Trump should take solace in how Trump is not ordering a census like the one used by the Roman Empire at the time of Christ.  The Roman census required everyone to return to their home city to be counted, and today that rule would have the salutary effect of deporting at their own expense the many millions of illegal aliens.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously in 2016. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Friday, March 23, 2018

Facebook helped Obama more than Trump

Politico reports:
Facebook is flailing amid the fallout from revelations about the alleged misuse of user data by Cambridge Analytica, the Trump campaign’s 2016 data firm, dating back to 2014.

But the narrow focus on Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign misses the broader problem with Facebook and lacks fundamental context. Facebook is, to put the matter bluntly, a deeply untransparent, out-of-control company that encroaches on its users’ privacy, resists regulatory oversight and fails to police known bad actors when they abuse its platform.

And it’s not just Republicans who have taken advantage of Facebook’s invasive features. Far from it: During the 2012 campaign, President Barack Obama’s reelection team built an app that extracted the same types of data in the same fashion as the Cambridge Analytica data in question, with one critical difference: Obama’s team extracted nearly five times the information.

According to Carol Davidsen, a member of Obama’s data team, “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” The social graph is Facebook’s map of relationships between users and brands on its platform. And after the election, she recently acknowledged, Facebook was “very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”

There’s been no word on whether the Obama team was asked to delete its data, nor has it been suspended from Facebook.
See also Ben Shapiro's comments:
What’s genius for Obama is scandal when it comes to Trump

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Trump Eradicates the Deep State

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

A whopping 74% of Americans recognize the problem of the “Deep State” – the entrenched bureaucrats in D.C. who control our government.  This was confirmed by a remarkable poll released on Monday by Monmouth University.

The FBI’s own disciplinary office recommended the firing of its disgraced former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions pulled the trigger.  But former Deep Staters sprang to the defense of McCabe, as if on cue, and tweeted invective at the people’s leader they hate, President Trump.

Chief among the chorus of former bureaucrats was John Brennan, who ran the CIA during Obama’s second term.  Brennan admitted he voted for the Communist Party in 1976, so it is unsurprising that he would rant against Trump’s efforts to clean house.

Quickly McCabe received multiple job offers from Democrat politicians, which would be at additional taxpayer expense.  He could also garner big bucks from a lecture tour at liberal universities, or like his mentor James Comey write a self-serving book with a hefty advance royalty.

Better yet, McCabe could form a band with Brennan, Comey, and James Clapper, all of whom are gone from their official positions but still dominate the news.  They could call their band the “Deep State Blues,” and perform to empty houses across middle America.

Trump played to a packed house in western Pennsylvania ten days ago, delivering a magnificent speech that was decried by the media but loved by the grassroots.  Trump laid out how he is trying to exorcise the evil that permeates D.C., which is fighting back like a trapped rabid dog.

The refreshing firing of McCabe was another shot across the bow in this comic-book-like struggle between the American people, led by Trump, and the dug-in Establishment.  This illustrates what Phyllis Schlafly wrote about in her
bestselling classic A Choice Not An Echo, which describes the long-running battle between the grassroots and the insiders who control government no matter who is elected.

Robert Mueller, or his superior Rod Rosenstein who fails to rein him in, should be next on the chopping block, and Trump needs to strike while the iron is hot.  And Trump should fire any advisers who stand in his way on this.

Republican impediments such as Sen. Lindsey Graham are probably still bitter about how Trump humiliated them in the 2016 presidential contest.  To this day Trump has a higher approval rating than Graham in South Carolina, which is Graham’s home state.

Mueller has already wasted far more than ten million dollars in taxpayer money while proving nothing of significance.  Instead, Mueller has intimidated those loyal to Trump, which may be the real goal.

If the only thing President Trump achieves is to loosen the grip by the power-brokers on D.C., then he will have accomplished more than his four predecessors combined.  But the fierce resistance by both political parties makes the outcome far from clear.

Fortunately, Trump does have some allies on Capitol Hill on this issue.  Senator Rand Paul rebuked Brennan for his attack on Trump, pointing out that what is really disgraceful is how Brennan “had the power to search every American’s records without a warrant” and how that is an attack on “the freedom of every American.”

The Deep State has control of all the federal agencies in D.C., so it is a steep climb to triumph over it.  Some might wonder if it is even impossible to return the power to the American people that is rightfully ours.

For example, in behavior typical of the Swamp, the IRS refuses to stop the use of 1.3 million stolen or bogus Social Security numbers of employed illegal aliens.  It would be a simple matter to pull the plug on the employers of those illegals, yet the IRS as a matter of policy refuses to take action.

This conduct by the IRS has compelled the valiant Tom Homan of ICE to risk the lives of his agents by conducting three raids in the sanctuary state of California.  The public overwhelmingly opposes employers hiring illegal aliens, jobs that could be going to Americans, and the IRS could easily stop the illegal employment without putting the lives of any enforcement agents at risk.

The Monmouth University survey was mostly of Democrats and Independents, with Republicans comprising only 27% of the respondents, so its results are even more extraordinary.  When asked about the possible existence of “a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy,” known as the Deep State, 47% said it “probably exists” and 27% said it “definitely exists.”

With unusual consistency across Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, about 60% said that unelected or unappointed officials hold too much power in government.  If Trump can end that, then Americans will be forever grateful.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously in 2016. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Trump Ends Globalism at the State Department

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Outgoing Rex Tillerson is, by all accounts, a very likeable fellow, and no one wants to kick someone when he is down.  But President Trump wisely fired him as secretary of state for having an outlook different from Trump’s, and from the agenda Trump was elected on.

We have “different mindsets,” Trump said about Tillerson, as a polite understatement.  “We got along, actually, quite well, but we disagree on a lot of things.”

Indeed. Tillerson was the CEO of ExxonMobil, one of the largest multinational corporations in the world.  No one could hold that position without being a globalist and he did not convert quickly enough to make America great again.

Tillerson was never on the same page as President Trump in standing up against, not with, the many parts of the world that are hostile to our sovereign interests.  A supporter of phony free trade, Tillerson seemed more like the appeasement-type of secretary of state that we would expect if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election.

It is not merely that Tillerson thought Obama’s sweetheart deal with Iran was “okay,” as Trump complained in announcing his termination of Tillerson.  It was also that Tillerson would say and do things out-of-sync with what the America-First stance needs to be.

Tillerson was mistakenly trying to use diplomacy with the North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong-un while Trump was pursuing tougher measures.  When Trump finally got Tillerson to stop groveling, the situation improved.

Even the media concedes that Tillerson’s departure will not hinder Trump’s highly effective handling of North Korea, which is all-Trump and contrary to Tillerson’s approach.  If anything, a successful outcome of the North Korean crisis is more likely with Tillerson gone.

Given how often Tillerson disagreed during his confirmation hearing with Trump’s positions, it is surprising that Tillerson lasted as long as he did.  In merely one day of testimony Tillerson disagreed with Trump about the harmful Trans-Pacific Partnership, Russian policies toward the Ukraine, so-called climate change, and the need for Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

President Trump indicated that the upcoming renegotiation of trade deals was a reason for his timing in letting Tillerson go now.  Trump recently stood up against China by blocking the foreign takeover of Qualcomm, thereby signaling that American technology secrets are not for sale to foreign countries hostile to us.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who has long been a much stronger Trump supporter than Tillerson ever was, will step in without the baggage of a globalist mindset.  Pompeo brings a welcomed enthusiasm and focus that Tillerson unfortunately lacked.

“Tremendous energy, tremendous intellect, we’re always on the same wavelength,” Trump said about Pompeo after picking him.  “The relationship has been very good, and that’s what I need as secretary of state.”

In addition to his stellar record of being first in his class in West Point and then serving in the Army, Pompeo has a strongly conservative track record as a congressman from Kansas.  His positions include being outspokenly pro-life and taking many stances that fit hand-in-glove with those of Trump and the conservative movement.

Phyllis Schlafly praised the freshman congressman Pompeo in early 2011, for sponsoring a budget amendment that would have cut $8.5 million from the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Registry.  She applauded how Pompeo observed that the registry would be “the very foundation of the EPA’s effort to pursue its radical anti-jobs agenda.”

Unlike Tillerson, Pompeo has been a leader in cracking down on terrorists from Muslim countries.  When confronted with an alleged hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for terrorists, Pompeo took it upon himself to personally visit the camp and quipped afterwards that it looked to him “like a lot of them have put on weight.”

For months it has been perceived that Tillerson, who is younger than Trump but appears older, has been unhappy in his position.  He failed to fill key vacancies in his department despite being on the job for more than a year, and at key moments seemed to be in his home state of Texas rather than in D.C.

Trump was perceptive in his post-firing comments: “I think Rex will be much happier now, but I really appreciate his service.”  With Mike Pompeo in charge at the State Department, Americans can be more confident that the interests of the United States will be foremost in any foreign policy decision-making.

It took a year, but we have finally arrived to the point of “let Trump be Trump,” reminiscent of the moment in 1984 when “let Reagan be Reagan” started to carry the day.  President Trump is acting boldly on his instincts rather than being blocked and dissuaded by naysayers around him, and there is no limit to what he can achieve with this approach.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously in 2016. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Russians did not subvert democracy

The NY Times reports:
Trouble has now arrived. Unfortunately for Mr. Thiel, the storm is centered on Facebook, whose board he has been a member of practically since its founding. The social network, which billed itself as bringing democracy and enlightenment to the world, was used by the Russians to subvert democracy and sow confusion in the United States.

Even people paid to see the future didn’t see that one coming.
And only extreme Trump-haters see it that way today.

Hillary Clinton spent about a billion dollars in her campaign for President. In addition, nearly all of the mainstream news media were supporting her in editorials and in biased news stories.

According to the NY Times, some Russians spent a couple of thousand dollars on a Facebook ad saying that Hillary was Satan, and showing a picture of Satan arm-wrestling Jesus. And that subverted democracy?!!
Last summer, there was a flap when a memo by a fellow board member, Reed Hastings, the chief executive of Netflix, appeared in The New York Times. In the memo, Mr. Hastings wrote to Mr. Thiel that he displayed “catastrophically bad judgment” in supporting Mr. Trump.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, did not ask him to step down from the board, and reports that he wants to leave the board are incorrect, Mr. Thiel said, noting that among other things that he brings “ideological diversity.”
So Facebook is willing, just barely, to tolerate 1 out of its 10 board members being a Trump supporter. The other 9 are leftist Democrats. And the big issue in Silicon Valley is whether to kick the one Republican out of town!

What the Left sees is an opportunity to monopolize the dissemination of political ideas. They can't control Rush Limbaugh and a few others, but they can control CNN, NY Times, Facebook, Google, etc. Now they hope to shut down free-lance Russians that they cannot control.

Saying that the Russians were subverting democracy with their silly Facebook ads is so crazy that it is hard to believe that anyone seriously believes it.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

How Trump Wins on Trade 

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

When President Trump announced he would protect American jobs by imposing tariffs on foreign-made steel and aluminum, naysayers of both parties rushed to the nearest microphone or TV camera. Pundits and politicians alike pretended to be “shocked, shocked” that Trump meant what he said as a candidate, and that he actually means to deliver what he promised during the campaign.

The Swamp, in short, is not happy.  But cheers rose from the manufacturing belt that runs through the states that put Trump in the White House:  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

“This is a good thing for the steel industry and for our country,” said Tim Timken, the fifth-generation leader of TimkenSteel, which has 3,000 employees in Ohio.  “We’re standing up to our foreign competition and essentially saying enough is enough,” he added.

While foreign lobbyists warned of a new “trade war” in which other countries retaliate against the United States, U.S. Steel CEO David Burritt pointed out that “We are, and have been, in a trade war for decades.   Countries which have economically prospered by creating our current trade imbalance will face repercussions to their own economies if they choose the path of retaliation.”

Peter Navarro, director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, debunked the notion that the United States could lose a trade war with Europe or Asia.  “We are the most lucrative and biggest market in the world. We have the lowest tariffs in the world, we have the lowest non-tariff barriers, we are the free-tradingest nation in the world."

“And what do we get for that?” Navarro asked.  “We get every year a half-trillion-dollar trade deficit that transfers our wealth to other countries and basically offshores our jobs and our factories. All we are asking for is fair and reciprocal trade.”

The rest of the world wants unlimited access to the American consumer without complying with American regulations and without paying American taxes.  “Under my administration,” Trump boasted in his speech to CPAC last month, “the era of economic surrender is over.” 

“We’re renegotiating trade deals that are so bad, whether it’s NAFTA, whether it’s the World Trade Organization, which created China.  China has been like a rocket ship ever since, and last year we had almost a $500 billion trade deficit with China” ― money that finances the growing Chinese military. 

Critics are exaggerating the cost to consumers by adding a tax to foreign-made steel and aluminum.  Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ran the numbers and found that the aluminum tariff would add just six-tenths of a cent to the cost of a soup or beer can, while the steel tariff would add about $175 to the cost of a $35,000 car.

Tariffs are much like the out-of-state tuition that state colleges charge students whose families have not supported the college through taxes.  Most state colleges require out-of-state students to pay more, and most people fully support that sensible requirement.

Similarly, tariffs help level the playing field between offshore manufacturers that escape the extra burdens and costs of operating a business in America and providing jobs to Americans.  Requiring those foreign companies to pay more for the privilege of selling to American consumers is perfectly logical given how the foreigners have not been paying American taxes or complying with our regulations.

The resistance to tariffs comes from the same never-Trumpers who assured us that Trump could never be nominated or elected.  Peter Navarro noted that nearly all the other presidential candidates opposed Trump on trade, but “guess what?  He beat them.”

Thirty years ago, when Donald Trump was in his early 40s, his views on trade were much the same as they are now.  He told Larry King that he was “tired of watching other people ripping off the United States.”  He told Oprah, “I’d make our allies pay their fair share.”  

Trump told Letterman that nations such as Japan have “totally taken advantage of the country. I’m talking about the [trade] deficits. They talk about free trade [but] they dump the cars and everything else.”

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who supports the Trump tariffs, observed that “Free trade hasn’t worked well for West Virginia.” Maybe that explains why Trump carried West Virginia with 69 percent of the popular vote, a whopping 42-point margin over Hillary Clinton in that formerly Democratic state.

Just as entrenched politicians in D.C. have blocked Trump’s efforts to build a Wall, they also protest too much at his effort to impose a few tariffs.  Yet the approach of a tariff-less society has been a catastrophic failure for the American worker, so it is time to try the approach that originally made our country great.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously in 2016. These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Friday, March 2, 2018

The President is not a Monarch

Joseph Epstein writes a WSJ op-ed:
My son Mark, whose mind is more capacious, objective and generous than mine, nicely formulated the Donald Trump problem for thoughtful conservatives. “I approve of almost everything he has done,” my son remarked, “and I disapprove of almost everything he has said.” ...

I disapprove of the bragging tweets, the touchiness, the crude put-downs of anyone who disagrees with him ...

The presidency, like the monarchy in England, has a symbolic along with a practical aspect. ...

The obverse of Donald Trump’s presidency for me was that of Barack Obama. To flip my son’s formulation, I approved of almost everything Mr. Obama said, and I disapproved of almost everything he did. ...

I can easily imagine myself at lunch with Barack Obama, talking baseball, basketball, the University of Chicago, the intricacies of Chicago-style machine politics, whereas I cannot think of a single topic I might take up at a similar meal with Donald Trump.
No, the presidency is not like a monarchy.

If you agree with Epstein, then ask yourself: How would a President with Trump's policies ever get elected, without someone with a personality like Trump's?

Trump has had to tweet in order to get his message out, as the mainstream news media distorts everything about him.

Trump has had to abrasively challenge his enemies, as he would get destroyed otherwise.

Playing the role of a dopey nice guy worked well for Obama, but it would not have gotten us reversals of bad Democrat policies.