Friday, March 24, 2017

Another anti-Schlafly lawsuit

ABC News reports:
The daughter of outspoken conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly alleges in a new lawsuit that several of her brothers effectively diminished her inheritance by influencing their mother to amend a family trust before her death.

The amendment means all legal bills in ongoing litigation between the siblings will come out of Anne Schlafly Cori's share of the inheritance, according to the suit filed week in St. Louis County Circuit Court. Schlafly, who was 92 when she died in September, helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and founded the Eagle Forum political group.

One of her sons, Andrew Schlafly, described the most recent lawsuit as "frivolous," the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ( http://bit.ly/2nVeO4l ) reports. The New Jersey lawyer said in a statement Wednesday that Cori has "caused the waste of more than $1 million in legal fees, and she wants someone else to bear those massive costs."

The siblings and others were already entangled in litigation stemming from a fight over Phyllis Schlafly's political legacy. That fight came to a head last year, when the siblings split over support for Trump in the Republican primary. Phyllis Schlafly publicly backed Trump, a position at odds with Cori and other board members of the Eagle Forum, Schlafly's Alton-based conservative think tank.
Here is an online comment on the story:
JoAnn Schmitzer Jouett · Works at Eagle Trust Fund
Phyllis Schlafly was NOT a litigious person. In fact, she pointed out the egregious abuses by runaway courts and liberal judges, such as legislating from the bench and attempting to rewrite the Constitution. Phyllis asked her daughter NUMEROUS times to drop the original nonsensical lawsuit, but she, and the other five board members, refused. Phyllis was not unduly influenced by Ms. Cori's brothers, nor did she have some kind of failing mental capacity. She was doing live radio interviews up until one month before her death on the election, the Constitution, illegal immigration and other topics trending last summer, and I defy anyone to do a live interview without sounding like an idiot. Phyllis had to call the police to stop Ms. Cori's harrassing telephone calls to her home in the last months of her life. Who does Ms. Cori think is going to pay all the legal fees associated with the various lawsuits she keeps filing? Does she expect the money raised by her mother to fight for conservative causes to be used, in violation of the trust of the donors? Ms. Cori made her own bed, and now she must lie in it. Besides, she is supposedly a successful businesswoman in her own right and she married a man old enough to be her father who apparently has a lot of money. Why does she care? If she doesn't want her "inheritance" reduced, then she should drop the lawsuits and take her lumps as any of us would be expected to do.
I agree that the lawsuit is frivolous. Apparently has some sort of personal grudge, but she will not explain it to me.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Trump Puts Economic Nationalism on the Agenda

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

When President Trump pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in January, he was fulfilling a campaign promise. During last year’s campaign, Trump had repeatedly called the TPP a “disaster” for American workers, while ridiculing Hillary Clinton for calling it the “gold standard.”

“This wave of globalization has wiped out totally, totally our middle class,” Trump said last June to blue-collar workers at a scrap yard near Pittsburgh. “It doesn’t have to be this way. We can turn it around and we can turn it around fast.”

Despite Trump’s tough talk on trade during the campaign, many thought it would be back to business as usual for the “shadow government” of bureaucrats who run the government no matter who is elected. The multinational companies and international financial institutions have dominated our nation’s economic policy since the end of World War II.

The recently concluded meeting of G20 finance ministers shows just how different the Trump administration is going to be. The G20, or group of 19 industrialized countries plus the European Union, has been meeting annually since the 2008 financial crisis in an effort to decide economic policies for the whole world.

Representing the United States at the G20 meeting was newly installed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The former Goldman Sachs executive was not previously thought to be an economic nationalist, but he effectively delivered the president’s views to startled finance ministers of the other G20 countries.

The other members of the G20 wanted the United States to sign a joint statement declaring that “We will resist all forms of protectionism.” That sentence had been included in previous joint statements, and everyone thought it would be non-controversial.

Everyone, that is, except Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary, who recognized the word “protectionism” as a slap at the president’s pro-American policies, and would not stand for it. The message Mnuchin delivered was that the new administration intended to follow through on Trump’s campaign-trail promises.

“I understand what the president’s desire is and his policies and I negotiated them from here,” Mnuchin said at a news conference at the conclusion of the G20 meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany. “And we couldn’t be happier with the outcome.”
While Mnuchin was meeting German officials in Germany, President Trump was receiving German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Washington. “The United States has been treated very, very unfairly by many countries over the years,” Mr. Trump said before meeting with Merkel. “That’s going to stop.”

Trump tweeted, “Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!”

At the G20 meeting, Mnuchin succeeded on behalf of Trump in replacing the offending sentence, “We will resist all forms of protectionism,” with this improvement: “We are working to strengthen the contribution of trade to our economies.”

Germany’s finance minister expressed his frustration: “Sometimes you have to limit yourself at such a meeting to not asking too much of one partner. You cannot force partners to go along with wording they are not okay with. You can’t ask too much of him because he would then simply not agree to it.”

One of the most vocal advocates for preserving the anti-protectionism language was China, which is by far the most protectionist member of the G20. China does not obey the rules of free trade, but is perfectly willing to dump its merchandise on the United States as the world’s consumer of last resort.

The G20 finance ministers’ meeting is the precursor to another G20 meeting this summer in Hamburg, which President Trump is expected to attend in person. By that time, the United States will have reexamined old trade agreements that Steven Mnuchin said “need to be renegotiated.”

We got a clue about the Trump administration’s agenda when the president’s chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, spoke to the annual CPAC conference last month. Bannon said that the president’s goal is “deconstruction of the administrative state” consisting of the bureaucrats who set policy no matter which party is elected.

The “corporatist, globalist media are adamantly opposed to an economic nationalist agenda like Donald Trump has,” Bannon said. “I think if you look at the opposition party and how they portray the campaign, how they portrayed the transition and now they’re portraying the administration, it’s always wrong,”

Contrary to the globalist ideology, Bannon told CPAC, “we’re a nation with an economy — not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a reason for being.”

“If you think they’re going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken,” Bannon said in reference to the media and opposition forces. “Every day, it is going to be a fight.”

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6.

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Making American Civilization Great Again

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

Donald Trump’s effective use of Twitter has often dominated the news cycle, but a new tweet from Representative Steve King (R-IA) is giving the president a run for his money. On Sunday the 8-term Congressman from northwest Iowa tweeted, “culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”

The liberal media reacted in horror, which briefly distracted them from their “day job” of nonstop criticism of President Trump. A columnist for the Washington Post objected to King’s reference to “our” civilization as being distinct from “others,” while feminists predictably took offense at the suggestion that American women should have more babies.

Steve King’s belief that Americans have a distinct civilization, which is better than others and worth preserving, has a long and distinguished history. Alexis de Tocqueville noted it during his nine-month tour of America in 1831-32, which he summarized in his 1835 book Democracy in America: “The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional.”

A half century before Tocqueville’s tour, a French immigrant named Crèvecœur asked, “What is the American, this new man?” Crèvecœur’s Letters from an American Farmer, published in 1782 and widely circulated in Europe, explained that Americans were in the process of creating a remarkable new civilization.

Yet another Frenchman who recognized the preeminence of “our civilization” was the sculptor Frédéric Bartholdi, who created what the poet Emma Lazarus called “a mighty woman with a torch.” But Bartholdi never intended his Statue of Liberty to invite the world’s “huddled masses” to come here, and he would have been horrified that his masterpiece was hijacked to symbolize immigration.

Far from immigration, the statue’s title and theme is “Liberty Enlightening the World.” In other words, the statue means that other nations should learn from America’s success and try to replicate it in their own countries, not move here to share in its benefits without working for them.

Immigrants can be valuable members of our nation if they come in small numbers and assimilate to the culture, values, and civilization that our ancestors created for us. That doesn’t happen much anymore because so many powerful forces promote multiculturalism and separatism of immigrant groups, encouraging new immigrants to indulge in grievances and resentment for their alleged oppression by the white male patriarchy.

Unlike the great wave of immigration a century ago, today’s immigrants from poor countries tend to maintain their language, religion, and culture, even into the second and third generations. This is illustrated by a new report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which said that “most foreign-born, U.S.-based violent extremists likely radicalized several years after their entry to the United States.”

As the DHS report concludes, that has the effect of “limiting the ability of screening and vetting officials to prevent their entry because of National Security concerns.” Orlando, Chattanooga, and the Boston Marathon are just a few examples of first- and second-generation Muslim immigrants who became radicalized and committed terror attacks in our country or left to join the fight overseas.

Steve King is not backing down in the face of criticism, including the second part of his tweet which said that we can’t build a civilization with “somebody else’s babies.”

Speaking the next day on CNN, King elaborated: “You’ve got to keep your birth rate up, and you need to teach your children your values. “In doing so, you can grow your population, you can strengthen your culture, and you can strengthen your way of life.”

After the postwar baby boom collapsed around 1970, some began to think that immigrants could somehow substitute for the babies that Americans stopped having. The idea that immigrants will save Social Security has been debunked by research showing that low-skill, low-wage immigrants inevitably consume more benefits than they contribute to the system.

Steve King’s comments are especially timely as Congress considers a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. One of the most pernicious aspects of Obamacare was its insistence on defining abortion and contraception as “preventive care” which all health plans must provide to women with no co-pay or deductible.

“Preventing babies from being born is not medicine,” Steve King said in 2011, when Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate was being challenged by Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor. “That’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate we’re a dying civilization.”

Without backing down, Steve King tweeted “Let’s Make Western Civilization Great Again!” No one should take offense at that goal, given how much Western Civilization has achieved for the immense benefit of the entire world.

Immigration policy should build on the values of our culture, not change them. Immigration is no substitute for producing the next generation of Americans to carry on our great country.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6, 2016.

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Trump Battles the ‘Shadow Government’

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

The president of the United States is often called the most powerful man in the world, but the forces arrayed against Donald Trump are unprecedented. To the 63 million Americans who voted for him, the campaign to undermine President Trump is downright frightening.

The first sign of trouble came when the President’s national security adviser, Mike Flynn, was forced to resign. A telephone call between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador was wiretapped by one of our intelligence agencies, and its contents were leaked to the press.

We still don’t know if the Flynn wiretap was properly authorized by a court order, and Judicial Watch is suing to find out. But we do know that whoever leaked its secret contents to the press is guilty of a felony.

With blood in the water, the so-called deep state went to work to against Trump’s other appointees, such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions. As Rush Limbaugh commented, “They’re trying to isolate Trump from the people he trusts ... from the best people around him.”

The term “deep state” was coined to mean the permanent governing class, the people who really exercise power regardless of who is elected. Also known as the shadow government, the deep state includes our intelligence-collecting agencies such as the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI.

On his way out the door in January, Barack Obama made a drastic change in the way these intelligence agencies operate. As reported by the New York Times, Obama wanted to make sure that raw intelligence was widely shared across many government agencies, where it could then be easily leaked to the press.

With Obama’s support, according to the Times, “there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible, and to keep the reports at a relatively low level of classification, to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government.” This had the effect of leaving a “trail of bread crumbs,” a term borrowed from the children’s story of Hansel and Gretel, which “could be easily unearthed by investigators.”

The “bread crumbs” of unverified information were then leaked to the mainstream media, a vast industry devoted to generating “fake news” against President Trump and his supporters. As Steve Bannon said to the White House press corps, the media have become “the opposition party” to this president.

Barack Obama did not leave Washington for private life, as all of his recent predecessors have done. He remains on the scene to help lead the insurgency against Trump.

Barack and Michelle Obama moved into a $5 million mansion at 2446 Belmont Road, N.W., two miles from the White House. The house, which has 9 bedrooms and 9 bathrooms, is owned by Joe Lockhart, who was White House press secretary when Bill Clinton was impeached by the House in 1998.

Before moving in, contractors built a beautiful brick wall between the house and the street. The wall will protect the Obamas from anyone illegally entering their new home as they work to stop President Trump from building a “big, beautiful wall” on our southern border.

The Obamas’ new neighbors include Tony Podesta, brother of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta, who lives two doors away at 2438 Belmont, N.W. The Islamic Center of Washington, one of the largest mosques in the Western hemisphere, is a block and a half away.

Then came the news that Valerie Jarrett has also moved in with the Obamas. She has been living in the White House for the last eight years, and President Obama reportedly didn’t make a major decision without her input.

As the centerpiece of his post-presidential life of leading the resistance to Trump, Obama has restarted Organizing for Action, which was formed out of his 2012 reelection campaign. With its stated mission of “mobilizing and training the next generation of progressive organizers,” OFA claims 32,525 volunteers operating from more than 250 offices nationwide.

“OFA is dedicated to empowering progressive talent at every level. From first-time student organizers to organizing professionals and community leaders, we’re here to equip folks with the skills and tools that can help them turn their passion into action.”

We’ve seen what happens when leftwing community agitators “turn their passion into action.” On college campuses from Berkeley, California to Middlebury, Vermont, conservative scholars have been assaulted and property has been damaged by mask-wearing anarchists.

OFA apparently helped disrupt town hall meetings held by Republican members of Congress last month. According to a training manual uncovered by journalist Paul Sperry, OFA advised young progressives “do not all sit together” but spread out in pairs in order to “reinforce the impression of broad consensus” of constituents opposed to Republican ideas.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6, 2016.

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Trump has more support among Republicans

The NY Times reports:
Mr. Trump has more support among Republicans at this point in office than any president other than George W. Bush.

“While there were deep divisions in the Republican Party during the campaign, it is clear that the G.O.P. rank and file are well unified behind Trump,” said Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School poll.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

States Are Rejecting a ‘Horrible Idea’

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

Most state legislatures are now in regular session for a limited number of days, and there’s no shortage of important work to be done at the state level. Yet many state legislatures are wasting precious time on a scheme to change the U.S. Constitution by calling for a national convention.

Although it is theoretically allowed by Article V of our Constitution, a convention for proposing constitutional amendments has never been held, and there is no precedent to guide how it might work. That hasn’t stopped a small group of wealthy donors from spending an estimated ten million dollars on a path that would throw our Nation into a constitutional crisis.

Justice Antonin Scalia called it a “horrible idea” during the year before his untimely death. “This is not a good century to write a constitution,” Scalia warned in 2015, after spending 30 years defending our original Constitution on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Of the first eight state legislatures to consider the idea this year, all eight have rejected it. These states are Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

But the convention remains very much alive in Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott has made it an emergency item in the current legislative session. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who controls the agenda in the state senate, is also demanding its passage.

In Texas, where most elected officials are Republicans, the state Republican Party is on record favoring a national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution. That’s directly contrary to the Republican National Platform, after the national platform committee rejected a similar proposal by a nearly unanimous vote last summer in Cleveland.

Arizona would be the ninth state to reject the convention this year, if the state senate stands by its vote of 13-17 last Wednesday, February 22, to reject the Convention of States bill. But that legislation, HCR2010, continues to be pushed hard behind the scenes, and it could be revived due to a motion for reconsideration.

The campaign for a convention masquerades under the misleading slogan Convention of States, which falsely implies that states can exert some measure of control over the agenda, rules, or apportionment of a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution. In fact, all such powers are reserved to Congress or to the convention itself.

Rex Lee, the legendary Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, wrote that there’s no way to limit the scope of a constitutional convention to the single issue or issues stipulated by those who advocate it. Anyone who guarantees such a limited convention, Rex Lee added, “is either deluded or deluding.”

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger also warned against the false hope that an Article V convention can be limited. “The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda,” Burger wrote. “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”

In Utah, a Republican state senator who voted against the convention observed: “Even if we change the wording, unless we get people back there who are really committed to constitutional principles, we’ll have the same problem no matter what we do.” A Democratic state senator who also voted against the Convention of States added, “When you begin replacing Madison and Jefferson and Hamilton ... you’re going to need a lot of help.”

As Phyllis Schlafly once remarked, “Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons, Ben Franklins, or Alexander Hamiltons around who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers — and I’m worried about the men who think they can.” She is credited with defeating the push for a constitutional convention in the 1980s, and she considered those efforts to be as important as defeating the Equal Rights Amendment a decade earlier.

The Constitution says that only Congress may “call” a constitutional convention, so it would not be a “convention of states” but rather would be convened (called) under the direction of power-brokers in Washington, D.C. Congress or the Supreme Court would require the convention to be apportioned by population, which means big liberal states like California and New York would have greater power than most conservative states.

The Constitution itself has never been the problem, and changing it is not the solution. A constitutional convention would attempt to repeal or dilute the Second Amendment right to bear arms, eliminate the Electoral College, require tax-funded abortion, eliminate restrictions on immigration, and dilute the definition of citizenship.

The original Constitutional Convention of 1787 had three essential conditions: complete secrecy from the media, participants who fought in the American Revolution against tyranny, and George Washington presiding. None of those necessary conditions exist today.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6.

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

New Deportation Policies Advance Trump’s Agenda

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John Schlafly and Andy Schlafly

John F. Kelly, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, has launched Trump’s immigration agenda with a pair of memos officially released on Tuesday. These documents demonstrate how serious President Trump is in halting illegal immigration.

Contrary to the liberal hysteria sparked by these memos, they outline in measured tone the sensible steps to be taken to deport illegal aliens who are dangerous to our citizenry. The era of “big immigration” is officially over.

A six-page memo entitled “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest” is followed by its thirteen-page counterpart, “Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies.” Signed by Secretary Kelly, these formal documents lay the blueprint for rolling back the harmful immigration policies of the Obama Administration and firmly establishing much-needed national security for Americans.

The number of illegals deported by the Obama Administration in 2015 was the lowest amount in a decade, as merely 333,000 criminals were sent back home. That was down more than 20% from the number of deportations a few years earlier.

It was for political reasons that Obama cut back on deportations, in order to appease the liberal base who view illegals as future Democratic voters. Trump’s new guidelines do not change the law, but merely enforce immigration statutes that Obama refused to.

Secretary Kelly expands deportation to include illegal aliens who have been charged with the commission of a crime regardless of whether they have been convicted. If someone is in this country illegally, then that by itself is contrary to our laws, and our overburdened criminal justice system should not have to obtain a conviction against him before he is sent back to where he came from.

Often persons charged with crimes are out committing more crimes before they are convicted, as convictions can take many months or years to obtain. Also, taxpayers should not have to fund criminal defense attorneys to represent illegal aliens in our court system.

Sometimes wrongful acts are committed by illegal aliens that do not result in criminal charges, such as obtaining money by fraudulent means. These illegals should also be deported, and Trump’s new policy allows for that.

Illegal aliens who pose a risk to others or to the security of our nation should also be deported immediately without awaiting formal criminal charges or convictions. Secretary Kelly’s new policy sensibly authorizes government officials to make such determinations about illegal aliens and take prompt action to safeguard our country against them.

These reforms and others are entirely consistent with the executive orders issued by President Trump last month but improvidently blocked by federal courts. It is expected that new orders will soon be forthcoming from the President that do not give up any of these essential policies.

But enormous obstacles remain to implementation of Trump’s overdue reforms. Deportations still require hearings, and there is a backlog of a year-and-a-half for holding hearings on deportations that are already scheduled.

The alarm bells being sounded in some quarters are unjustified. An official for DHS explained on Tuesday that no mass deportations or roundups were being planned or even intended for the future.

Secretary Kelly’s directives properly advance two additional objectives of the Trump Administration. These new policies seek to reduce sanctuary areas for illegal aliens, and encourage local police to assist in the implementation of our immigration laws.

Until now, sanctuary cities that harbor illegals have been taking federal dollars with impunity, and an analysis by Reuters reveals that the top ten sanctuary cities receive $2.27 billion in federal aid. Yet a recent Harvard-Harris poll found that 80% of Americans oppose the policies of sanctuary cities.

Many local law enforcement programs for dealing with illegal aliens were suspended or not enforced during the Obama Administration. The vast majority of cities and towns across America have police who want to rid their communities of the crime brought in by illegal immigration, but could not do so for the past eight years.

Secretary Kelly indicated that the Trump Administration will restore programs that facilitate cooperation between local and federal law enforcement with respect to apprehending and removing illegal aliens. Specifically, Trump is reinitiating the Secure Communities and 287(g) programs, which authorize police to act like immigration agents and which allow continued imprisonment of illegals suspected of having committed crimes, before they are handed over to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

Within hours of the announcement of Secretary Kelly’s new policies, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations criticized New York City for releasing from confinement an illegal alien who is a self-described member of a violent street gang. Fortunately ICE was able to track down and arrest him again for deportation.

Trump promised to take strong action against illegal immigration, and he is. We applaud these significant steps forward by the Trump Administration.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6.

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Ames tribute to Phyllis

Bobbie Ames wrote an obituary of Phyllis Schlafly, and it was just republished:
The New York Times called her the “First Lady of a Political March to the Right.” I called her my treasured friend of more than 50 years. I also called her my inspiration and motivation, as I learned so much through the decades about political action and the passion required to “hang in there” in the world of politics.

Phyllis Schlafly was a model, not just to me, but to women all over America. Her priorities: God, Family, and Country. She was stalwart in her Christian world view, which guided her passion for the Pro-Life movement. I dare not think of where we would be had she not championed that cause so early, so consistently, and passionately. The recent Republican National Convention passed the most conservative platform in decades, and she was right there to make sure that it was just so. Many delegates were there participating because of their relationship with Phyllis, who truly educated them over decades.

Phyllis Schlafly was an Educator of the First Order. Her Phyllis Schlafly Reports went monthly, for many decades, to grass roots activists as did her newsletter, the Education Reporter. There is no way to estimate the impact that she has had in every single state in America as an Educator. ...

Having her as a treasured friend and mentor, is one of the great blessings of my life. Paying tribute to her life and legacy is a privilege. I pray that Eagles will “continue to fly” in this nation taking the lessons from Phyllis’ life and ministry, guided by God’s Holy Word.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Trump book cites 1964 Schlafly book

Roger Stone writes, in an excerpt from his latest book:
In her self-published 1964 book, “A Choice Not an Echo,” conservative luminary Phyllis Schlafly argued that Dewey lost in 1948 because he was a “me too” candidate who refused to criticize Truman sharply for the New Deal, failing to take on the president directly for his liberal ideology while shying away from arguing strong conservative policy alternatives. Schlafly believed that if Dewey had gone after Truman vigorously while arguing for strong conservative politics, the message would have been well-received by voters in 1948, a time when the nation was emerging from the Depression and World War II. In 2016, Schlafly was one of the first conservative leaders to endorse Trump, authoring her latest book, “The Conservative Case for Trump,” in which she defined what was to become known as the “Trump movement.”

Friday, February 17, 2017

Wanting a Deep State Coup

President Trump is trying to drain the swamp, but there is pleny of opposition from so-called conservatives.

Breitbart reports:
Former CIA operative and 2016 third-party presidential candidate Evan McMullin took to Twitter and CNN on Wednesday to defend rogue intelligence agents who break the law to leak classified information, saying President Donald Trump “presents a threat to the country.” ...

On Tuesday, Weekly Standard editor-at-large Bill Kristol expressed similar sentiments, and appeared, in theory, to endorse a coup by the “deep state” against the “Trump state.”
Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) February 14, 2017
And from a week ago:
Mr. Kristol then shifted to the idea, first reported by The Daily Caller, that many white Americans have become complacent and “lazy.”

“Look, to be totally honest, if things are so bad as you say with the white working class, don’t you want to get new Americans in?” Mr. Kristol said. “You can make a case that America has been great because every — I think John Adams said this — basically if you are in free society, a capitalist society, after two or three generations of hard work, everyone becomes kind of decadent, lazy, spoiled — whatever.”

“Then, luckily, you have these waves of people coming in from Italy, Ireland, Russia, and now Mexico, who really want to work hard and really want to succeed and really want their kids to live better lives than them and aren’t sort of clipping coupons or hoping that they can hang on and meanwhile grew up as spoiled kids and so forth. In that respect, I don’t know how this moment is that different from the early 20th Century.”
So let me get this straight. Kristol controls a leading conservative state, and he favors replacing the American white population with non-white foreigners, and replacing our elected political leaders with secretive internationalist spooks?

Judges interfere with national security

The PS Report has warned of the dangers of supremacist judges trying to erase Trump administration policy, but the threat may be understated.

Law professor Eric Posner (and son of the famous judge) writes:
In a post on the Ninth Circuit travel ban case, Washington v. Trump, I observed that when the case goes back to the district court, the court will determine whether Trump acted from anti-Muslim animus. If it so finds, then any future national-security action will be subject to an extra layer of judicial review, potentially interfering with the president’s ability to protect the public. “We may have a new regime of heightened judicial review in national security cases because courts believe the president is a bigot.”

Now we get to find out. A district court in Virginia made just this determination in a case called Aziz v. Trump. She declared the national-security justification for the travel ban a sham, and found sufficient evidence of anti-Muslim animus on Trump’s part to issue a preliminary injunction.

The judge denied that her ruling would “render every policy that the president makes related to Muslim-majority countries open to challenge” because the Court’s ruling was based on a particular “sequence of events.” Yet earlier in the opinion, she quoted the Supreme Court’s statement that the “world is not made brand new every morning.” Trump’s statements from his campaign are therefore relevant to the question of whether the travel ban was motivated by animus. But then why won’t they also be relevant to his future anti-Muslim actions? Answer: they will be.
In other words, the judges will declare President Trump a bigot and use that as an excuse to flood the USA with migrants from Moslem countries.

I think that these judges have some anti-Trump and anti-American animus.

Thursday, February 16, 2017

Trump Defense

Top Eagle Ed Martin now posts at Ed Martin - Trump Defense over at Newsmax.com.

A news story gives some of the background behind Martin's role in the Eagle organizations:
In October, a Madison County, Illinois judge issued an order suspending Martin from the presidency of the organization, and giving its board control of the group.

Anne Schlafly Cori told AMI the final outcome of that lawsuit is still pending.

Cori said Martin’s "Phyllis Schlafly's American Eagles," sued the Eagle Forum in federal court for trademark infringement.

Cori said despite the judge’s order, the Eagle Forum still does not have control over all its assets.
No, that is not quite right. Cori filed the lawsuit against Eagle Forum C4 and another lawsuit against Phyllis Schlafly's American Eagles. Her lawsuit has gotten control of the Eagle Forum C4 bank accounts, but not those of the Eagle Forum C3, the Phyllis Schlafly Report, the American Eagles, and other activities.
Martin said Cori and her fellow board members were conducting a “classic hostile takeover” of the organization Phyllis Schlafly built.

Martin said they were angry that Schlafly supported Donald Trump’s ultimately successful bid for the GOP presidential nomination, adding that Cori and others were all “very strong for [Texas senator] Ted Cruz.”

“Look at the other issues Eagle Forum has been involved in over the years,” Martin said. “Eagle Forum has always been a leading opponent of a constitutional convention. Ted Cruz and others are strong backers of the convention of the states, which is the same thing.”

Andy Schlafly agreed.

“All six of the Gang were strident anti-Trumpers,” Schlafly said, “and most of them stayed that way throughout the year.”

“But they eventually realized that issue wasn't helping them with Eagle Forum membership, so they switched to trying unfairly to demonize Ed Martin,” Schlafly said.

“But membership overwhelmingly supports Ed Martin, so that hasn't helped the Gang of 6 either,” he said.

Cori said her organization intends to move forward with its agenda items, and believes “we are in a very strong position legally going forward.”
Her main agenda was to try to attract anti-Trump Schlafly Eagle followers, and to use lawsuits to seize bank accounts. All she really has to show for her work is that "very strong position legally" to seize the Eagle Forum C4 bank accounts.

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Judges Join the ‘Resistance’

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

Judge Leonie Brinkema of Alexandria, Virginia has become the latest federal judge to join the “resistance” to Donald Trump. She joins Judge James Robart of Seattle, whose political decisionruling against Trump was upheld by three judges of the Ninth Circuit.

Resistance has become the rallying cry for those who failed to defeat Trump at the ballot box last year. The well-funded Center for American Progress, which employs people connected with Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, said it hoped to be “the central hub of the Trump resistance.”

Resistance to Trump began on November 9, the day after the election, when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threatened to “see him in court” where it promised to unleash its “full firepower” to stop Trump. Resistance is the theme of the anarchists who sparked violent protests against Trump, including smashed windows and fires, from Berkeley, California to Washington, D.C.

Like Judge Robart before her, Judge Brinkema did not bother to cite any relevant law that supports her opinion against Trump's executive order being carried out. Instead, her opinion complained that campaign speeches by Trump and one of his surrogates, Rudolph Giuliani, revealed the President’s “religious prejudice” against Muslims.

Both judges falsely claimed there’s no “evidence” that suspending travel from 7 Muslim countries would protect Americans from terrorism, and Judge Robart even said that no visitor or refugee from any of the 7 countries had ever been arrested for terrorism. In fact, 72 individuals from those 7 countries have been convicted of terror-related crimes since September 11, 2001.

The list of 72 individuals, including at least one from each of the 7 countries on Trump’s list, was compiled last year by a Senate subcommittee led by former Senator Jeff Sessions, who is now our Attorney General. At least 17 of the convicted arrived in the United States as refugees, and at least 25 of them eventually became U.S. citizens.

Just four months ago, an Iraqi refugee who came here in 2009 was convicted of trying to help ISIS by setting off bombs at two shopping malls in Houston. “I want to travel to be with those who are against America,” the Iraqi refugee wrote. “I am against America.”

The opinions of the two federal judges, Robart and Brinkema, constituted overreaching beyond the legitimate constitutional boundaries of the federal judiciary. That’s why the “disheartening” remark reportedly made by Trump’s nominee for to fill Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch, was a cause for concern among conservatives.

Certainly Justice Scalia would never have whined that criticism of judges was “disheartening” or “demoralizing,” another wimpy word from Judge Gorsuch. Scalia himself often used scathing language about other judges, such as the time he wrote that “I would hide my head in a bag” rather than join an opinion of his colleague, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

President Trump has at least one appointee vocal on this topic, White House policy adviser Stephen Miller, who did a round of Sunday interviews. Miller astutely observed that said of the Judge Robart’s decision was a “judicial usurpation of power” because “it is a violation of judges’ proper role in litigating disputes.”

Defending Trump’s Twitter attack on “the opinion of this so-called judge” on Twitter, Miller said, “We don’t have judicial supremacy in this country. Of course one branch can criticize another branch of government.”'

Precisely 20 years ago, Phyllis Schlafly wrote against the growing problem of judicial supremacy in her monthly Phyllis Schlafly Report. "The most important duty of the 105th Congress is to protect America from judicial usurpation and restore our constitutional balance of powers among the three branches of our government,” she wrote then in words that ring just as true today.

“The Senate and House Judiciary Committees should hold extensive hearings on various proposals to stop the usurpation of power by the federal courts,” Phyllis continued. “Congress's investigative function is one of its most important duties, and now is the time to use it” with respect to the usurpation by the courts.

If Congress fails to act, however, it is incumbent on the executive branch to check-and-balance overreaching by another branch of government. The power of the executive branch to take action against foreigners seeking entry into our Nation is central to its constitutional authority.

Presidents Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln all properly stood up against overreaching by the federal judiciary, setting precedents for future presidents to do likewise. Even liberal favorite President Franklin Delano Roosevelt drafted a speech to justify his decision to defy an adverse Supreme Court ruling in the Gold Clause Cases, if the Court ultimately chose to invalidate the government's abrogation of gold clauses in federal obligations. The Court then backed down.

President Ronald Reagan was tested early in office by the Air Traffic Controllers strike, and he rose to the challenge. So should President Trump.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6.

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Trump versus the Judge

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John Schlafly and Andy Schlafly

Donald Trump won the presidency fair and square, but there’s a well-funded movement to resist his victory and defy the new president’s authority over the executive branch of our government. Now one federal judge, who sits nearly 3,000 miles away in the “other” Washington, has raised the stakes by ordering federal bureaucrats to disobey a lawful order by President Trump.

Judge James L. Robart’s reckless ruling shocked legal scholars because in so many previous decisions, courts have recognized the president’s power to keep aliens out of the United States. If taken literally, the judge’s ruling gives everyone in the world the right to sue in our courts for the right to enter and remain in our country.

“Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,” Trump tweeted from Mar-a-Lago. “If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”

A few minutes later, he tweeted again: “I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!”

It should be obvious that we need to pause the admission of refugees and others from known terror havens, and Donald Trump was elected on a promise to institute a temporary ban followed by “extreme vetting” of future visitors. The America people are entitled to get what we voted for.

Orlando, San Bernardino, and Chattanooga are just a few of our cities scarred by atrocities committed by refugees or aliens from known hotbeds of terrorism, or by their spouses or children who grew up among us. The bombers of the Boston Marathon were sons of refugees, and the recent attack at Ohio State University was committed by an 18-year-old refugee from Somalia.

“What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?” read another Trump tweet. “When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security - big trouble!”

The president’s commonsense views, so recently endorsed by the American people, received no respect from the federal judge in Seattle. Although nominally appointed by President George W. Bush in 2004, Judge Robart was actually selected for his job by Washington’s two Democratic U.S. Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

In the most offensive part of his ruling, the judge accepted the crazy argument that Washington State has the right to protect its own “residents” (not citizens) against the legitimate enforcement of federal law. The Supreme Court rejected that idea in the 1960s, when South Carolina tried to escape the federal Voting Rights Act, and it should do so again in this case.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that aliens outside the United States have no right to sue to enter our country. The President can even revoke their visas if he believes it is in the national interest to do so. And if the aliens themselves have no right to sue, no one else has the right to sue on their behalf.

The famous Quinnipiac poll recently sampled 899 registered voters, finding that by a margin of 48 percent to 42 percent, voters support “suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees.” By a margin of 53 percent to 41 percent, voters also said they would support requiring immigrants from Muslim-majority nations to register with American officials.

Rasmussen reported similar results from its poll of 1,000 likely voters, with 57 percent supporting a temporary halt on refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian and Yemen while only 33 percent were opposed. The president’s proposal was supported by 82 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of independents and 34 percent of Democrats.

Newsweek magazine sent a reporter to Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which flipped from supporting Obama by 5 points in 2012 to a 20-point victory for Trump in 2016. Voters there overwhelmingly support the President’s policy, with one former Bernie Sanders supporter saying of Trump: “I don’t think he’s picked out a religion, he’s picked out countries that need more vetting,”

While the President’s executive order works its way through the courts, the Syrian-born mayor of Prospect Park, New Jersey, signed his own executive order that prohibits the use of “any Borough funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law.” The defiant refugee from Aleppo proves the truth of Ann Coulter’s recent comment: “We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too.”

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6.

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.


Thursday, February 2, 2017

Trump has a governing ideology

After several confused cover stories on Donald Trump, Time magazine has suddenly discovered that he has policy proposals:
it is now apparent that President Donald J. Trump actually has a governing ideology. His Inaugural Address, the strongest and most coherent speech he's ever delivered, was a clear statement of that philosophy. It may change the shape of domestic politics. It may overturn the international order that has existed for 70 years. ...

Here's the crucial paragraph: "For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries, while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military. We've defended other nations' borders while refusing to defend our own; and spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay."

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Trump Ejects Obama Holdover

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

Last Friday was Donald Trump’s seventh full day as President, but there was no time to rest. At 4:42 p.m., just as many federal bureaucrats were starting the weekend, Trump signed executive orders that carry out his pledge to temporarily restrict travel from Muslim terrorist nations, including Syria and Somalia, until we come up with a better way to identify those who would do us harm.

Under the new policy, the privilege of visiting the United States would be suspended for 90 days for citizens of 7 of the most dangerous Muslim nations. Refugee admissions would be suspended for 120 days, andSyrian refugees would be suspended indefinitely.

“We’ve taken in tens of thousands of people,” Trump said. “We know nothing about them. How can you vet somebody when you don’t know anything about them and they have no papers?”

“We have enough problems,” Trump continued. “I am going to be the president of a safe country.”

Over the weekend, thousands of apparently organized protesters disrupted airports and delayed travelers around the country, while ACLU lawyers rushed papers before Obama-appointed judges. More Americans were inconvenienced by the protesters than the handful of foreign visitors who were briefly detained by U.S. customs and immigration officials.

On Sunday Chuck Schumer, the new Senate minority leader, cried crocodile tears as he denounced “this evil order.” As President Trump commented to laughter from the media, “There’s a 5 percent chance they’re real. I think they were fake tears.”

Federal employees returned to work on Monday, and some were fired up to resist the new president’s policy. At the State Department, bureaucrats were circulating a “dissent memo” which included the sanctimonious phrase “We are better than this.”

At the Justice Department, an Obama holdover named Sally Q. Yates has been the Acting Attorney General while Senator Jeff Sessions awaits Senate confirmation as our nation’s 84th Attorney General. As a merely acting official, serving temporarily in a job to which she was not confirmed, she was supposed to be a temporary caretaker, not a policy maker.

On Monday afternoon, Yates announced that “for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order.” By early evening, Sally Yates was no longer the Acting Attorney General.

When President Obama issued his executive orders known as DACA and DAPA, which directly violated our immigration laws by granting work permits to illegal aliens, his Justice Department defended them all the way to the Supreme Court. When President Trump issues executive orders upholding our immigration laws passed by Congress, government lawyers refuse to defend them, undermining the rule of law.

Defending the temporary suspension of entry by non-U.S. citizens, White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller pointed out that “No citizen of a foreign country has a constitutional right to enter the United States.” Otherwise, anyone who is denied a visa to visit our country could sue for the massive benefits that the taxpayers provide to citizens and legal residents.

Stephen Miller also warned of the “permanent intergenerational problem of Islamic radicalism” that has transformed much of Europe into no-go zones for native Europeans. We should be concerned about similar pockets of unassimilated immigrants in our country, such as Minnesota’s large concentration of refugees from Somalia.

President Trump quickly replaced the defiant acting Attorney General Yates with a U.S. Attorney who would defend his appropriate executive order limiting foreign citizens from seven Muslim nations from entering into our country. Trump appointed Dana J. Boente, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who said he will enforce Trump’s order.

An Attorney General who served under President George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, pointed out that Yates should have resigned from her position if she disagreed with Trump’s executive order about immigration from certain nations associated with terrorism. Yates could have attempted to persuade Trump to change the order if she disagreed with it, and she should have then resigned if she did not want to enforce it.

Instead, the Obama-appointed Yates sent out a blanket order to all attorneys in the Department of Justice not to defend an order by the President, for whom Yates and all Department of Justice attorneys work.

Defiance by Democrats continued in the Senate in their unprecedented walking out of committee votes on two of Trump’s nominations to his Cabinet, Rep. Tom Price for the Department of Health & Human Services and Steven Mnuchin for the Treasury Department. Both nominees have majority support on the Senate Finance Committee and in the entire Senate, but the Democrats resorted to stall tactics to delay their confirmation.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), one of the longest-serving and most mild-mannered members of the U.S. Senate, criticized the stunt as “the most pathetic thing I’ve seen in my whole time in the United States Senate. I think they [the Democrats] ought to stop posturing and acting like idiots.”

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6.

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Women want to stay home with kids

The NY Times reports:
Why Women Quit Working: It’s Not for the Reasons Men Do ...

Certainly women who have dropped out are not typically encumbered in the same ways as many men. They are much less likely to have a criminal record or a disability. They are getting college degrees in greater numbers, and many of the sectors that they have traditionally dominated — lower-paid service jobs — are growing compared with middle-class occupations where men have ruled. Nor are they whiling away their jobless hours playing video games, which some economists suspect is helping to lure men away from the time clock.

But women are still the primary caregivers — for children, aging parents and ailing relatives.

“Child care, that’s my main thing,” Krystin Stevenson said, explaining why she had not yet returned to the work force.

Hardly any men who have dropped out say it is because they are helping with children or other family members, said Nicholas Eberstadt, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Maybe this is news to the NY Times, but it has been true for centuries.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

The Darkness of the Women’s March

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump’s inaugural address was well received by the people who voted for him, but the media reacted with predictable hostility as the plain-spoken non-politician repeated the themes he used so successfully during the campaign. Newspapers called the speech dark, a word that was repeated by almost every reporter.

Trump was certainly blunt about the challenges facing our country, but his address was sweetness and light compared to the truly dark rhetoric of those who demonstrated in Washington the following day. It was billed as the “Women’s March” on Washington, but it featured every kooky cause you ever heard of (and several you probably haven’t).

Speakers at the “Women’s March” were consumed with the grievances of those who think they are oppressed by institutional prejudice. They were obsessed with the rights of illegal immigrants, Black Lives Matter, Muslims, refugees, and unusual sexual preferences.

Abortion was repeatedly celebrated at the march, which was co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood. Most speakers used the euphemism “reproductive rights,” although one speaker, Kierra Johnson, said “I am unapologetically abortion positive.”

A speaker named America Ferrera announced, “As a first-generation American born to Honduran immigrants, it has been a heart wrenching time to be a woman in this country. Our rights have been under attack. Our freedom is on the chopping block for the next four years.” Doesn’t Ms. Ferrera realize how fortunate she is to be a woman born in the United States, instead of Honduras?

Muriel Bowser, the self-proclaimed “chick mayor” of Washington, D.C., “soon to be the 51st state” (not!), said: “Mayors have to stand up for immigration rights, for reproductive rights, for LGBTQ rights. We have to stand up to fight climate change from the mayor’s office.”
The next speaker, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, seemed out of place as he told the mostly female audience to “call Congress on Monday and tell your Senators we do not accept Betsy DeVos as our Secretary of Education.” Conservative women were not welcome at the Women’s March.

Actress Ashley Judd kept repeating “I’m a nasty woman” among other vulgar chants. “I feel Hitler in these streets,” she continued, as she raged against “racism, homophobia, trans-phobia, misogyny, and white privilege.”

Zahra Billoo, speaking on behalf of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said: “I am an American Muslim woman, a daughter of immigrants, a person of color, a community organizer, and a civil rights lawyer. I am proud to be among Donald Trump’s worst nightmares.”

She went on: “Our liberation is interconnected. When Muslims are harassed by the FBI, when our LGBTQ friends are attacked in hate crimes, when our black brothers and sisters are gunned down by police officers, when what is left of native land continues to be stolen, and when undocumented individuals among us are targeted, we all hurt. But we are also fired up.”

The next speaker was Janet Mock, who proclaimed: “I stand here as someone who has written herself onto this stage to unapologetically proclaim that I am a trans woman-writer-activist-revolutionary of color.” Janet Mock, it turns out, used to be Charles Mock before he had surgery in Thailand to mutilate his male anatomy.

By her own account, Janet Mock’s Siamese surgery was financed with money that Charles had earned as a teenage prostitute, or as Janet now says, a “sex worker.” Do American women really have something to learn from that bizarre experience?

“Our approach to freedom must be intersectional,” Mock continued. “My liberation is directly linked to the liberation of the undocumented trans Latina yearning for refuge, the disabled student seeking unequivocal access, the sex worker fighting to make her living safely.”

Mock was referring to the trendy doctrine of intersectional feminism, which defines the feminist movement within a general theory that all minority groups are victims of oppression by white men. That explains why 82-year-old Gloria Steinem was almost the only non-minority on the program.

Signs proclaimed “refugees welcome” and many speakers referred to them. Why refugees at a women’s march? These things don’t happen by accident: a tax-funded refugee contractor helped sponsor the march.

“If you are coming to the March, join our HIAS delegation and speak out in support of refugees. HIAS will provide signs and stickers,” according to the website of an organization that receives more than half of its income from U.S. taxpayers.

Other tax-funded agencies were there, too. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards organized a mass call-in to members of Congress to keep the funds flowing to her organization from which she draws a salary of well over $500,000 a year.

One demonstrator, who apparently didn’t get the memo about intersectional grievances, carried a homemade sign that read: “Women are foolish to think they are equal to men. They are far superior.”

Yes, women are superior to men in some ways, because only they can bring us the future by bearing children. But to make that future a brighter one requires defense of motherhood, something that a real women’s march (the March for Life) does this Friday.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6.

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

St. Louis article on Eagle split

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports:
ST. LOUIS • The late conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly formed her storied national grass-roots organization, the St. Louis-area-based Eagle Forum, more than 40 years ago.

It took one 40-minute phone call last April for it to start coming apart. ...

It will all be on display in the St. Louis area this week, when two groups of people who each claim to be the real heirs to Schlafly’s movement hold concurrent events a few miles apart.
One side had the blessing of Phyllis Schlafly, while the other side sued to cut her off from the organization she founded.
“I’m very sorry to say my mother was isolated from her best friends in the last six months of her life,” Cori said in an interview last week. “There were a number of people who were banned from seeing her.”

She added: “I had no conflict with my brothers before the advent of Ed Martin.”
I am one of those brothers, and our mother was not isolated from any of her friends. Except for the last couple of weeks of her life, any of her friends could call her or visit her at any time.

I had nothing to do with Ed Martin. He was hired by the Eagle Forum boards, and could have been similarly fired, if the boards were unhappy with him.

The bigger issue is Donald Trump, not Martin:
“We have no respect for that man [Trump],” former longtime Texas Eagle Forum President Cathie Adams told the Dallas Morning News shortly after Trump’s St. Louis event. “[Schlafly’s endorsement] is going to be widely dismissed. At 91, it is just totally unfair to impose upon someone who has such a beautiful legacy.”

Without naming Martin, Adams added that “I think this was very much a manipulation. When you’re 91 and you’re not out with the grass-roots all the time, it is very much taking advantage of someone.”
So this gang of 6 is attempting a hostile takeover of Eagle Forum c4 because they hate Trump and they hate Martin.

It was absolutely Phyllis Schlafly's own personal intention to endorse Donald Trump. She wrote articles and gave interviews about how he was the right man in 2016, just as Ronald Reagan was the right man in 1980. She coauthored a book with Martin. No one could have manipulated her into such a decision, if she did not want to.

President Trump just thanked Phyllis Schlafly in a speech Thursday evening. The NeverTrumpers are certainly not the heirs to her movement.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Trump thanks Phyllis

Here is the video:
Donald Trump thanks Phyllis Schlafly during the Inauguration VIP Dinner for her early support of him in the 2016 campaign.