Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American”

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

It is not enough to “buy American.” It is also important to “hire American,” which means curtailing corporate abuse of the H-1B visa program that gives our good jobs to foreigners.

President Donald Trump traveled to Wisconsin on Tuesday to deliver on his campaign pledge to limit the H-1B visa program that allows employers to bring in lower-cost foreign labor to fill American jobs. President Trump’s new Executive Order to “Buy American, Hire American” starts to roll back the failed policies of his predecessors, which has cost American workers attractive jobs and has driven down wages for everyone.

Despite unemployment rates at or below 5 percent for nearly two years, wages for Americans are actually declining when adjusted for inflation. The average American’s paycheck is less than what it was last year, after inflation is factored in, and many are choosing not to work due to a lack of good-paying jobs, particularly in engineering and manufacturing.

Many engineering jobs have been going to foreigners under the H-1B visa program, which allows corporations to bring in tens of thousands of foreign workers annually to work for less, thereby driving down the wages of all Americans. While there is an official cap to this program of “only” 85,000 workers per year, the law has loopholes that allow employers to ignore the cap and replace many tens of thousands of additional American workers with foreigners.

Phyllis Schlafly rightly criticized the H-1B program beginning more than 15 years ago. “Employers want aliens with H-1B visas not only because they can pay them less than U.S. technicians, but especially because the H-1B visas lock them into sticking with the sponsoring employer and prevent them from job-hopping for better pay as Americans do” she observed in 2001.

“Why is it taking you five years to get through college?” Phyllis asked a student attending one of her college speeches, of which she gave many hundreds. “Because I changed my major from computer science to accounting after I discovered there are almost no jobs available for computer majors,” the student responded.

The misuse of the H-1B visa program has extended even to Walt Disney World, which has reportedly used it to replace information technology American workers with foreign ones. To add insult to injury, often the laid-off American workers are even told to train their foreign replacements.

If you have a son or grandson who dreams of playing major league baseball, his chances are far less today because foreign players are hired instead. More than 25% of the high-paying baseball jobs go to foreigners under P-1 visas not subject to the H-1B visa caps, despite how Japan sharply limits the number of foreign players it allows to play in its major league.

Manufacturer and software developer Snap-on Inc. is located in Kenosha, Wisconsin, right smack in House Speaker Paul Ryan’s district, but he is away on a foreign trip instead. Snap-on welcomes Tuesday’s visit by President Trump instead, to promote “the essential nature of American manufacturing to our nation’s future.”

Essential indeed. Without renewed growth in good manufacturing and technology jobs, America will continue to decline economically, with middle-class men and their families hit the hardest.

President Trump is ordering the Secretary of Commerce to review provisions in the harmful “free trade” agreements, to close loopholes on this issue. Trump’s directive will also require reforms of the H-1B visa program to limit bypassing skilled American workers.

Corporations prefer foreign workers because they become like the indentured servants of colonial America, who were unable to leave their master for seven years under threat of being shipped back to where they came from. H-1B visas tie the workers to the companies that brought them into our country, which reduces competition and harms the free market.

The H-1B visa racket is not true free enterprise, and it is not healthy for the United States. President Trump’s action in Wisconsin is a good first step, and Congress should take the cue and repeal this program entirely.

President Trump’s Executive Order will also enhance the use of American goods in federal construction and transportation projects, which typically support high-paying jobs. If taxpayers are funding the project, then it obviously makes sense to use American goods for it.

Only 71 percent of young adults, aged 25 to 34, who did not go to college were employed in 2016, and only about 85 percent of their counterparts who hold college degrees had a job. Moreover, many of those who had a job were paid low wages in the retail or food industries.

Donald Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate to win Wisconsin in more than 30 years, as part of his historic sweep of the Rust Belt States. The Badger State is the perfect place to begin reducing the flow of American jobs to foreigners.

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, April 11, 2017

Fourth Circuit ‘Lawyers Up’ Against Trump

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

“Lawyer up” refers to hiring a bunch of lawyers to address an emerging dispute. An example was when President Bill Clinton “lawyered up” to deal with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has just “lawyered up” in order to take on Donald Trump’s second travel ban, Executive Order 13,780, which is on appeal from a federal district court in Maryland. The Fourth Circuit has convened an en banc (full sitting) of its lawyers-turned-judges to consider this standoff between the courts and the President of the United States, in International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump.

It is nearly unheard of for a court to convene en banc to consider an initial federal appeal. More than 99% of federal appeals are heard by a three-judge panel chosen at random from among the judges who sit on that particular federal appellate court.

But there are several reasons why the Fourth Circuit broke from tradition and insists on all its active judges hearing this case from the get-go. The current composition of this appellate court reveals why.

From its headquarters in Richmond, the Fourth Circuit presides over Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and North and South Carolina. Historically the Fourth was the most conservative Circuit in the entire Nation, featuring judges handpicked by Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC).

But today the Fourth is one of the most liberal of the 13 federal circuit courts, stacked with 10 Democrats against only 5 Republicans on active service, and no vacancies. President Obama placed 6 judges on the Fourth Circuit, all in his first term alone.

By insisting on going en banc at the outset, this Democrat-dominated court ensures that Trump will not draw a Republican majority on a three-judge panel, which would have been possible under the ordinary process. Instead, Trump will be looking at a group of judges more liberal on social issues than the voters in California, where Trump lost by 62-32%.

Another likely reason why the Fourth Circuit took this extraordinary step was to muscle up for its stand-off with the commander in chief. It will be easier to rule against the Chief Executive with the support of ten judges than merely with only two or three.

That’s more judges than the entire U.S. Supreme Court, which will almost certainly get the appeal one day. The Fourth Circuit, however, can take as long as it likes with this case, and could easily wait until just before the midterm elections next year before slapping Trump down with another judicial supremacist ruling.

The federal district court ruled that Trump’s executive order limiting travel from six Muslim-majority countries was probably a violation of the Establishment Clause, and the court enjoined it on that basis. The lower court said that statements made by candidate Trump reflected an animus towards Muslims, and thus as President he would not be allowed to protect our Nation from possible terrorists with this travel ban.

The district court issued its injunction nationwide, even though it sits only in Maryland. The court insisted that no one would be hurt by the injunction, although people have been hurt and killed by individuals entering our Nation from the designated foreign countries.

At issue is a mere 90-day ban on travel by citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, to the United States. One may wonder why foreigners even have a right to challenge an order of the President of the United States concerning entry into our country.

Included among the plaintiffs were American citizens and lawful permanent residents who sponsored relatives living in one of the six designated countries for immigrant visas to the United States. These plaintiffs assert that they will be injured if their relatives cannot visit them here.

But why don’t these plaintiffs travel abroad to visit with their relatives there instead? Or, perhaps better yet, why don’t they seek a waiver as allowed by Trump’s Second Executive Order?

The court found that the waiver process imposes an additional hurdle to “reunification” of these families, and thus the court allowed the relatives here to sue on behalf of their kin there. In addition, the court found that Muslim lawful residents here could sue to overturn the travel ban based on “fear, anxiety, and insecurity” due to Trump’s allegedly anti-Muslim views.

As Phyllis Schlafly observed a decade ago in The Supremacists, “Textbooks still say that we have three balanced branches of government — but textbooks are badly behind the times because one branch has assumed authority over the other two.” This overreaching in power by the judicial branch will not be rectified by appointing a few good judges to the bench.

Instead, Trump’s advisers need to realize that the courts will block Trump and drive down his approval rating again and again. Congress should simply withdraw jurisdiction from the courts over the travel ban, and Trump’s executive branch should decline to enforce unconstitutional court orders that interfere with our national security.

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.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Phyllis was absolutely right about feminist movement

Greg Corombos writes in WND about feminist Cleta Mitchell:
FEMINIST PIONEER: 'PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY WAS RIGHT'
Says abortion-rights lobby now in control, dissent considered treasonous ...

She said the past 45 years have proven a conservative icon 100 percent correct.

“The truth of the matter is Phyllis Schlafly was right. In the final analysis, Phyllis was absolutely right. I’m glad I was able to tell her that many, many times before she died last year. She said that it wasn’t possible to have an Equal Rights Amendment and the women’s movement without it morphing into something we didn’t want to have happen,” said Mitchell.

“Phyllis was right that it was the natural progression that it would be taken over by the left wing, which it was,” said Mitchell.

So instead of empowering all women, Mitchell said abortion quickly became a wedge issue by which liberal women would shun their conservative counterparts.

“I think that conservative, professional women are virtually invisible within the ranks of what would be the women’s movement. If you are a pro-life, conservative professional woman, you’re really a pariah,” said Mitchell, who recounted how women at a conference sponsored in part by her firm turned on her after learning of her legal work on behalf of conservative clients.

Friday, April 7, 2017

Judge Posner defends supremacy

Here is how Judge Richard Posner rationalizes judicial supremacy, where he imposes his views on everyone:
I would prefer to see us acknowledge openly that today we, who are judges rather than members of Congress, are imposing on a half-century-old statute a meaning of “sex discrimination” that the Congress that enacted it would not have accepted. This is something courts do fairly frequently to avoid statutory obsolescence and concomitantly to avoid placing the entire burden of updating old statutes on the legislative branch. We should not leave the impression that we are merely the obedient servants of the 88th Congress (1963– 1965), carrying out their wishes. We are not. We are taking advantage of what the last half century has taught.

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

End NFL Subsidies as It Moves to Gambling

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

Nearly a billion dollars in taxpayer money are being wasted by the NFL Oakland Raiders’ move to Las Vegas.  In direct costs are the $750 million in taxpayer subsidies to build a luxurious new stadium in the desert, plus roughly $95 million in unpaid debt on the stadium that will be left behind in Oakland.

Oakland taxpayers had already spent $110 million in improvements to the stadium being abandoned.  St. Louis taxpayers are still on the hook for $85 million of the $300 million they committed to for the Rams' now-abandoned stadium; San Diego owes $47 million on the football stadium renovated for the Chargers, who have moved to Los Angeles.

That is pricey litter by the billionaire NFL owners, which blights our struggling cities.  Where are the environmentalists when we need them?
Overall, an estimated $6.7 billion in public money props up NFL stadiums today.  In addition, the NFL receives tax breaks and free public services, and demands massive sales taxes refunds from locations that host the Super Bowl.

Now the NFL has gone from bad to worse.  Last month nearly every NFL owner approved the move of the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas, cozying up to gambling.

Former NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle would roll over in his grave if he knew.  Rozelle, a long-time admirer of Phyllis Schlafly, prohibited the playing of NFL games on Christmas to avoid interfering with the holy day.

Pete Rozelle built the NFL for 29 years into the success it is today by defending its integrity against the corrupting influence of gambling.  The NFL had even prohibited visits to Las Vegas during the football season, and had banned advertisements to promote Vegas during the Super Bowl.

The NFL still publicly pretends to disfavor gambling on its games, yet nearly all of its teams have signed lucrative, multi-million-dollar deals for “fantasy football” to encourage gambling by fans.  As Phyllis Schlafly walked around Cleveland Browns stadium last summer for her pro-life event during the Republican national convention, she faced many banners promoting fantasy football.

  This is not Pete Rozelle’s NFL any more, but “fantasy football” is profitable for it.  Now, with the move of one of the most widely followed franchises to the gambling capital of the United States, there can be little doubt where the NFL really stands.

Yet hypocrisy lingers as the NFL still publicly opposes betting on its games.  Its real underlying issue probably has more to do with whether it profits from the gambling.
Betting on NFL games already constitutes more than 40% of all the lawful sports betting in Nevada.  In addition, the American Gaming Association estimates that $150 billion is spent annually on illegal sports betting.
So why are taxpayers subsidizing the corporate welfare to the NFL as it moves towards gambling?  We should not be footing the bills for the billionaires who are profiting from the massive taxpayer subsidies to the NFL.

The NFL has abandoned numerous stadiums to depress the downtowns of multiple cities.  In addition to forcing taxpayers to pay massive costs for these stadiums, many have been financed with tax-exempt bonds.

A study by the Brookings Institute revealed that 36 of the 45 stadiums built or significantly renovated since 2000 used tax-exempt municipal bonds, which indirectly cost federal taxpayers $3.7 billion.  Meanwhile, “abandoned stadiums” as an internet search yields nearly a half-million website displays of dilapidated structures left behind as billionaires found new cities to fleece.

Oklahoma congressman Steve Russell has introduced H.R. 811, the "No Tax Subsidies for Stadiums Act," to close the tax exemption for financing these stadiums.  His bill would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat obligations financing professional sports stadiums as private activity bonds if such obligations meet the private business use test.”

This bill could go further and end the tax write-offs for the luxury boxes purchased by corporate executives in these wasteful stadiums.  States could also pass laws prohibiting sales tax refunds to the NFL for the Super Bowl, which amount to millions of dollars.

New Jersey ended up paying so much to the NFL after hosting the Super Bowl in 2014, without a significant boost to local commerce, that 55% of its business leaders surveyed said they do not want the Super Bowl hosted in their state again.  Yet the NFL uses the Super Bowl to threaten state legislators against enacting conservative legislation, as it did earlier this year to Texas.

Fortunately, the public is waking up.  Voters are increasingly rejecting demands by the NFL for greater subsidies, and rightly so; Las Vegas raided its taxpayer’s pockets for the Raiders only by persuading the state legislature to pony up the money.

Television ratings for the NFL were down last season after years of boundless growth.  Despite the most exciting finish ever, more people decided not to watch the Super Bowl.

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 28, 2017

Sessions Warns Sanctuary Cities

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

The sanctuary city movement, which gained momentum and arrogance during the eight years of the Obama administration, has finally met its match. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday that cities, counties and states will soon lose billions of dollars of federal assistance if they refuse to assist federal officials charged with enforcing our immigration laws.

The new policy was no surprise, because Donald Trump often spoke out against sanctuary cities throughout his 18-month campaign for president. By announcing the new policy at the White House, using the same podium used for daily press briefings, Sessions confirmed that the president supports his determination to end the lawlessness of local officials.

“Sanctuary cities” are Democrat-controlled places which harbor dangerous illegal aliens and fail to detain them for deportation by the federal government. At least 118 jurisdictions in the United States consider themselves to be sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, and many of these cities fail to cooperate with the federal government when a violent illegal alien is apprehended.

“Such policies cannot continue,” Sessions announced on Monday to the public. “They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets.”

Sessions declared that there will be a new policy of lawfulness concerning sanctuary cities, and that state and local jurisdictions must certify that they are complying with immigration laws in order to continue receiving funding from the federal government. Cities that fail to comply could receive an invoice from the federal government demanding a refund of grants they previously received.

The former Alabama Senator was Phyllis Schlafly’s favorite member of the U.S. Senate, and he was the first senator to endorse President Trump. Trump recognized early how truly valuable Sessions is, and made him the first major nomination for the new Trump administration.

As head of the Department of Justice, Sessions has the authority and means to enforce our immigration laws which have been ignored for so long. The Justice Department doles out billions of dollars of grants to assist local law enforcement, and that money should not be given to local governments that defy federal law.

Most sanctuary cities would go bankrupt without the federal subsidies they receive. There is no constitutional right for cities to continue to take handouts from federal taxpayers while also defying federal law.

Despite the clear legality of Attorney General Sessions’ statement, the mayors of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco all issued statements reaffirming their sanctuary policies. “President Trump’s latest threat changes nothing,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declared, vowing that he “won’t back down” from protecting his illegal residents “from an overzealous administration fixated on xenophobia and needless division.”

In 2016, approximately 279 counties and cities were uncooperative with the federal government in detaining illegal aliens to allow deportation of them, as confirmed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). President Trump has ordered the release of this information, and on the list for lack of cooperation in early 2017 are jails in Boulder County, Colorado, Sioux County, Iowa, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Chester County, Pennsylvania.

Many of the non-compliant jails are located in Texas, to the dismay of its Republican Governor Greg Abbott. “I applaud today’s bold action by Attorney General Sessions that aims to end sanctuary city policies that endanger American lives,” Governor Abbott declared.

But mayors are preparing lawsuits, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, against the U.S. Attorney General. The ACLU recently conducted a nationwide campaign of “Resistance Training” with the goal of turning cities into “safe havens” for illegal aliens and refugees.

The federal courts are packed with activist judges appointed by Democratic presidents, and one of them could order the federal government to continue funding sanctuary cities. This could lead to a showdown that ends the overreach in power by the federal judiciary, as the Trump Administration could simply stop signing checks payable to the defiant cities.

While liberal mayors defend sanctuary policies, Americans are overwhelmingly opposed. In a survey of 2,148 registered voters by the Harvard-Harris Poll, 80 percent of Americans agreed with the statement: “Cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities.”

The Rasmussen survey phrased the question somewhat differently by asking 1,000 likely voters if they wanted their own city to become a sanctuary city. It’s no surprise that a majority said no, and 52 percent also said that sanctuary cities should have their federal funds cut off.

The Harvard-Harris survey also found that most Americans still support a temporary ban on visitors from seven “Muslim majority countries” even after Trump’s executive order was blocked by an activist federal judge. Most of those polled said the federal judge’s ruling made the nation less safe and the number of refugees we accept should be reduced.

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, March 26, 2017

Lawsuit slanders Phyllis Schlafly

I mentioned the lawsuit by Anne Schlafly Cori to get a bigger share of the Phyllis Schlafly estate, but is not the only one. Cori and five other ex-Eagles had also sued to take over Eagle Forum c4 from Phyllis Schlafly while she was still alive, and they have now amended the lawsuit to say:
12, 205. At all times relevant hereto, Phyllis Schlafly lacked the capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and extent of her actions and/or her actions were the product of manipulation and undue influence perpetrated by John Schlafly, Andy Schlafly, Martin, Sullivan and others.
The evidence for this, they say, is that she endorsed Donald Trump, and she once forgot the name of a doctor with whom she had an appointment.

No, she was not manipulated by anyone.

I thought that Cori's group mainly wanted to raid the money that Phyllis Schlafly raised, but now their motives are shown to be much darker. They want to claim to be the bearers of the Phyllis Schlafly legacy, but they also want to discredit what she stood for.

Why do they want to claim the legacy of someone they disparage so much?

I am stunned that they would have the nerve to complain that Phyllis Schlafly violated her "duty of care and loyalty" to the "Majority Directors", by "undertaking a campaign to defame, malign and disparage" them! [para 201-202]

She was much too loyal to them, and did not disparage them enough, considering the terrible ways they double-crossed and badmouthed her.

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.