Friday, July 13, 2018

Europe is losing its culture

News from Europe:
Mr Trump told The Sun: “I have great love for countries in Europe.

“Don’t forget, essentially I’m a product of the European Union, between Scotland and Germany.

“Right? My father Germany, my mother Scotland.

Trump says the wave of migrants from the Middle East and Africa is permanently changing the continent
But in a controversial outburst, he added: “I think what has happened to Europe is a shame.

“Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame.

“I think it changed the fabric of Europe and, unless you act very quickly, it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way.

“So I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad.

“I think you are losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn’t exist ten or 15 years ago.”

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Trump Cements Legacy with SCOTUS Pick

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

With his second conservative nomination to the Supreme Court, President Trump has already exceeded Ronald Reagan.  Brett Kavanaugh is stellar on immigration and sovereignty, the life issue, and the Second Amendment.

Trump made this look easy, but liberals did everything they could to dissuade him from selecting Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy left by Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court.  A coordinated, sophisticated campaign to criticize Kavanaugh from the right was both insincere and deceptive.

The tiny Never-Trump wing of the Republican Party does not like how Kavanaugh has long agreed with Trump on core issues.  Unlike Kavanaugh’s liberal rivals for nomination to the Supreme Court, he has participated in more than 3,800 cases and unflinchingly defended principles loathed by liberals.

How refreshing it is to actually have a Supreme Court nominee who supports American sovereignty, and does not defer to international law!  Writing alone as he has often had to do on the liberal D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has explained that the War Powers Clause is not restricted by international law.

That was in a 2016 decision which considered a challenge to a military commission by Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul, who was convicted as the personal assistant to Osama bin Laden.  Judge Kavanaugh stood strong against the lawsuit, as the entire Court of Appeals should have.

In another case that began in 2007, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision that gave illegal aliens the same rights as American workers in forming unions for collective bargaining. Kavanaugh explained in dissent that “an illegal immigrant worker is not an ’employee’ under the NLRA for the simple reason that, ever since 1986, an illegal immigrant worker is not a lawful ’employee’ in the United States.”

On the Second Amendment, Judge Kavanaugh was on the panel that heard a challenge to DC's strict gun controls after the Supreme Court established an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.  The majority of that panel then upheld the gun control as courts do across the country now.

Judge Kavanaugh strongly dissented from that pro-gun-control decision, and wrote in favor of a Second Amendment that should be defended as strongly by courts as the First Amendment is.  Justice Clarence Thomas will have a strong ally on the Supreme Court for the Second Amendment once Kavanaugh is confirmed.

None of the other eight justices on the Supreme Court, including Neil Gorsuch, would join Justice Thomas’s dissent in February decrying how gun control laws are being upheld by Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court is refusing to accept those cases to review and reverse.  The stark reality is that the Supreme Court has not taken a real Second Amendment case in years, and lower courts have gotten the message that they can uphold gun control laws without fear of being reversed.

Trump’s brilliant nomination of Kavanaugh to the High Court changes that.  We can expect Kavanaugh to call out his colleagues if they continue to duck Second Amendment appeals, and his strong legal reasoning should help protect that fundamental right against further erosion.

On the life issue, liberals are of course sharpening their knives to try to block Kavanaugh from confirmation by insisting that he might overturn Roe v. Wade.  But that is a very tough sell by the Left, as young people are increasingly pro-life and nearly a half-dozen Democratic Senators are running for reelection in pro-life states that Trump carried by a landslide.

The issue of Roe v. Wade has never sunk a nominee in the Senate, despite all the hoopla by pro-abortion feminists pretending that they can block a nominee on that issue.  They failed in trying to block Justice Clarence Thomas on that issue, and were unable to block the confirmation of John Roberts or Samuel Alito, either.

We hope that Kavanaugh does not grovel to pro-abortion senators as they demand reassurances that the fallacy of Roe v. Wade be enshrined forever even though it has absolutely no basis in the Constitution.  Kavanaugh need not answer questions about the issue, just as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set the precedent herself for declining to answer specific questions about cases.

The isolated criticisms of Kavanaugh by the Never-Trump crowd have been unjustified.  His ruling to uphold a narrow part of a campaign finance law relating to political parties is not a core issue to the conservative movement, and certainly not a basis for opposing his nomination.

Justice Anthony Kennedy turned to the right in his final year on the bench, both in his decisions and in allowing Trump to fill his vacancy.  It is unlikely that Justice Kennedy would find anything to criticize in this nomination of Kavanaugh for the seat that Kennedy is leaving, and neither should any Republican or moderate Democrat.

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

Sunday, July 8, 2018

An American city speaks Spanish

The Trump-hating Wash. Post
‘An all-American city that speaks Spanish’: Immigration isn’t a problem for this Texas town — it’s a way of life ...

But now this town built on immigration has become ground zero for the nation’s nastiest political battle in the angry summer of 2018. ...

The [ICE] policy is seen as unwanted and unfair in this border city of 142,000 whose population is 90 percent Hispanic and so fully bilingual that roadside anti-littering signs say “No dumping basura” (trash). ...

Darling said that although McAllen is often portrayed as a “dusty border town,” it is a vibrant industrial hub closely linked to factories across the border in the much larger industrial city of Reynosa. ...

“It’s really strange,” he said. “This is not who we are. We need people to wake up.”
In case you get the impression that McAllen is a paradise, check out this:
Vibrantly multicultural McAllen, Texas is:

- The least educated city in America

- The 3rd most obese city in America

- Worst city in America for residents feeling unsafe
And this:
As of 2012, just 50.6% of McAllen area adults under 25 years old had a job — the lowest rate in the country. Unlike many of these cities, the employment rate of young adults has been low for some time, barely falling from 2000 to 2012. One contributing factor may have been the low educational attainment among young adults. Just 4.2% of adults ages 20 to 24 had a college degree, the fourth lowest rate of any major metro area. Residents of the McAllen metro area were also among the nation’s poorest. As of 2012, 34.5% of McAllen area residents lived below the poverty line, the second highest percentage in the nation and more than double the national rate of 15.9%.
This is the future of immigration. The open-borders abolish-ICE Democrats are bringing towns like McAllen all across the USA.

Monday, July 2, 2018

Trump Can Surpass Reagan with His Pick

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump has a golden opportunity to surpass Reagan on the all-important issue of the Supreme Court.  With a good pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, Trump can achieve what Reagan could not.

As good as Reagan was, two out of his three Supreme Court Justices were disappointments.  Reagan’s first selection was his worst, and Trump’s advisors should take care not to allow history to repeat that mistake.

Reagan chose Sandra Day O’Connor after she was inadequately vetted as to her liberal positions on abortion, the Establishment Clause, and feminism.  Reagan erred by picking her because she was the first he interviewed for the job, without Reagan bothering to interview the other candidates.

Immediately it was obvious that Reagan and his advisors had blundered.  Although Reagan had promised to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court, his more important promise was to appoint pro-life judges and yet he broke that pledge with his first nominee.

Let’s do as Reagan said when he urged a “trust but verify” approach.  Whether by mistake or design, there are several candidates on Trump’s list who should not be nominated for Kennedy’s seat.

One candidate would fail to honor Trump’s pro-life pledge, and another would violate Trump’s Second Amendment pledge.  The selection of either would be a devastating setback to the Trump agenda.

Ms. Joan Larsen was a volunteer for Joe Biden for president in 1987, where she helped with mailings and telephoning for Biden's campaign as she admitted on her Senate questionnaire.  That political work for Biden is not something a pro-lifer would do.

Ms. Larsen has claimed there is sexism in the career of law, a common refrain by those who support abortion under the guise of equal rights for women.  She has encountered Roe v. Wade often, without criticizing it.

Ms. Larsen, who kept her last name after marrying a law professor, is touted by her supporters as having been a law professor herself at the liberal University of Michigan law school.  But in fact she never obtained a tenured chair, and her writings are not up to the level of real law professors.

The other candidate on the short list who should not be picked is Raymond Kethledge, whose selection would violate Trump’s pledge on the Second Amendment.  Judge Kethledge notably failed to support the “strict scrutiny” standard for the Second Amendment that is essential to safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms.

Sixteen years of court-packing by Presidents Clinton and Obama have left most of our Nation’s population under pro-gun-control Courts of Appeals.  The population-heavy 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits are all dominated by judges who refuse to treat the Second Amendment with the same respect they give to the First Amendment.

Justice Clarence Thomas laments how gun control laws are being upheld by the Courts of Appeals, and then petitions to the Supreme Court to review those decisions are being denied.  Justice Thomas explained in February, in his dissent from one of those denials of cert, that the strict scrutiny standard of review used for the First Amendment is not being applied as it should be to the Second Amendment.

Yet there Judge Kethledge was in 2016, refusing to join an opinion by conservative judge Danny Boggs to adopt the strict scrutiny standard of review for the Second Amendment in the Sixth Circuit.  Kethledge typifies the problem that Justice Thomas subsequently highlighted in explaining why gun control laws are not being overturned.

In Sherlock Holmes’ classic “Silver Blaze,” the compelling evidence overlooked by Scotland Yard was the failure of a dog to bark when a midnight visitor stole a prized racehorse away from his stall.  That meant the dog knew the criminal, and the compelling evidence of silence should be a criterion in vetting the replacement for Justice Kennedy.

Many important decisions are made by the Supreme Court in refusing to grant a petition for cert, as it did earlier this year in denying David Daleiden’s petition concerning the infringement on his rights by the Ninth Circuit.  By denying that petition and others like it, the Supreme Court allows anti-life, and anti-Second Amendment, rulings by liberal appellate courts to stand.

We do not need justices who are timid about speaking out or reviewing and reversing liberal decisions that come out of the Ninth and other Circuits.  Similarly, we do not want a nominee who is unwilling to overturn prior mistakes of the Supreme Court itself.

Of all the pitiful clamor by Democrats and a few liberal Republicans, the most preposterous is their demand that the nominee refuse to overrule Court precedent.  Every year the Supreme Court overturns its own mistakes, as it should, including its recent overruling of its own precedent of 41 years ago that wrongly imposed mandatory dues on government employees.

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

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Triumphant Trump Vindicated Again

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

Only Donald Trump wins as comfortably in the hushed halls of the Supreme Court as on the backroads of rural America.  In the past few days he has triumphed before the Supreme Court, leads by 51-36% in the latest approval poll concerning his economic policies, and prevailed by an incalculable margin in rebuking the restaurant that denied service to his press secretary and her family.

The new liberal strategy of harassing Trump officials is backfiring.  As leading Democrats themselves recognize in unsuccessfully trying to rein in their extremists, it is un-American to harass fellow Americans for their political views.

Time magazine piled on with a ridiculous cover image of President Trump standing stubbornly over a little girl detained at our border.  Yanela Hernandez was supposed to become the poster child for family separation, after she was brought here by her mother all the way from Honduras.

But it is the facts that are stubbornly ruining the anti-Trump script.  The girl was actually separated from her father not by Trump but by her own mother, who took the child on a dangerous 3-week, 1,600-mile journey without telling her husband (the girl’s father).

Nearly 20 years ago, a 5-year-old Cuban boy named Elián González was brought by his mother on a dangerous journey to Florida.  Elián was placed with relatives in the United States after his mother drowned, but as demanded by liberals President Clinton ordered him seized him at gunpoint and returned to communist Cuba.

Illegal immigration is what is separating families, not President Trump.  Yanela Hernandez would not have been taken away from her family in Honduras if we had sensible border control.

Referring to the deprivation of his little girl from him by her mother in Honduras, her father Denis Hernandez told a reporter for the Daily Mail, “I do think it was irresponsible of her to take the baby with her, because we don’t know what could happen.”

“I thank God I have a good job here,” Mr. Hernandez said from his home in Puerto Cortes, Honduras, which is safe enough to be a tourist destination. “I would never risk my life making that journey.”

This case illustrates someone who should be sent back immediately without a judicial hearing, since the Hernandez family has no basis for claiming asylum or refugee status.  When Trump suggested that, a news story in the New York Times declared it was “an escalation of his attacks on the judicial system.”

That criticism of Trump is ironic in light of the Supreme Court ruling in his favor on Tuesday, for which he patiently waited for nearly a year-and-a-half.  Far from attacking the judicial system, Trump fully complied with all its procedures and prevailed as the Court upheld his so-called travel ban from nations hostile to us.

Let’s hope lower federal courts take a cue from the Supreme Court in deferring to presidential authority in these matters.  But earlier this month, on June 6, a federal judge in San Diego allowed the ACLU to continue its lawsuit against the “practice” of separating migrant children from their parents without showing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.

On June 5, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement blasting the Trump administration’s policy of zero tolerance for illegal entry into the United States.  The statement ordered our government to “stop criminalizing what should at most be an administrative offense — that of irregular entry or stay in the U.S.”

The UN human rights office accused our government of committing “a serious violation of the rights of the child,” before complaining that the U.S. “is the only country in the world not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”  That’s right, the United States has wisely refused to ratify that dangerous UN treaty since the 1990s, when it was pushed by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and properly opposed by Phyllis Schlafly.

On June 19, the U.S. formally withdrew from a related UN agency called the Human Rights Council, whose members include some of the most repressive regimes on earth.  Ambassador Nikki Haley denounced the council, which has passed more resolutions to condemn Israel specifically than to condemn Syria, Iran and North Korea combined, as “an organization that is unworthy of its name.”

Another globalist tribunal which our country declined to join more than 15 years ago is the international criminal court, located in the Hague.  That did not stop a clueless protester from shouting at Kirstjen Nielsen, Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security, that “you belong in the Hague!”

As hard as the Left smears and harasses him and his team, the stronger Trump becomes.  “Triumphant Trump” emerges victorious again and again.

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

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Trump Should Stand Firm Against Illegals

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Trump's Winning Economic Positions

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Abortion Rights for Illegal Aliens Rejected

Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Media Smear of Trump Backfires

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Santa Fe School Was Victimized by Censorship of Prayer

Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Floodgate Opens to Sports Gambling

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

Standing Up to Globalism

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

New Trump-hater book

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Visas Plague Baseball Like Everything Else

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Travel Ban’s Moment of Truth for GOP, Court

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Trump Should Turn to His Solicitor General

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Winning the ‘Trade War’ with China

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

The ‘Caravans’ Are Coming

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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