Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Derrick and Orrick’s One-Two Punch Against Trump

Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

A new duo of Derrick and Orrick, whose names remind us of Shakespeare's Yorick as well as Barack, the president who appointed them, delivered a one-two punch against President Trump last week.  Federal District Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii interfered again with Trump’s temporary travel ban, and federal Judge William Orrick of San Francisco perpetuated his injunction against Trump’s executive order that would cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities.

Somalia, Iran, and Libya – known for their terrorist, anti-American violence – are three of the six countries subjected to Trump’s temporary travel ban, which suspends entry from those countries into ours by strangers who have no right to be here.  In May, a Navy SEAL was killed and two other American soldiers were wounded in Somalia by an attack from Muslim forces.

Most thought the U.S. Supreme Court had properly resolved the issue of the temporary travel ban in favor of President Trump.  But the strategy of the Left is to repeatedly use litigation and judicial supremacy to interfere with and impede the pro-American agenda of Trump at every turn.

Try, try again is the modus operandi of the anti-Trumpers as they refuse to take “no” as an answer from the Supreme Court.  The High Court implicitly but thoroughly rejected the liberal theory that Trump’s temporary travel ban was unconstitutional because he supposedly campaigned with some anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Enter Derrick Watson and William Orrick to pick up where they left off before the Supreme Court so rudely intervened.  Both federal district judges essentially reverted to business-as-usual, despite how all nine Justices of the Supreme Court recently held that the lower courts had gone too far in tying Trump’s hands. 

Judge Orrick’s name was already familiar to many conservatives for how he has gone after the pro-life David Daleiden for embarrassing Planned Parenthood with his famous videotaped interviews.  Judge Orrick censored the videos and on Monday held Daleiden in contempt for allowing the public to view them; Trump should immediately pardon Daleiden and his attorneys.

Judge Derrick Watson, though presiding in Hawaii, is also known nationally for halting the President of the United States while sitting nearly 5,000 miles away. This unelected solitary judge appointed by President Obama already initially blocked President Trump and his temporary travel ban back in March.

Last Thursday, July 13, Judge Derrick Watson undermined Trump’s victory before the Supreme Court by ordering that the Leader of the Free World permissively allow into the United States anyone from a terrorist country who is a grandparent, uncle, aunt, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, niece, nephew, cousin, or grandchild of anyone in the United States.  And how, pray tell, can the State Department verify a claim by a potential terrorist that he is someone’s cousin, and thus should be allowed into America?

Trump had already agreed to allow in anyone who is an immediate relative of someone lawfully in the United States, such as siblings, children, parents, spouses, in-laws, and even fiancés.  

Judge Derrick Watson was initially reluctant to re-interpret the Supreme Court ruling to allow almost anyone in, but on July 7th the overwhelmingly liberal Ninth Circuit egged him on with an order of its own.  That appellate court declared that “although the district court may not have authority to clarify an order of the Supreme Court, it does possess the ability to interpret and enforce the Supreme Court’s order,” and “interpret” it Derrick did.

Meanwhile, back to Judge Orrick in San Francisco, where he had issued a temporary injunction in April that blocked President Trump from withholding any federal funding from “sanctuary cities” that harbor and protect illegal aliens, even those who commit horrible crimes.  San Francisco’s insistence on being a sanctuary city has resulted in murders increasing 55% and rapes skyrocketing 370% between 2011 and 2015, and there was the brutal murder of Kathryn Steinle on its Pier 14 by a man who had previously been deported five times and convicted of seven felonies.

A day before Derrick ruled against President Trump’s temporary travel ban, Orrick heard oral argument about the need to lift his preliminary injunction against Trump’s executive order cutting off funding for sanctuary cities.  Speaking from his bench in court, Judge Orrick indicated that he was going to keep his ruling in place to continue blocking Trump’s much-needed action against sanctuary cities.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions explained to a group of law enforcement officials gathered in Las Vegas that “too often” local officials interfere with attempts by federal immigration agents to detain and deport the dangerous illegal aliens. Meanwhile, President Trump is appealing this recent ruling against his temporary travel ban back to the Supreme Court, again on an emergency basis.

Ironically, Hamlet’s beloved court jester was named “Yorick”, whom Shakespeare described as “a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.”  There would also be much humor in this recent saga involving Derrick and Orrick, if our president’s ability to keep our nation safe were not at stake.

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.

Friday, July 14, 2017

Education Dept to hear both sides

Slate mag complains:
When Trump nominated Betsy DeVos to lead the Department of Education, [feminist] advocates worried about the damage she might do. The Obama administration had pushed universities ...

Now that she’s in office, DeVos has to choose: Will she let the Obama guidance, which lowered the burden of proof required in sexual assault cases, stand? ...

To help her decide, DeVos is meeting with several organizations that do work on this issue.
The whole article is a complaint that the Dept. of Education is hearing from many groups on both sides of the issue. The article argues that just one side should be heard.

I thought that US federal policies have to be based on input from all interested parties. I guess Obama never did that.

Update: The NY Times reports on what DeVos promises to hear:
The letters have come in to her office by the hundreds, heartfelt missives from college students, mostly men, who had been accused of rape or sexual assault. Some had lost scholarships. Some had been expelled. A mother stumbled upon her son trying to take his own life, recalled Candice E. Jackson, the top civil rights official at the Department of Education.

“Listening to her talk about walking in and finding him in the middle of trying to kill himself because his life and his future were gone, and he was forever branded a rapist — that’s haunting,” said Ms. Jackson, describing a meeting with the mother of a young man who had been accused of sexual assault three months after his first sexual encounter.

The young man, who maintained he was innocent, had hoped to become a doctor.

In recent years, on campus after campus, from the University of Virginia to Columbia University, from Duke to Stanford, higher education has been roiled by high-profile cases of sexual assault accusations. Now Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is stepping into that maelstrom. ...

“Rather, the accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right,’” Ms. Jackson said.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Still legal to accept information

Here is the latest nothing burger:
On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best
Rob Goldstone


On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Best,
Don
Of there is no such thing as a "Crown prosecutor of Russia" and nothing wrong with receiving "some official documents and information" about a political rival. Apparently some British publicist/lawyer bluffed his way to arranging a meeting with Trump Jr, but no official documents or government support ever materialized, as far as we know. Even if it did, there would be nothing unusual or criminal about it, as explained by UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh. It would be a First Amendment violation to prohibit accepting political information.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Can Trump Save Western Civilization?

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Can Western civilization survive?  Does it even still exist?  Liberal intellectuals have already consigned that term to the proverbial “ash heap of history” along with such ailments as racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and colonialism. 

The riches of our Western heritage are no longer taught in our public schools, studied in our colleges, or cited by our political leaders.  The media insist on exaggerated gestures toward diversity and multiculturalism, denigrating “dead white males” and the English language, and constantly (but inaccurately) describing the United States as a “nation of immigrants.” 

With one powerful speech, President Trump has changed the terms and tone of the entire discussion.  He has made it not just acceptable, but necessary to speak and act in defense of the Western culture that made America. 

Trump’s historic speech last week in Poland was of the same importance as Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech in 1946, which marked the beginning of the Cold War, and Ronald Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall,” which led to America’s victory in that war. 

It’s no accident that President Trump chose Poland as the place for his powerful speech about civilization, culture, and borders.  At key points in world history, the Polish nation has been on the front line of the never-ending battle against barbarism.  

Surviving members of the “greatest generation” will remember how Poland was divided and dismembered by the two monsters of the twentieth century, Hitler and Stalin, following their “non-aggression pact” of August 23, 1939.  Hitler crossed Poland’s borders from the west while Stalin invaded from the east, starting a new world war in Europe.

Trump harkened back to the valiant effort by the Polish Home Army to revolt against the Nazi occupation in 1944, which ended with the Nazis mercilessly destroying Warsaw.  That uprising followed several years after the Katyn Forest massacre, in which the Soviet secret police rounded up 22,000 Polish reserve officers, who included doctors, lawyers, and other educated professionals, tied their hands behind their backs, fired a bullet to the back of their heads and buried them in mass graves.

Even after the defeat of Hitler’s Germany in 1945, Poland remained under Soviet domination for another 45 years.  Poland threw off the Communist yoke in 1989, inspired by its native son, Pope John Paul II, who outmaneuvered official atheism to celebrate 1,000 years of Christianity in his homeland.

That was not the first time Poland helped to save Western civilization, also known as Christendom, against a barbarian invasion.  Three centuries earlier, on September 11, 1683, an army led by the Polish king known as Jan III Sobieski defeated the Muslim invaders at the Gates of Vienna.

“The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive,” Trump challenged Europe and America, adding, “Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders?”  Poland, of all nations, knows that borders are essential and must be defended at all costs.

The crowd was so enthusiastic for President Trump that one might have thought he was back in the States leading one of his own campaign rallies.  The flag-waving Poles frequently interrupted Trump’s speech with chants of “Donald Trump! Donald Trump! Donald Trump!”

Trump’s speech was brilliant not only for what Trump said, but where he said it.  The successful conservative leadership of pro-life Poland has become a model for the rest of Europe to follow, not abandon.

“Where are you going, Europe? Get up off your knees. Get out of your lethargy. Otherwise you will be crying every day for your children.”  Those were not the words of President Trump, though they certainly could have been.

Instead, that quotation was from the conservative Polish prime minister, Beata Szydło, in May in response to threats by the European Union to fine her country if she did not accept more refugees.  Mrs. Szydło properly stood up against what she called blackmail, and the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia have also taken strong stances against opening their borders to migration.

“We are confronted by another oppressive ideology – one that seeks to export terrorism and extremism all around the globe. America and Europe have suffered one terror attack after another. We’re going to get it to stop,” Trump pledged to applause.

“We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive,” Trump observed.  He even praised innovation, which Phyllis Schlafly long recognized as essential to maintaining continued prosperity in the United States.

“Our own fight for the West does not begin on the battlefield – it begins with our minds, our wills, and our souls.”  Trump explained that “our freedom, our civilization, and our survival depend on these bonds of history, culture, and memory.”

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

How CNN bullies its critics

A problem with today's connected society is that jerks can threaten to dox you, and thereby coerce you into doing something they want. I thought that this was extortion, but now CNN is doing it!

Here is CNN's version of events surrounding the animated GIF that later became a Trump retweet:
"The meme was created purely as satire, it was not meant to be a call to violence against CNN or any other news affiliation, ... I have the highest respect for the journalist community ..."

After posting his apology, "HanA**holeSolo" called CNN's KFile and confirmed his identity. In the interview, "HanA**holeSolo" sounded nervous about his identity being revealed and asked to not be named out of fear for his personal safety and for the public embarrassment it would bring to him and his family.

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
So CNN got the guy to say what CNN wanted, and CNN will hold him to that, because otherwise CNN will dox him.

This is after numerous stories about CNN broadcasting fake news about Trump and Russia.

The lesson is clear. If you say or do something on an anonymous forum that CNN does not like, it will hunt you down and threaten to dox you, unless you issue a CNN-approved apology.

Monday, July 3, 2017

35 Years After the Defeat of ERA

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

The Equal Rights Amendment died thirty-five years ago, on June 30, 1982, as its opponents gathered at a banquet with Phyllis Schlafly to celebrate its demise.  The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the time for its ratification had expired, and efforts to revive the amendment have gone nowhere.

Our Nation can be grateful for this victory in avoiding the unisex society that ERA unsuccessfully attempted to impose.  The obligation to register for the military draft still applies only to young men, and Defense Secretary James Mattis has sensibly delayed entry by so-called transgendered individuals into our military until the impact on combat readiness can be fully evaluated.  

Many of the arguments made by Phyllis Schlafly in the 1970s against ERA were ridiculed by liberals at the time, yet here we are today dealing with court-imposed same-sex marriage, transgender bathrooms, and taxpayer-funded abortion.  Bill and Hillary Clinton put ERA’s most prominent advocate on the U.S. Supreme Court, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has never been able to persuade a majority of the Court that our Constitution requires mindless gender equality.

Thirty-five years without ERA, we have thriving single-sex sports teams, sororities, fraternities, and even some flourishing public schools and classrooms that are all-boys or all-girls.  As bad as judicial activism is now, if the Equal Rights Amendment were in the Constitution, federal courts would be spending their time deciding if Johnny has a constitutional right to play on an all-girls’ field hockey team, or if an all-boys public school is unconstitutional.

The defeat of ERA had an immense cultural impact in addition to these obvious legal and political benefits.  It made it socially acceptable for mothers to spend time away from the workforce to raise their children, during a moment in our history when feminists were demonizing that traditional role.

During the 1970s, mothers were increasingly herded into the workforce and misled to think that was the only way they could have a fulfilling life.  ERA was going to “seal the deal,” and render it impossible for our society ever to have a respectable role for the stay-at-home mom with a working husband.

Feminists even tried to restructure Social Security to eliminate the provisions that allow wives and widows to benefit from their husbands’ earnings.  Those provisions were made sex-neutral in 1983, but homemakers still draw most of the benefits which their husbands earned. 

The feminist ideology behind ERA sneered at any woman who would choose to stay at home while her husband advanced his career in the workplace.  With the media and universities pushing this agenda hard alongside ERA, the percentage of stay-at-home moms with employed husbands did steadily decline.

But Phyllis Schlafly’s defeat of ERA permitted a new culture to emerge for the stay-at-home mom.  Phyllis even instituted the innovative Homemaker Award in 1985 to honor a woman each year who exemplified this tried-and-true approach.

Her award was ridiculed by feminists, but like many of Phyllis’ ideas it is increasingly praised and imitated today.  County fairs in states as diverse as Maryland, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin and Oregon give homemaker awards, and our First Lady Melania Trump is a homemaker who initially declined the glamour of the White House to stay at home while her son completed his school year.

By the mid-1980s the decline in the percentage of stay-at-home moms with working husbands began to level off, and remains today at about the same level it was then.  Nearly a third of women with children and working husbands choose to stay at home rather than be employed, as made respectable by the defeat of ERA.

Many of those women do what Phyllis Schlafly herself did back more than half-century ago:  give their children a head start on school by teaching them to read with phonics.  Our society depends on homemakers to produce the next generation of inventors, writers, artists, teachers, and leaders.

This 35-year anniversary of the defeat of ERA commemorates an additional milestone:  the emergence of the modern conservative movement, built on social values as much as economic and national security ones.  The election of Donald Trump, which Phyllis Schlafly foresaw and supported from the beginning, was a triumph over feminist political correctness.

State authority over family and marriage would have been totally subsumed within federal law, if ERA were ratified.  Everyday issues of divorce and custody could have become federal cases as Congress would have been empowered by ERA to pass new laws concerning custody and divorce.

Stopping a media-promoted constitutional amendment once it is presented to the states for ratification is as impossible as installing brakes on a runaway freight train.  Our values and national security today owe much to the stunning defeat of ERA 35 years ago.

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, June 27, 2017

Supreme Victory by Trump at High Court

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

“Very grateful for the 9-0 decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!” Trump tweeted in celebration of the biggest victory by a president in the Supreme Court in a generation.

Every Supreme Court Justice, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, voted to uphold the essence of President Trump’s executive order keeping dangerous foreigners from entering our country.  Not one Justice endorsed the allegation that Trump somehow violated the First Amendment by discriminating against Muslim visitors from Syria, Somalia, and other dangerous countries.

This is a stunning reversal of fortune for the Left not seen since Election night.  The American Civil Liberties Union, which had publicly threatened President Trump to “see you in court,” saw its dreams of judicial activism go up in smoke as the activist rulings by lower federal courts were effectively nullified.

All nine Justices on the High Court joined a “per curiam” opinion striking down the essence of the rulings against Trump by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.  Trump’s prediction that he would win before the Supreme Court came true, just as many of his other predictions have been fulfilled despite media insistence otherwise.

“The interest in preserving national security is an urgent objective of the highest order.”  So declared the Court, using tweet-like wording that President Trump himself might have sent out over Twitter to his 32 million-strong audience.

Shortly after Trump became president he issued Executive Order No. 13780, entitled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States,” but judicial activism has prevented it from ever going into effect.  This long-awaited ruling by the High Court on Monday was a welcome comeuppance to the activist judges who had blocked the so-called “travel ban” against immigration by potential terrorists.

The Supreme Court ruling never used the phrase “travel ban,” because Trump merely suspended for 90 days the entry of foreigners from six countries associated with terrorism.  As Trump explained while campaigning, a suspension makes sense “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” with the radical Muslims who commit terrorist attacks against innocent citizens.

By ruling for Trump, the Court may have really been averting a constitutional crisis for itself.  President Trump reminds many of President Andrew Jackson, who reportedly responded to a ruling against him on an Indian issue by saying that the Chief Justice “has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”

The Constitution does not give the federal judiciary the power to enforce any of its rulings.  Instead, federal courts depend entirely on the good will of the Executive Branch, which is under the control of President Trump, to implement court decisions.

This inherent check-and-balance on overreaching by federal courts may help explain why the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and gave Trump a much-deserved win.  Even liberal justices on the Supreme Court agreed to issue a ruling for President Trump, which he is willing to enforce.

This unanimous Court decision authorizes President Trump to suspend travel from the six countries associated with terrorism by any “foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The “bona fide relationship” must be significant, the Court explained.  “For individuals, a close familial relationship is required,” the Court emphasized. 

“A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member,” like someone’s wife or mother-in-law, would qualify.  But weaker connections should not.

Three of the Supreme Court Justices wrote separately to say that Trump should have been given even more leeway to exclude dangerous aliens.  This group included recently-confirmed Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined a strong opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas in favor of Trump.

Headlines failed to give Trump credit for his landslide victory, and instead spoke in terms of the Supreme Court scheduling these cases for fuller consideration during its next term, which begins in October.  But the Court ruling requires that the essence of the Executive Order by Trump go into effect almost immediately.

The very same day that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump, a district court in San Antonio considered a challenge to a good new law in Texas banning sanctuary cities.  In refreshing contrast with the Obama Administration, Trump Attorney General Jeff Sessions has Justice Department attorneys in that case to support the State of Texas and its stance against sanctuary cities.

Opponents of laws against immigration often cite a phony discrimination argument, as though keeping terrorists and illegal aliens out of our country would somehow constitute improper discrimination.  The Supreme Court decision in favor of Trump notably omitted giving any credence to the anti-Trump psychobabble about Trump’s supposed “animus” towards Muslims. 

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.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Hilarious new feminist web site

Sometimes it is hard to tell if feminists are serious or not. There is new feminist web site, Medusa Magazine, that is explicit about taking feminist ideas to their logical conclusions. I don't know if they are serious or not, but the site is hilarious regardless.

One article is titled: Beyond Pro-Choice: The Solution to White Supremacy is White Abortion. Okay, maybe not everyone will find this funny.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

The Passing of the Pelosi Era

Pat Buchanan wrote a column criticizing Nancy Pelosi Democrats, and with a shout-out to Phyllis Schlafly:
Prediction: Democrats will not go into the 2018 Congressional elections with San Fran Nan as the party’s face and future. No way. As President Kennedy said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”

Post-Trump, it is hard to see Republicans returning to NAFTA-GATT free-trade globalism, open borders, mass immigration or Bushite crusades for democracy. A cold realism about America’s limited power and potential to change the world has settled in. ...

After narrow presidential defeats, major parties have often taken a hard turn back toward their base.

After Richard Nixon lost narrowly to JFK in 1960, the Republican right blamed his “me-too” campaign, rose up and nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964. A choice, not an echo.
Nominating Trump was, in part, a response to the weakness of the Romney 2012 campaign.

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Trump: Even Better at 150 Days

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump’s accomplishments in his first 150 days have been drowned out in the media by their obsession with Russia and the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.  When combined with the lack of significant action by Congress, it’s easy to mistakenly think the Trump agenda is stalled. 

In fact, the Trump Administration has continued to carry out the policies Trump campaigned on. Here are a few examples of progress on Trump’s signature issues of immigration, jobs, and trade.

On June 15, DHS secretary John F. Kelly rescinded the Obama amnesty known as DAPA that had been ruled illegal by the federal courts.  DAPA would have legalized about 4 million people solely because they were parents of anchor babies. 

Some wondered why the earlier Obam-nesty called DACA wasn’t rescinded at the same time, but Kelly’s statement included a veiled warning about that, too.  In a little-noticed footnote, Kelly warned that “deferred action, as an act of prosecutorial discretion, may only be granted on a case-by-case basis” — not the wholesale legalization of 700,000 so-called Dreamers. 

On June 19, DHS announced that the government is finally ready to deploy a method of tracking whether visitors leave the United States.  That’s been the missing piece to determine if people who arrive on temporary visas actually leave when they’re supposed to.

It’s been more than 20 years since Congress ordered the government to install an entry-exit tracking system, but the last three administrations (Clinton, Bush and Obama) failed to get it done.  As a result, millions of people checked into our country under the pretense of a temporary visit and never checked out.

Last month, the DHS inspector general reported on a massive backlog of 1.2 million expired visa cases. Some 416,500 people overstayed their visas in 2015, but only 2,456 were deported that year.

Donald Trump promised to remove the “bad hombres” from our country, and he is carrying out that promise.  Arrests and deportations of criminal aliens, including members of the MS-13 gang based in Central America, were up 38 percent in the first 100 days, compared with the last year of the Obama administration.

Part of the reason is simply the new tone set from the top.  When Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited the border at Nogales, Arizona in April, he forthrightly declared:  “This is a new era.  This is the Trump era.”

Federal law enforcement, however, is meeting resistance from Democratic state and local officials.  Their commitment to a policy of sanctuary for illegal aliens is illustrated by two recent crimes in the Washington, D.C. area: the rape of a 14-year-old girl in a public school bathroom in Rockville, Maryland, and the brutal murder of a 17-year-old Muslim girl in Reston, Virginia.

The sex attack in the school bathroom caused an uproar until it was revealed that the two attackers came from Guatemala and El Salvador as part of the wave of 100,000 unaccompanied minors who illegally crossed our southern border in 2014.  Then the local prosecutor found an excuse to drop charges against the young men.

The murder of the Virginia girl as she was leaving a mosque during Ramadan was initially described as an Islamophobic hate crime.  After it was revealed that the accused is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, who killed the girl by beating her with a metal baseball bat, police demoted the crime to road rage.

Some critics gloated that Trump was blocked from building the wall he promised on our southern border when Congress refused to appropriate the money.  The media found a few private landowners near the border who say they don’t want their property used for a wall.

In fact, advance work on the wall is under way, and the government already owns or controls the most vulnerable 700 miles of the 1,954-mile border.  Only 36 of those miles have the barrier required by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which then-Senator Barack Obama voted for.

On jobs and trade, since cancelling the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in his first week in office, President Trump has taken a number of steps to use his presidential trade powers to put America first.

Trump’s Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer are not afraid of being accused of “starting a trade war.”  As Secretary Ross recently told the Wall Street Journal, the United States has been in a trade war since the end of World War Two, and it’s time we started fighting to win.

Trump served notice that he’s willing to cite “national security” as a basis for better trade agreements, as current law allows.  Finally we have a president who recognizes that our national security is threatened by opening floodgates to unlimited imports of manufactured goods from countries that generally do not buy our exports.

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, June 18, 2017

NY Times trashes dads on Fathers Day

Philip Greenspun writes:
In a recent NYT piece, “Why Fathers Leave Their Children,” I think that he [David Brooks] has outdone himself. He looks at a phenomenon that is roughly 3 percent of GDP and never considers that cash incentives might influence behavior.

My comment on the piece:

Touching sentiments, but hard to see how they can be squared with statistics. Compared to other developed countries with no-fault divorce, the United States has roughly twice the percentage of children living without both parents. In winner-take-all jurisdictions within the U.S., such as New York, Massachusetts, California, roughly 75 percent of divorce/custody lawsuits are filed by women (and, in more than 90 percent of the cases, the court declares that the mother will be the primary or “winner” parent). “fathers abandon their own children”? That’s a touching story, but if you look at what actually happens a better summary is “fathers discarded by courts as secondary parents”.

A shorter summary would be “If you set up a family law system in which the only thing that you want from fathers is cash, probably cash is the main thing that you’re going to get from fathers.”
Yes, of course, financial incentives make a difference in this, as in everything else.

Every year, Father's Day brings us messages blaming fathers for all sorts of things, many of which are created by bad social policies.

Friday, June 16, 2017

Trump-hater attorney cannot handle phone calls

I pointed out how major newspapers were treating James Comey like an insecure woman whining about trivialities, and now the Wash Post reports:
Preet Bharara, a prominent former U.S. attorney ousted by President Trump, said Sunday that he reported to the Justice Department efforts by the president to “cultivate some kind of relationship” with him, describing phone calls from Trump that made him increasingly uncomfortable.

In a television interview, Bharara said he reported one of the phone calls to the chief of staff for Attorney General Jeff Sessions because it made him uneasy. He said he was dismissed from the important prosecutor’s job in Manhattan only 22 hours after he finally refused to take a call from the president.
Bharara was born in India. I am pretty sure that in India, the USA, and everywhere else, refusing to take a phone call from the boss gets you fired. The guy seems to have a guilty conscience about being a Trump-hater with a plan to undermine the administration.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Hyde Amendment Showdown on Obamacare

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

The Hyde Amendment has long been the single most important pro-life legislation at the federal level, originally enacted in 1976 and upheld on a 5-4 vote by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1980. The amendment, which is an annual rider to the federal budget, prohibits the use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

The late Congressman Henry Hyde, an ally of Phyllis Schlafly from Illinois, championed this ban against forcing taxpayers to subsidize abortion at the federal level. This prohibition has been a mainstay of the Republican National Platform for decades, where Phyllis and Henry worked together tirelessly to preserve this pro-life plank of the GOP.

But it is in jeopardy now, as opponents of the unborn want Republican Senators to accept federal funding of abortion and thereby ostracize the pro-life issue from the halls of the Capitol. The Senate is secretly plotting, behind closed doors, to “repeal and replace” Obamacare without including a ban on taxpayer-funded abortion, and pro-life organizations are being told to accept it.

The pro-life issue is a thorn in the side of the Senate leadership, as it interferes with their desire to pass what they want without regard for the interests of the unborn. The pro-life issue hampers the cronyism preferred by senators who want to pick their friends, rather than pro-life nominees, to fill the more than 100 vacancies on the federal judiciary.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a career politician who has been in the Senate for more than three decades, just gave his buddy Amul Thapar a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, despite the lack of any pro-life record by Judge Thapar. Meanwhile, McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, became one of the first confirmed Cabinet members back in January, without the resistance by senators which nearly every other nominee of President Trump received.

While McConnell held prompt votes for his family and friends, he does everything he can to duck and avoid the pro-life issue, while pretending to be for the unborn at election time. Other senators also brag about having a so-called “100% pro-life voting record,” but that is only because they doggedly prevent any real votes from occurring on the issue.

Despite the pro-life mandate by the electorate last November, federal taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood has continued with no end in sight, even after the shocking revelations of atrocities committed against the unborn by that organization. McConnell rushed through a continuing resolution in April that gave the pro-abortion side everything they wanted on the issue.

The House version to repeal and replace Obamacare, which passed on May 4, eliminated some of its worst parts and also prohibited the use of taxpayer funds to subsidize abortion under Obamacare. But senators are quietly attempting to remove that ban in the version they seek to pass by July 4.

As senators often do whenever the issue of abortion comes up, they try to deflect the issue to someone else to decide it for them. This time they outsourced the most important decision about the continuation of the Hyde Amendment to an unelected lawyer named Elizabeth MacDonough, who is the Senate parliamentarian.

The Senate can defer as much or as little as it likes to the parliamentarian. But the Senate leadership wants her to say that the Hyde Amendment cannot be part of a reconciliation bill and that it can be filibustered by the Democratic minority.

McConnell showed that he can override the filibuster when he wants to, as he did in obtaining confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. The spectacle of McConnell and other Senate leaders trying to hide behind the skirt of an obscure parliamentarian to avoid voting on abortion is silly.

Obamacare, formally called the Affordable Care Act, subsidizes the purchase of health plans that cover abortion. But Americans are overwhelmingly against compelling taxpayers to subsidize abortion, which is not health care.

If Senate leaders think they will be able to avoid the issue of abortion by deferring to a parliamentarian, they are sorely mistaken. In September the money runs out and another continuing resolution will be required to avoid a government shutdown.

It was widely perceived on both sides of the aisle that Democrats walked all over Republicans in the last continuing resolution, not merely on abortion but on other issues, too. President Trump has vowed to avoid a repeat of that fiasco again this fall.

Standing strong for the Hyde Amendment is essential to millions of pro-life Americans, so that they are not compelled to fund the taking of innocent life in the womb. Any “repeal and replace” of Obamacare that does not preserve the 40-year tradition of the Hyde Amendment in prohibiting federal taxpayer-funded abortion would constitute an abdication of the pro-life principles of the Republican Party.

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.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Feminists portray Comey as pathetic

Fox News reports:
It was pretty much inevitable. Once you propose the theme of James Comey as a sexual harassment victim as happened in the New York Times, it was almost certain that the next step would be a comparison of him to Anita Hill. And it sure didn't take long. The June 9 Washington Post, followed a day later by the Los Angeles Times, have already gone with that comparison.

The Washington Post article by Christine Emba takes a rather embarrassing stab at Comey's manhood in its title, Mr. Comey, what were you wearing that night?
Hill is famous, of course, for telling some embarrassing and implausible stories in congressional testimony as part of a Democrat plot to sabotage the nomination of her mentor. At first she appeared to be lying, and then she appeared to be suffering from some sort of mental illness as well.

Maybe we should just forget about Comey. It has become painfully obvious that he lacks the necessities to be an FBI Director. Trump tried to give him a chance, but he should have been fired a long time ago.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Bernie Sanders berates Christian nominee

The Atlantic magazine reports:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” On Wednesday, Senator Bernie Sanders flirted with the boundaries of this rule during a confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. ...

During the hearing, Sanders repeatedly quoted one passage that he found particularly objectionable:
Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.
“In my view, the statement made by Mr. Vought is indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world,” Sanders told the committee during his introductory remarks. “This country, since its inception, has struggled, sometimes with great pain, to overcome discrimination of all forms … we must not go backwards.” ...

It was a remarkable moment: a Democratic senator lecturing a nominee for public office on the correct interpretation of Christianity in a confirmation hearing putatively about the Office of Management and Budget.
The article does not mention it, but Sanders is Jewish.

Apparently this is what religious tolerance means to the Left today. It means we cannot tolerate a budget official who believes in salvation thru Jesus Christ, because the Muslims might be offended.

Friday, June 9, 2017

Comey compared to an insecure woman

A NY Times op-ed compares James Comey to a woman complaining about sexual harassment:
At a White House ceremony on Jan. 22, Mr. Comey reportedly tried to blend in with the curtains, so that he would not be noticed by the president. Mr. Trump called to him and pulled him, unwilling, into a hug. What woman has not tried to remain invisible from an unwelcome pursuer’s attentions?

To this series of bizarre interactions, in which he faced escalating pressure, Mr. Comey reacted with rising anxiety and distress. Time after time, Mr. Trump reverted to his questionable agenda, and Mr. Comey, at each pass, tried to parry the president’s unwanted advances. ...

Victims of sexual harassment often face skepticism, doubts and accusations when they tell their story. That’s part of the predator’s power. But I’m here to tell James Comey, and all the women and men who have suffered at the hands of predators, I believe you.
If this is a spoof, it is brilliant. I am not sure if it is making fun of Comey, or of those who read sexual messages into everything, or of the women who naively believe all other complaining women.

Update: In case you think all women have the same view, this one says:
Nowadays, I’d be positively overjoyed by the attention. ...

Trust me, there is only one thing worse than attracting unwanted attention, and that’s attracting no attention at all. ...

That is the awful irony. Young women have it all, but don’t know it; older women know it all, but no longer have it. Somewhere in between, there’s a golden moment when it all comes together. But blink and you’ll miss it.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Comey deserved to get fired

James Comey's testimony shows that he deserved to be fired. He has little respect for the authority of the President. He was not willing to honestly report to his superiors on the activities of his department. He has no regrets about the Clinton email investigation, which most Republicans and Democrats agree was bungled. He subscribes to kooky Russian conspiracy theories. He appears to have joined forces with Trump-haters who leak documents and commit other illegal acts to undermine the Trump administration. He was going to spend 4 years causing unnecessary trouble for the President.

Trump thinks like a CEO, and a CEO would not put up with a department head with Comey's attitude.

Comey talked about how the Russians tried to influence the election, but most of that evidence, as documented by the intelligence agencies, consisted of broadcasts by the RT television network critical of the Obama administration. The Democrats and the deep state are apparently very unhappy that they cannot control 100% of the press.

It is not against the law for the President to say that someone is a good guy, or to hope that someone will be cleared. Flynn had already been fired, and Trump had no need to stop an investigation of him for failing to file some paperwork, or whatever he is accused of. Trump was just doing the honorable thing by vouching for Flynn.

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Trump Should Call His Opponents’ Bluff

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly 

An important reason why Phyllis Schlafly enthusiastically supported Donald Trump for president was because, in her words, “He has fight in him.”  Nearly every day he proves that to be true, most recently with his tweets in support of his travel ban from terrorism-associated countries.

Not since Ronald Reagan have we had a conservative president like Trump who “has fight in him” to stand up for the security and prosperity of ordinary Americans.  So many other politicians cave into whatever the media want.

After the press criticized Trump all day Monday, June 5th, for some early-morning tweets by Trump in support of his travel ban, by evening Trump demonstrated that he was undeterred by comments from the peanut gallery.  He came out swinging with another tweet after hours:  “That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!”

Oh, how refreshing it is to have a president who does not kowtow to the liberal media and the D.C. establishment who think they run our country.  Trump is fighting to win on his travel ban, and on many other issues near and dear to the hearts of average Americans.

The story line from the media is that President Trump’s most recent tweets will hurt his court case, which has reached the U.S. Supreme Court with an expedited briefing schedule.  Even his supporters think Trump’s out-of-court statements via Twitter will be considered by the Supreme Court Justices.

But Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the Deputy White House Press Secretary who is also the daughter of the twice-presidential conservative candidate Mike Huckabee, was splendid in fielding hostile questions from the press about President Trump’s repeated use of Twitter.  She observed that Trump “has over 100-plus million contacts through social media, on all those platforms” including Twitter.

“I think it’s a very important tool for him to be able to utilize,” she added.  When asked if Trump’s tweets are vetted by an attorney, she candidly and unapologetically replied, “Not that I’m aware of.”

The President of the United States should not need to have his comments vetted by an attorney before speaking directly with the American people.  Alexander Hamilton promised that the judiciary would be the “weakest” of our three branches of government, and the President has as much authority as all nine Supreme Court Justices combined.

That is what our Constitution provides, and that is what our Founders intended.  The idea that President Trump shouldn’t speak directly to the American people without having his remarks vetted by an attorney shows how far the political power structure has strayed from its constitutional moorings.

Less than a year ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a series of off-the-cuff remarks critical of Trump, calling him a “faker” and even musing that she might “move to New Zealand” if he were elected.  No one suggested then that Ginsburg’s comments should have been vetted by the Chief Justice before she spoke.

The same people who gave Ginsburg a pass for her intemperate remarks about Trump when he was a candidate are now saying that as President of the United States, Trump should be more careful how he says things, lest the supposedly supreme power of the judiciary punish him for it.

Contrary to the media, Trump should be free to share his views on litigation strategy with the American people whom he represents as our duly elected president.  There's no confidentiality protecting such communications, but courts are not supposed to be in the business of ruling against a newly elected president as he works overtime to protect national security and fulfill the campaign pledge upon which he was elected.

As statements out-of-court, Trump’s tweets to the American people would not be admissible on appeal under traditional rules of evidence.  The Supreme Court does not ordinarily hear testimony, and it should not allow the proceeding to be distorted by the introduction of numerous out-of-court statements through legal papers.

Opponents of the travel ban have bragged about using Trump’s statements against him in court.  Trump should call their bluff, and offer to testify before the Supreme Court to explain fully how necessary his travel ban is to protect the American people against a replay of what is happening in London.

The Supreme Court, of course, would decline Trump’s offer.  It should also decline to base its decision on snippets quoted without telling the full story.  

“At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’” Trump said of the recent massacre in London.  Don’t expect the adversaries of Trump to emphasize that quotation in court.

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.


Monday, June 5, 2017

Iranian-American Trump hater

WND reports:
After Donald Trump posted a tweet Saturday urging “smart, vigilant and tough” actions in response to the London Bridge attack, CNN host Reza Aslan, best known for his multicultural human brain-eating stunt, labeled the president “a piece of sh–” in a retaliatory post. ...

Aslan posted and has since removed his uncensored tweet, which stated:

“This piece of sh– is not just an embarrassment to America and a stain on the presidency. He’s an embarrassment to humankind.”

Sunday afternoon, Aslan posted an apology for his obscene outburst.
Aslan is mainly known for a Fox News interview where he got caught lying repeatedly about his credentials and purposes, and for writing books with his own re-interpretations of Christianity and Islam. He is Islamic, and he argues that Islam is a the religion of peace and that Jesus Christ was the one who preached warfare.

He has not apologized for lying about his credentials, or for lying about Christianity.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

India wants differentiated responsibilities

A view from India of the Paris Accord:
The climate change debate, right from the start, has been based on ‘differentiated’ responsibilities of developed and developing countries in taking actions to deal with it. This is because the greenhouse gas emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution till about the 1980s had come predominantly from the developed countries. They had a “historical responsibility” for polluting the atmosphere, and warming the planet, and, therefore, a greater responsibility to take steps to mitigate the impacts, the developing countries have argued.

This argument became the basis of the famous ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ (CBDR) principle that was enshrined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of 1992.

The UNFCCC also divided the world into two very neat parts — the countries that had “historical responsibility” and those that did not. The first were put in an annexure, Annex-I of the UNFCCC document, while the others came to be known as non-Annex countries.

The Kyoto Protocol, the existing international arrangement on climate change which the agreement from Paris will replace in 2020, was based on these principles of CBDR and ‘historical responsibilities’ and had assigned specific emission reduction targets for Annex-I countries.

The agreement from Paris does not have a single mention of ‘historical responsibility’ or to Annex-I and non-Annex countries, though it does emphasise the principle of CBDR at several places.

“The agreement has deep links with the Convention (UNFCCC) and CBDR is imbibed in it. More importantly, differentiation of developed and developing countries is mentioned across all the elements of the agreement, in mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity building and transparency. That is very important,” India’s Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said.
In other words, the agreement is going to let China and India have the biggest growth in CO2 emissions, while the USA has to cut back.