Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Trump Defeats Planned Parenthood in Ninth Circuit

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Last month the first physician to run Planned Parenthood in nearly a half-century was forced out because she actually wanted to focus on women’s health. Her firing proved what many Americans already knew, which is that Planned Parenthood exists primarily to promote abortion rather than women’s health.

Taxpayers should not be required to fund this pro-abortion organization, and in a remarkable series of rulings even the Ninth Circuit agreed, for now. With seven new Trump judges on that court, the Ninth Circuit is no longer the liberal playground where Planned Parenthood has been able to snap its fingers and get everything it wanted.

Apparently Planned Parenthood did not see the memo about changes at the Ninth Circuit. Planned Parenthood sued in that jurisdiction to block new rules by the Trump Administration which limit the use of taxpayer dollars by abortion advocacy groups.

These new rules improve upon restrictions installed during the Reagan Administration, but which Clinton repealed and George W. Bush failed to reinstate. From the inception of the family planning program known as Title X, the federal government has been prohibited from spending money to promote abortion as a method of family planning, but that limit has mostly been ignored.

Trump’s fabulous new rules reinstate the original goals of Title X, by banning use of its money to refer for abortions. These rules require separating any affiliated abortion clinics, ending the standard requirement of abortion counseling, and restricting which employees can promote abortions while receiving federal dollars.

Planned Parenthood wants to continue to receive the $60 million in handouts from the federal government under Title X, but without complying with the new rules. Imagine how far that amount would stretch if it were spent on lifesaving medical care for the poor, rather than on abortion advocacy.

Before Trump began appointing judges to the federal bench, Planned Parenthood could have quickly persuaded a federal court to block the new rules, and prevailed on appeal.

Even now, Planned Parenthood won as it always has at the district court level, which issued an injunction upon demand by Planned Parenthood against the Trump Administration. The appeal went to the Ninth Circuit, where Planned Parenthood has won so often before.

Assignment is random to three-judge appellate panels in the U.S. Court of Appeals. In the Ninth Circuit, that means a random pick from among 16 active judges appointed by Presidents Clinton and Obama, 12 active judges appointed by Presidents George W. Bush and Trump, and 18 mostly liberal judges who have senior status, including 4 appointed by President Jimmy Carter.

But in a statistically unlikely assignment, three Republican-appointed judges were picked for the panel. They unanimously blocked the district court decision, allowing the Trump Administration rules to go into effect during the pendency of the litigation.

Planned Parenthood then sought rehearing “en banc,” which in most U.S. Courts of Appeal would include a full sitting of all the active judges. But only 11 random judges out of 28 sit en banc in the Ninth Circuit, because its court is so large.

Planned Parenthood came up with the short end of the stick again. It drew an en banc panel that was 7 Republican-appointed judges, and 4 Democrat-appointed ones; Planned Parenthood lost 7-4.

All four of the votes for Planned Parenthood were by judges appointed to the Ninth Circuit by President Clinton. All seven of the votes against Planned Parenthood were by Republican appointees, including two nominees by Trump who provided the margin of victory, and Planned Parenthood’s unusual attempt to convene a new sitting of all 28 active judges was too much even for Democrat appointees who still hold a majority there.

Planned Parenthood has since declared that it will pull out of the Title X funding program if it does not persuade another court to enjoin the new rules. Apparently the organization would rather forgo the $60 million in taxpayer funding than have to limit some of its abortion advocacy and referrals.

There is plenty of money among wealthy liberals who support Planned Parenthood, so do not expect it to close its doors any time soon. Michael Bloomberg and other billionaires could easily fill that funding gap without making much of a dent in their own fortunes.

But what this battle is really about is the credibility of Planned Parenthood, and whether it can force its opponents to pay its bills while it promotes abortion. Prior Republican administrations and Congresses have promised to do this, but the Trump Administration is the first to actually achieve it.

Two unusually Republican draws of judicial panels in the Ninth Circuit resulted in this tremendous victory. Four more years of President Trump will ensure more of these wins without relying on the luck of the draw.

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, August 13, 2019

#MeToo Takes on the Deep State

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

The #MeToo movement takes on the Deep State over the Epstein scandal, and the shadow government may have finally met its match. The outrage by feminists against Jeffrey Epstein for evading justice while allegedly providing underage girls to powerful men has even the New York Times demanding answers.

Epstein was apparently protected by the Deep State for more than a decade, receiving extraordinary favoritism right up until his final moments of life in jail. At first the liberal media reacted to his death by calling anyone who questioned the circumstances a “conspiracy theorist,” but the media has since flipped amid pressure by liberals themselves not to let Epstein’s scheme off the hook.

No one can pretend that Epstein “acted alone” all those years, which is the favorite refrain of the Deep State when it wants to close the lid on investigatory failures about other famous crimes. Epstein obviously had powerful allies, starting with Bill Clinton, as well as pilots to fly them and others on the “Lolita Express” staffed by underage girls to serve for their satisfaction.

There are surely dozens, if not hundreds, who must have been in on Epstein’s illicit activities and unexplained accumulation of massive wealth. Bill Clinton himself traveled numerous times on Epstein’s private airplane, which included a bedroom for the pleasure of his travelers.

This former high school teacher who became the billionaire owner of luxurious properties and even his own island in the Caribbean evidently had much he could have said about Clinton and other favorites of the Left. Perhaps Epstein’s cohorts think his death should close the case, but instead it should make getting the truth easier without his army of lawyers hiding behind a plea bargain which can be voided now.

The Department of Justice was prosecuting Epstein a decade ago when special intervention apparently let him off. Attorney General Bill Barr should unseal all those records in his department now that Epstein is dead.

It has been reported that someone then called the U.S. Attorney and told him that Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and to drop the investigation and prosecution, which the U.S. Attorney immediately did. As a result, Epstein received a plea bargain that was so unusual that some have even called it illegal.
Ah, so that is how the Deep State obtains favoritism for its own. It can stop investigations of itself by insisting – or pretending – that the perpetrator is a member of “intelligence” and thus cannot be prosecuted.

James Clapper, once the Director of National Intelligence, famously lied under oath to Congress and yet was never prosecuted for it. It appears that anyone who “belonged to intelligence” is considered above the law, and that using those magic words can get a U.S. Attorney to drop even the strongest of cases.
Meanwhile, millions of ordinary folk languish in federal prisons, many even dying there, while no friend of the Deep State is ever held accountable. But this time the #MeToo crowd is on the case, as they may consider the alleged crimes of Jeffrey Epstein to be comparable to capital offenses.

Alexander Acosta, who was the U.S. Attorney, has refused to confirm or deny the published account of why the Epstein case was compromised. No one has explained why the plea bargain given to Epstein was so preferential that it even protected his accomplices against being brought to justice.

Now Attorney General Barr has identified “serious irregularities” at the jail where Epstein was allowed to commit suicide despite being under a suicide watch. Barr promises a full and thorough investigation, and for once liberals seem to be supportive of this Trump nominee.

But the investigation should not be limited merely to the Manhattan jail cell where Epstein died. Rather, Barr should release to the public all the files on the federal investigation and cover-up of Epstein a decade ago.

Peeling back the layers of cover-up for Jeffrey Epstein could finally bring down the Deep State and its own perverse way of protecting some while destroying others. Was the preferential treatment of Epstein motivated in part to protect Bill Clinton?

Like Epstein, Clinton has been able to get away for decades with conduct that would have landed any Republican in prison long ago. But the Epstein scandal and the clamor by all sides of the political spectrum may finally bring some accountability to Bill Clinton, after all these years.

Important revelations could also result from a full probe into Epstein’s unexplained accumulation of wealth. There are reports that Epstein handled the $29.3 million jackpot on behalf of the still undisclosed winner of the Oklahoma Powerball lottery in July 2008.

If Attorney General Barr digs deep, state lotteries or other government corruption might be brought down, too. And not a moment too soon.

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.

Friday, August 9, 2019

We Choose Truth Over Facts

This is Joe Biden's new campaign slogan.

This was probably just a slip of the tongue, but it does symbolize his extreme leftward political shift. Right-wingers deal in facts. Left-wingers have ideological concepts that they promote as truths. Biden has stumbled across a good insight into political thinking.

Thursday, August 8, 2019

Leftist vitriol is getting worse

I thought that RedState.com was a bunch of Republican Trump-haters, but it now says:
While the press continues to blame Republicans for their “rhetoric,” there’s no question that the vitriol we’ve seen from the left this week dwarfs anything anyone on the mainstream right has ever said or done in a political setting. Period. Calling entire voting blocks white supremacists, doxxing donors, yelling for the death of a Senator, asserting Republicans want mass shootings to occur, threatening people for their political activities, asserting the President wants to exterminate a race – these are not the rantings of sane people looking for de-escalation of rhetoric. They are the drivers of escalation in our rhetoric and it’s reaching dangerous levels.

There’s no coming back from this for the media. There will never be a time when a majority of the country trusts them again. They will always now be looked on with scorn by far more people than those who approve of their actions. No amount of rehabilitation post-Trump is going to save this current generation of journalists and cable news pundits from the credibility death spiral they chose to enter.

These people have lost it. They are so caught up in their bubbles that they can’t even function with any sense of rationality. As the press as an institution finally burns to the ground, they have no one to blame but themselves and things are only going to get worse.
The leftist game plan is to keep accelerating the name-calling until Pres. Trump and his supporters cave into their demands.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

“Soulless” Gamer Shot Up El Paso

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

The 21-year-old who shot up the El Paso Walmart was a “soulless” video game player. He cooperated with authorities during his interrogation afterward, and officials should release to the public his answers to many important questions.

It is unlikely that the killer’s motives fit the narrative of “white nationalism” that is being pushed by the national media. For starters, the accused shooter, Patrick Crusius, is a registered Democrat who was critical of Republicans.

The British press is often the best source of information when these tragedies occur, because the American media try to spin and suppress the news to fit their political narrative. The shooting was not domestic terrorism, but was the product of a loner who grew up on video games rather than healthy relationships.

In a manifesto he apparently posted shortly before opening fire on a crowd of back-to-school shoppers, Crusius refers to “Call of Duty,” which trains boys to kill and kill again. People who knew him in high school described him as a “gamer” for his devotion to playing video games.

One of his few friends was of Egyptian descent, and it is implausible that the killer was a “white nationalist.” Another student who knew him in school said “he never spoke of anything political or talked about guns or had any hatred toward minorities,” as reported by the Daily Mail.

Instead, the real problem is that he is “soulless,” as another high-school acquaintance characterized him. His crime might be described as one of nihilism, which is an ideology of despair that has motivated rootless young men toward violent crimes throughout human history.

He had no girlfriends and participated in no extracurricular activities in high school, recalled one classmate who knew him there. He apparently did not have any genetic psychiatric disorder, as his twin sister was considered to be well-adjusted.

Nearly four times as many young men are avid video game players compared with young women, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center study. The average gamer spends more than 7 hours each week playing video games, and many boys spend more than 40 per week consumed by the impersonal games which impede their social development.

Crusius became unemployed and it is not yet known how he passed his time each day. Politically, he was not “right wing” or pro-Trump by any stretch of the imagination.

On the same weekend as the El Paso and Dayton shootings, 55 people were shot in Chicago, of whom 7 died. The grim total included two mass shootings: one in which 8 people were shot by the same gunman, and another in which 7 were shot by the same gunman.

Liberals do not want to talk about the massacre in Dayton because it was by a supporter of Elizabeth Warren. Connor Betts, who was killed by police near the outset of his rampage, had posted that he did not think socialism was being adopted quickly enough.

Betts does not fit the “white supremacist” narrative either. Betts described himself as a “leftist,” and is seen in a photograph wearing the patch “Against all Gods.”

He killed 9 people and injured 27 in a mere 30 seconds, which suggests that he got his training on violent video games, too. It is unfathomable that someone could inflict such rapid, deadly harm so quickly without practicing to kill.

Liberals predictably call for gun control after every mass shooting, but they are silent about how these young killers became desensitized to murdering people. It is dangerous to addict unemployed young men on games similar to what the Army uses to desensitize soldiers to killing.

Democrat frontrunner Joe Biden acknowledged the video game problem, to the dismay of Anderson Cooper during a CNN interview on Monday. “It is not healthy to have these games teaching kids this dispassionate notion that you can shoot somebody and just sort of blow their brains out,” Biden observed.

Studies show that playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior. This is found to be true across ages and cultures, which is hardly surprising.

The Supreme Court would not likely strike down new bipartisan legislation to protect minors against addiction to violent video games, as it did in 2011 when five Justices said the “publishers” of such games have a First Amendment right to sell their products to children. Since then one Justice in the majority (Kagan) has expressed regret for her decision, and two others have been replaced.

Just 10 days before the weekend shootings, a U.S. House committee conducted a hearing into what was called the “youth vaping epidemic” in which the founder of Juul was harshly condemned for making his products so attractive to teens. It is time for a similar spotlight to be cast on the dangerous video game industry.

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, July 30, 2019

Trump Wins by Framing the Debate

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Prior Republican presidents allowed their opponents and the media to set the agenda. The more liberal the past GOP president, the more he took his daily cues from television and newspapers controlled by the Left.

But not Trump. He tweets out what he wants people to talk about, and he has his adversaries scrambling to respond to what Trump says, not vice-versa.

The best defense is a good offense, as every sports fan knows. Trump has mastered this better than anyone in the history of American politics.

No one on the national stage was talking about the problems of Democrat-controlled Baltimore prior to last week. Now everyone is talking about it, thanks to Trump’s spot-on tweets about it.

Baltimore is ranked as one of the ten least livable cities in the United States. Democratic congressman Elijah Cummings represents much of the city, and he is one of the most powerful congressmen on Capitol Hill.

But recently he spent his time attacking the conditions in a detention center, even shouting at acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan during a hearing about it. Rep. Cummings expressed outrage about how illegal aliens are held, which caught President Trump’s eye and he contrasted it with the deplorable conditions in Rep. Cummings’ own district.
“Baltimore, under the leadership of Elijah Cummings, has the worst Crime Statistics in the Nation,” Trump tweeted. “25 years of all talk, no action!”

It is ironic how Democrats focus so much on the conditions of illegal aliens rather than spending more time and effort helping people in their own districts. Trump would work with the Democrat-controlled House to improve inner cities, but the Pelosi crew seems uninterested in doing that.

So Trump directs national attention to Baltimore, where help is badly needed. A few years ago the Baltimore Orioles even played a baseball game without allowing fans to attend, because it was too dangerous outside of the stadium.
Other cities face similar crises. Downtown St. Louis has been on a downward spiral for years, also under Democrat leadership.

While liberals are quick to resort to the “racist” label, they did not react that way when Bernie Sanders compared West Baltimore to a Third World Country during his last campaign for president. How is it that Trump’s criticisms are considered to be racist, when Sanders’ similar comments were not?

Trump did not back down, nor should he. On Monday he tweeted, “Nothing will get done for the people in need … Sad!”
Trump’s comments create the opportunity for something to be done, as he embarrassed Democrats who spend more time worrying about the cleanliness of centers for illegal aliens than the rampant violence and poverty among their own constituents.

Every week, and nearly every day, President Trump frames the issues for the press with his early morning tweets. This is far more effective than other Republican politicians who wait for criticism by the other side, and then merely react to it.

For years the Washington Post and the New York Times set the agenda for the White House, even when there was a Republican president. White House staff were assigned to read those newspapers each morning and then reports would be given to the president and vice president so they could plan their statements accordingly.

After four or eight years of that process, it was difficult to point to any long-term accomplishments by several past Republican administrations. But Trump is showing us how important it is to take initiative in dealing with a hostile Congress and media.

Phyllis Schlafly often emphasized the importance of being able to define the terms of a debate. Trump is successfully taking a similar approach..

Michael Moore, who made a conspiracy theory movie against George W. Bush, wants Trump to lose but predicts that he will win reelection. He has been critical of the Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden as an opponent of Trump next fall.

Moore lambasted his fellow Dems for trying to set an agenda based on Robert Mueller. “A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions,” Moore said after Mueller’s testimony to Congress last week.

“All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller,” Moore lamented. Trump retweeted Moore’s comments, chuckling about how even Michael Moore agrees with him.

There is no one among the roughly two-dozen candidates vying for the Democratic nomination who can match Trump’s ability to reach and connect with the American public. Instead, the Democrats are relegated to the second-class status of responding to issues that Trump raises, starting with Baltimore and the deplorable conditions of many of our Democrat-controlled inner cities.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work. 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, July 23, 2019

Questions to Ask Mueller

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

“Just the facts, ma’am,” Detective Joe Friday was known for telling witnesses in the 1960s television series Dragnet. Trivia buffs point out that actor Jack Webb’s character never used those precise words, but he did focus like a laser beam on getting the facts when interrogating witnesses.

So should the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees when they question Robert Mueller on Wednesday. There should be no softball, open-ended questions by Democrats designed to invite baseless speculation by Mueller against President Trump.

Mueller reportedly requested that the Department of Justice send him a cautionary letter of instructions to limit the scope of testimony. The letter emphasized the longstanding policy of the Justice Department not to discuss behavior by persons who have not been charged with a crime.

That means Mueller should not be discussing President Donald Trump, who has not been charged with any crime. Mueller would be violating the Justice Department policy if he disparages President Trump.

The Justice Department told Mueller that it “generally does not permit prosecutors such as you to appear and testify before Congress regarding their investigative and prosecutorial activity.”

This does not mean that Mueller cannot answer any questions. There are multiple mysteries about his fruitless boondoggle which Mueller should address, and about which congressmen should thoroughly interrogate him.

The first question Mueller should answer is how much taxpayer money he wasted on his multiyear investigation into non-existent crimes. Then he should be required to estimate how much collateral damage he imposed on others in the course of his rampage.

A recent report says that Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who spent decades serving our Nation in the Army, incurred at least $4.6 million in legal fees due to Mueller’s investigation. Gen. Flynn was the victim of an unusual sting operation whereby the since-discredited Peter Strzok oversaw the interrogation of Flynn about the contents of a phone call about which Strzok had access to a secret recording of what was said.

Next, Mueller should be asked about a report that his liberal deputy, the overzealous Andrew Weissmann, attempted to cut a deal with a notorious Ukrainian oligarch, Dmytro Firtash, if the Ukrainian would provide some dirt about Trump. If Mueller pretends not to know the details about that, then there should be vigorous follow-up questioning because surely he knew what his deputy was doing.

Mueller should also be asked about reports that his immediate supervisor, Rod Rosenstein, considered an attempt to remove Trump from power based on the 25th Amendment. That amendment, which provides for a scenario in which the president loses his mental capacity, obviously has no relevance to the current administration.

Then questions should be asked about why Mueller, with much fanfare, indicted foreigners outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. Why did Mueller waste time and money making accusations against defendants who would never receive due process to exonerate themselves here?

Attorney General William Barr, in a letter he publicly released on March 24, observed (on behalf of himself and Rod Rosenstein) that Mueller “identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct” by the president. Democrats have falsely called this statement misleading even though it is exactly correct.

Mueller himself should be asked repeatedly about Barr’s letter. Why did Mueller allow the media to push for weeks the false narrative that he was preparing a collusion or obstruction case against Trump?

Next there is the unexplained delay in Mueller waiting until after the 2018 midterm elections to exonerate Trump. Mueller should be asked why he did not wrap up his investigation in an expeditious manner.

Mueller has accused Russians of manipulating the 2016 presidential election, but why did Mueller himself manipulate the 2018 midterm elections by allowing false media reports about Trump to persist? Why didn’t he release his findings earlier to prevent voters from being misled by the false accusations against Trump?

Mueller should be asked about his bizarre statement on May 29 that “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Mueller should explain why he acted contrary to the Department of Justice policy not to comment about people who are not charged with crimes.

Mueller stated publicly that the Russians who were indicted should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and there will be no trial to establish any guilt. Isn’t the president also worth the same presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

In Dragnet, one of the most popular law enforcement television dramas ever, Sergeant Joe Friday was solving violent crimes that happened, rather than searching for non-existent crimes. If it was so important to stick to the facts in Hollywood, it is even more important to stick to the facts when Democrats want to smear our president over fictitious crimes.

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, July 16, 2019

Trump Demolishes the “Squad”

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

On Monday, President Trump issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to increase their purchases of products made in America. Using his authority under the Buy American Act, Trump commanded agencies to increase their purchase of American-made goods from 50 to 75 percent.

Purchases of domestic steel and iron products will increase to 95 percent under Trump’s command. As our infrastructure is rebuilt, this will give an important boost to our manufacturers.

At the same time, the Trump administration took action to sharply limit the flow of illegal aliens who seek asylum by crossing our southern border. In response to an explosion in such applications, the Department of Justice issued a new rule to prohibit applications for asylum by someone who has migrated through another country which could have granted asylum, namely Mexico.

These are all necessary steps to restore American sovereignty and jobs for our citizens. But the anti-Trumpers show little interest in these sensible new policies, and instead try to falsely label Trump as a racist.

Americans already knew Trump as a celebrity and entertainer before liberals began smearing him, which gives him the same Teflon quality that Ronald Reagan had. Critics have to pretend that Trump has somehow changed, when everyone knows he has not.

The new blizzard of false accusations of racism are for Trump’s tweets suggesting that those who dislike the United States should return to their country of origin. Trump’s comments were reminiscent of a popular bumper sticker in the 1970s, which said “America: Love it or Leave it.”

Trump tweeted on Sunday that some should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” On Monday, he retweeted that a small group of leftist congresswomen are “a bunch of communists” and “anti-America.”

Trump’s tweets were in response to the inflammatory rhetoric of the “Squad,” as the four congresswomen have become known, who have been more than disrespectful of the president. In order of notoriety, the Squad consists of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), who in a joint press conference on Monday referred to President Trump as “blatantly racist.”

They also insist that the President is somehow lawless as he tries to secure the border and seek the removal of criminal aliens. But Trump’s policies have at various times been supported by Democrats in the past, even by some of the current Democratic presidential candidates.

The Squad derisively refers to our Commander-in-Chief as the mere “occupant” in the White House. The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has tried to rein in these out-of-control Democrats, only to receive a stinging rebuke from them in response.

One of the most prominent members of the Squad is an immigrant from Somalia, where American soldiers were killed and dragged through the streets while Bill Clinton was president. Americans have long been urged to leave that country rather than stay there.

But tens of thousands of Somalis were transplanted to Minnesota, creating a community large enough to elect a congresswoman from their native land, Ilhan Omar. President Trump quipped, “I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements” for her return to Somalia.

Humorous, but certainly not racist. Omar has been highly critical of American policies on multiple issues, as is her right, but her outspokenness makes it fair game for Trump to criticize her in return.

Her colleague in the Squad, the already famous rookie congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, was quick to accuse her fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi of racism just last week. Trump himself felt compelled to defend Speaker Pelosi against the smear.

Disputes about immigration policy are not about racism. It is not racist to try to Make America Great Again, or to urge someone to leave America if she does not like it here.

Of course, virtually everyone does like it here, and billions of people around the world want to come here. President Trump is right to call out the opponents of border security and our free market system that gives us liberty and prosperity.

Ayanna Pressley may be the least famous member of the Squad, but her recent comments about race were the most startling. “We don’t need black faces that don't want to be a black voice,” she said, and “We don’t need queers that don't want to be a queer voice.”

Later, her spokeswoman clarified these remarks by saying, “Diversity at the table doesn’t matter if there’s not real diversity in policy.” But policy diversity as advocated by President Trump is apparently not what the Squad is looking for.

Trump was elected by the American people to implement these policies. When the Squad and the media hurl insults at President Trump, they insult the American people too.

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, July 9, 2019

Amid Gender Hype, What About Chappaquiddick 50 Years Later?

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

The biggest record broken by the national women’s soccer team was not on the field, but in the hype they received from the media. No sports team has benefited from so much free publicity, despite how Americans have always been disinterested in soccer as a spectator sport.

Empty seats plagued the French stadium where the matches were played for the Women’s World Cup, and the American television audience for the finals was 38% lower than four years ago. Some attribute the viewership decline in the finals to its scheduling midday on a Sunday, but American football draws well then.

There were strikingly few minority players in the World Cup from the quarterfinals through the finals, in contrast with the racial diversity in other competitive sports. The many photographs of the American women’s soccer team are of nearly all-white players, unlike the men’s team.

But let’s not allow facts to stand in the way of the liberals’ narrative for this. Their real game here is for “pay equity,” a demand that women be paid as much as men not for doing the same job, but for doing different jobs.
On March 8, the women soccer players sued the United States Soccer Federation in order to be paid as much as men. The men are faster, stronger, and more athletic in playing soccer, but the women demand to be paid as much.

That would mean reducing the pay of men’s soccer players based on a judge setting salaries, rather than the free market doing that. From there it is an easy corner kick to have judges change the salaries across the United States for everyone, with men taking the hit.

There is a political goal line for team feminist on this, too. They want the White House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court to be run by women, and they do not mean conservative women.

Amid all this gender talk, how about an observance of the 50th anniversary of Chappaquiddick? On that island one of the most powerful men of the last half-century, Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, apparently had a late-night tryst with an attractive young blonde who had worked for his brother.

They left alone together on July 18, 1969, from a cottage where six young women staffers were brought to party with six married men, including Kennedy. The arrangement was the type of setup that #MeTooers complain about today.
But nary a word by liberals in speaking out for the young woman who left with Ted Kennedy and ended up dead, without her underwear on. Sen. Kennedy repeatedly lied about the circumstances resulting in Mary Jo Kopechne being found lifeless in a submerged car that Kennedy said he was driving.

Kennedy never obtained help for her, did not timely report the accident to the police, and did not even seem particularly bothered by it. Many feminists, then and now, seem just fine with Kennedy’s conduct as they have been with Bill Clinton’s.
If Ted Kennedy had been a Republican politician or even a Hollywood director, then his career would have been over. There would be an immense hue and cry about how powerful men exploit young women for their personal pleasure, and get away with it.

Yet for the next four decades, Kennedy reigned supreme over the Democratic Party. In 1980 many feminists even supported Kennedy’s bid for president, which fell narrowly short.

There was no justice for Kennedy’s crime at Chappaquiddick, which by his own admission included leaving the scene of a fatal accident and allowing a young woman to die there. Yet he avoided any jail time or even having to answer tough questions about what he had done.

Kennedy wore a phony neck brace to the funeral as though he had been seriously injured as part of an accident, when he had not. The movie “Chappaquiddick” (titled “The Senator” for its release in England) portrayed the deception of the neck brace by Kennedy but was unable to tell the full story because so many defended Kennedy then, and still do.

The director of “Chappaquiddick” stated that he felt the scandal would have been a bigger story today, and would have surpassed in publicity even the lunar landing which occurred two days later. Had a powerful Republican politician been involved in a similar scandal, that observation is surely correct as the media would have used the incident to promote their false narrative of Republicans exploiting women.

But the media hype about gender issues is selective. The 50-year anniversary of a powerful Democrat evading justice for his role in the death of a young blonde who left a party alone with him attracts none of the same attention that relatively minor accusations against Republicans and their conservative Supreme Court nominees receive.

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.

Saturday, July 6, 2019

Eunie Smith is not Phyllis's chosen successor

A web site controlled by Eagle Forum c4 claims:
Phyllis Schlafly was president of Eagle Forum from 1975-2016. Eagle Forum is now led by her chosen successor, Eunie Smith.
No, that is not correct.

Eunie Smith was one of six women who filed an April 2016 lawsuit to implement a hostile takeover of Eagle Forum c4. The stated purposes were:
  • to strip authority from Phyllis Schlafly, the founder and leader
  • to fire the guy who was supporting Donald Trump
  • to pay plaintiffs' million dollar legal fees from Eagle Forum c4 bank accounts
  • to put the plaintiffs in charge of the organization
The judge has still not ruled on the validity of the takeover. A ruling is expected this summer.

Phyllis Schlafly was dying at the time, and died a few months later. She fought the lawsuit, and everything Eunie Smith was doing, as she thought that Eunie Smith was ruining Eagle Forum c4.

Even if Eunie Smith wins the court ruling, it will only mean that she forced her way in, over the strenuous objections of Phyllis Schlafly. It is extremely dishonest to call Eunie Smith a "chosen successor".

The principal political difference was that Phyllis Schlafly supported Donald Trump, while Eunie Smith opposed him. The takeover was initiated immediately after Phyllis Schlafly endorsed Donald Trump. The takeover was by Never-Trumpers. The Eagle Forum c4 organization is now led by those who rejected Phyllis Schlafly's political beliefs, and it is not the same organization that it was for 40 previous years.

Update: The web page is archived here.

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

Liberal Phobia against Tanks in the Parade

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Independence Day this week will feature fireworks, barbecues, and Nathan’s annual hot-dog eating contest on Coney Island. Spectacular flying performances, including the Blue Angels, will adorn the skies.

Yet a strange phobia by liberals against including tanks in the festivities erupts again. President Trump would like to have a few tanks in his upcoming “Salute to America” parade on July 4th, but his opponents have gone hysterical in blocking it.

Why the shrieking protest against tanks in particular, while ceremonial use of military aircraft seems just fine to the Left? After all, it was the Democrats’ own nominee for president in 1988, Michael Dukakis, who famously posed for a photo-op while riding in a tank during his unsuccessful campaign.

President Trump has long wanted to have a military parade in D.C., proposing it for Veterans’ Day, but he was stymied by exaggerated cost estimates. This time the phony argument against including tanks is that they might somehow cause harm to our infrastructure, a fancy word for roads.

In Michigan, trucks can weigh as much as 164,000 pounds, which is tens of thousands of pounds heavier than the Abrams tank that Trump wants to include in the parade. Funny how the Democrats have not been howling about the weight of big trucks on our roads, but instead stridently object to Trump displaying tanks without any evidence of harm by them.

The tanks are being delivered to D.C. by the Army’s own railroad system, which is a legacy of the Civil War when the Union took control of all the railroad tracks and bridges in the South. Any interference with that transportation system was a crime punished by execution, as featured in the classic American short story “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge,” later made into a television drama by Alfred Hitchcock.

Last spring in Europe a massive deployment of tanks and other military vehicles traveled hundreds of miles on ordinary roads without difficulty, in an important test of readiness. France and other countries regularly feature tanks in their military parades, again without untoward consequences.

But liberals stridently oppose the powerful image of tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue while Trump is president, lest American voters become enthralled by the show of force. The tank symbolizes military might, and the entire world should see the military hardware that is under President Trump’s command lest anyone think of challenging us.

Nuclear weapons are within the president’s control too, but they do not seem to deter wrongdoing by two-bit dictators around the world. Military aircraft can be shot down by our enemies, as Iran just did to one of our drones.

In 2017, Trump observed tanks being used in a parade in Paris as part of its celebration of Bastille Day, which is the French equivalent of our Independence Day. The tanks did not seem to cause any problems for the roads there, so all the fuss by anti-Trumpers here is merely political.

The Abrams tank is manufactured by the Army Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio, which Trump visited in March. If the treads on this tank somehow damage ordinary roads, which seems unlikely, the manufacturer could surely put softer treads on a few for occasional use in military parades.

Our high-tech aircraft, such as the stealth bomber, are fun to watch and learn about. But air power alone cannot deter all aggression, as we continue to see countries around the world from North Korea to Iran repeatedly defy us.

The millions of children of World War II veterans do not forget how instrumental the American tank was in winning back Europe from the grip of the Nazis and their “blitzkrieg” style of warfare. The unforgettable symbolism of the tank, under the direction of President Trump, is the real reason that liberals are doing everything they can to prevent Trump from invoking that image under his leadership.

The tools of Trump’s opponents are fake news, endless lawsuits, and gender politics. But none of that will seem significant if tanks roll down a wide boulevard adjoining the Mall in D.C, to a salute by President Trump and millions watching on television.

A parade of American tanks might have a sobering effect on rogue nations who want to shoot down our planes or harm our soldiers. A stealth bomber may not scare a communist tyrant, but the sight of massive tanks driving quickly down a familiar city street is something he would immediately understand.

But Anti-Trumpers have prevailed in blocking tanks from being part of any parade this Independence Day, and may appear only stationary as if they were relics of a bygone era. The American public should be allowed to see our powerful Abrams tank surging at highway-like speeds, and the rest of the world should see it too.

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 25, 2019

Why Is Africa Moving to Maine?

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

For months, the crisis on America’s southern border has been dominated by families with children from the so-called northern triangle of Central America (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador). Arriving at the rate of 100,000 a month since January, Central Americans swamped the facilities, resources, and ability of officials to cope with the influx.

“Please do not make yourselves too comfortable,” Trump tweeted last month about this influx of migrants, because “you will be leaving soon!”

He followed up last week with another tweet, announcing that “ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in.”

But to the surprise of border agents, many hundreds of migrants from Africa are pouring over our border also. They do not speak Spanish, adding a new headache to our border patrol trained in that language.

No one is quite sure who is paying for the African migrants to traverse the ocean, and then typically hop a free ride to get close to our border. They hail from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the second-largest nation by area in all of Africa.

Congo has been in a never-ending civil war for decades. It is divided between Christians and Muslims, and various indigenous languages and French.

Congo has a massive a population of 81 million which is comparable to that of Germany, and more than that of Great Britain or France. The people of war-torn Congo have many reasons to flee for a more peaceful land, but why to our country that is many thousands of miles and an ocean away from them?

Maine is their destination, because its Democratic politicians have been aggressively attracting asylum seekers from Congo. Maine’s cold climate and diet of lobster is not exactly a perfect fit for refugees from the mostly landlocked, distant country of Congo.

Yet this is the insanity that goes on as Democrats, who control Maine, want to prop up their census count and enhance their political strength. Maine once had eight congressional districts, but that has dwindled to merely two amid smaller population growth than southern states, and Democrats see illegal immigration as a way to boost their numbers.

In just one week, the number of migrants from Africa crossing the Rio Grande into Texas was more than double the total number of Africans caught crossing our entire southern border during all of last year. Border patrol agents are baffled at how or why these migrants, who are mostly from the Republic of the Congo, are flooding across our southern border with Mexico.

The “why” is easy: like six billion other people around the globe, they seek the peace, freedom, security, and prosperity of the United States. The “how” is less clear, because it requires secret donors to fund flying them first to a country in Central America, from where they are directed to ride or walk toward the United States and enter here illegally.

Even though some of these African migrants may have legitimate claims for asylum, they still have no right to be here. Under international law they should seek asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive, which is not the United States.

Unfortunately our open southern border has become so famous now worldwide that migrants from every far-flung continent consider coming here illegally. With liberal cities rolling out the welcome mat, why not take advantage of a free plane ride and then wade across the Rio Grande?

These newly arrived African immigrants raise the question of whether they would be eligible for the reparations being promised by Democratic presidential candidates. At least 10 percent of our African-American population are descended from immigrants who came here after the Civil War ended slavery, so the claims of these migrants would be like those of other post-slavery immigrants.

Reparations or not, entitlement programs flow to illegal immigrants like a fire hose, at tremendous taxpayer expense. There may be liberal billionaires who are funding the expenses to relocate these migrants to Maine, but once here American taxpayers are footing their immense bills.

So many of these African migrants have arrived in Portland, Maine, that it has converted its Expo Center into a shelter for them on an emergency basis. Taxpayers are already paying for police protection, interpreters, medical services, three full meals a day, and sleeping accommodations.

It is more than 6,000 miles from Africa to Ecuador, more than 2,000 miles from Ecuador to Texas, and more than 2,000 miles from Texas to Maine, one of the coldest states in our country for migrants coming from a nation on the equator. Is this the American dream, or a recipe for a nightmare?

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 18, 2019

War as a Political Temptation of Trump

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

The media attention on Middle East violence had the effect of goading President Trump to send American soldiers to the region. But he should resist this temptation to become the world’s policeman.

The U.S. must not be drawn into another conflict in the Persian Gulf – regardless of any overhyped provocation. President Reagan stood patiently by as Iraq and Iran had an all-out war against each other from 1980 to 1988.
These conflicts halfway around the globe are never-ending. Henry Kissinger famously said about the war between Iraq and Iran, “It’s a pity they both can’t lose.”

We should protect our own soldiers by standing aside while Saudi Arabia and Iran fight each other, if they wish. We have been staying out of an ongoing conflict in Yemen, and we should continue that successful approach.

Thanks to tremendous American inventiveness, capital investment, risk taking, and a lot of hard work, the U.S. has achieved virtual energy independence. We do not need Persian Gulf oil anymore.

If European countries and Japan depend on oil tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz, let those nations police that dangerous waterway. They are wealthy nations which can defend their own interests against Iran.

The pressure on Trump to support a sharp increase in the federal gas tax could be compared to the first temptation of Christ, when Satan challenged Jesus to turn stones into bread. Trump has properly resisted that first political temptation, which is a gimmick that would cause long-term harm.

Luring President Trump into a war with Iran is the second temptation. It is akin to Satan challenging Jesus to jump off a lofty temple, and rely on angels to bear him up.

In other words, a leap of faith. A leap into the unknown.

Fifty years ago, the U.S. government launched a rocket carrying three men to the moon and returned them safely to the earth. That was not a leap of faith; it was precisely calculated by natural laws which guaranteed a predetermined successful outcome.

War is not rocket science. Its consequences, political and otherwise, are not predictable.

A military maxim observes that no battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy. Every war has unpredictable consequences.

World War II, which we recently honored on the 75th anniversary of D-Day, entailed enormous losses in American lives as commemorated every Memorial Day. The invasion that General Eisenhower defined as a Great Crusade for “the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe” resulted in 45 years of Soviet tyranny over the oppressed peoples behind the Iron Curtain.

Winston Churchill, heralded in England for standing strong and prevailing for freedom, became a hero of the war. But then he lost his next election in a landslide.

Yes, we have grievances with the revolutionary government of Iran. As we have with many other countries in the world, from Mexico to China.

Illegal aliens are pouring over our southern border, enticed by free medical care which California just enacted for them and by drivers licenses which New York State just gave them. These problems deserve President Trump’s undivided attention.

On November 4, 1979, Iran seized 52 American hostages and held them for 444 days until January 20, 1981. That was an act of war under international law, but the Reagan administration wisely chose not to go to war over it.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump strongly condemned the nuclear deal with Iran that John Kerry negotiated and Barack Obama implemented without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. As president, Trump has continued to criticize the deal, officially known as the JCPOA, and has refused to certify Iran’s compliance with it.

Trump justifiably complains about how the Obama administration allowed $1.7 billion dollars in actual cash to be flown to Iran on a cargo plane, supposedly to settle a debt that had been pending since the Shah was overthrown in 1979. But that money is gone now, and there’s nothing Trump can do to get it back.

Running for president in 2015 and 2016, Donald Trump excoriated previous Republican presidents for intervening in the Middle East. He has called the decision to invade Iraq “the single worst decision ever made.”

Some Republicans were unsettled by Trump’s scathing remarks about George Bush and John McCain, but most came around to support the man who promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington. Now the swamp, also known as the Deep State, is making a determined effort to tempt Trump into fighting a new world war against Iran.

For his final temptation, Satan took Jesus to the mountaintop and promised the whole world if Jesus would bow down and worship him.

President Trump should heed Jesus’ terse response: “Get thee behind me, Satan!”

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.

Saturday, June 15, 2019

A criticism of conservatism

From the Vox Day blog:
James Guiran explains why nationalism is necessary at Jacobite:

Establishment conservatism, it seems, is doubling down on its refusal to reckon with the realities of the American political landscape. It’s true that the ascendant left wants to revoke religious liberty, with the goal of subordinating Christianity (specifically Christianity) to the whims of the woke state; but this is only one facet of its platform. It also promotes a view of white Americans reminiscent of the ethnic hatred stoked against market-dominant minorities in certain countries in the 20th century (never mind that white Americans aren’t even the richest demographic!); claims that our country is fundamentally illegitimate; calls for the destruction of our borders; pushes for a credentialist economy in which no one can succeed without first obtaining permission from a committee of progressive priests, who will dispense it based more on loyalty to the cause than on any apolitical notion of merit; advocates for the abolition of the nation-state in favor of a tightly controlled and managed ‘inclusive society’ in which the inevitable ethnic conflict will provide the ruling structure with a bottomless well of opportunities to justify its own expansion; and seeks to subordinate everything, from colleges to corporations to open-source software organizations to knitting groups, to an arbitrary and intentionally byzantine code of conduct, in order to purge infidels from the whole of society. This is not ‘libertine,’ it is totalitarian. And the totality of that agenda must be opposed.

The conservative debate thus far has been premised on the idea that the proper response to Trump, the proper way forward, is to simply revitalize the platform of the Moral Majority. Not only does this fail to address many of the problems facing our country today ⁠— it has little, if anything, to say about immigration, which is necessarily the most pressing issue because its effects are permanent and irreversible  —  it offers little potential for attaining true hegemony.

If, at this juncture, you are still describing yourself as a "conservative" instead of a "nationalist", you are completely failing to grasp the nature of the cultural conflict. Conservatism can no more save America than Churchianity can save your soul.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Democrats Already Sick of Their Own Candidates

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Polling data from Iowa, where the first presidential nomination ballots will be cast next February, show a Democratic Party wishing that some of their candidates would drop out of the race. There has not even been a single presidential debate, yet CNN reports that grassroots Democrats already want fewer contestants.

Nearly 80% of the likely Democratic caucus voters in Iowa indicated their displeasure, in a poll by the Des Moines Register and CNN, at the large number of choices among candidates. But perhaps the real dismay is at who some of those candidates are.

Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York City, is one of the two-dozen candidates for the Democratic nomination for president. He scored a perfect “0” percent support for president in this poll of likely Democratic caucus voters.

De Blasio’s supporters for president, if he had any, might say that Iowa is a long way from his liberal base in New York City. But even in New York State, where Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans, de Blasio’s 29% approval rating is lower than that of Republican President Donald Trump.

It’s a mystery why the ultra-liberal de Blasio is running for president despite having such low approval ratings in his heavily Democratic home state. Billionaire Mike Bloomberg, a more popular mayor of New York City who could have broken all spending records to finance a run for president, decided against it for himself.

More than 75% of the candidates – 19 out of 24 – for the Democratic nomination have 2% or less support among likely Iowa caucus voters, which makes their bids exceedingly implausible. History shows that only candidates who fare well in Iowa, by placing in the top three or nearly so, have a viable chance to win the nomination.

Undeterred, 19 contenders gathered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on Sunday to pitch their candidacy to Iowa Democrats. Joe Biden, the frontrunner who has seen his lead dwindle amid his flip-flop on abortion and other missteps, skipped the event perhaps to avoid unfavorable comparisons with his younger, more energetic rivals.

Most of the Democratic candidates have angered the liberal base by avoiding the absurd demands for impeachment of Trump. Among the leading candidates, only Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for the impeachment of Trump, which may have boosted her poll numbers with the Leftist voters who want, more than anything else, to remove Trump from office.

But some Iowa Democrats are just fine with Republican President Trump, who returns to Council Bluffs where he held a 10,000-attendee rally before the midterm elections last year. Trump supporters then filled the entire Mid-America Center, which holds 8,000, and thousands more stood in the aisles and in the parking lot outside where they could watch on a huge television screen.

Many even camped out overnight beforehand just to have the chance to see Trump in action. And he did not disappoint as he galvanized the massive crowd with his speech.

“The Democrats have become too extreme, and they’ve become, frankly, too dangerous to govern,” he declared. “They’ve gone wacko.”

The impeachment talk proves Trump’s point, and even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not want to go there. She fears, and she should, a backlash by voters in the next election if the House Democrats do something so unfair to the president.

In his speech to Iowans last October, Trump promised to loosen regulations against adding ethanol to gasoline, and he has delivered on this promise just like all his others. He has approved year-round sales of gasoline having higher levels of ethanol than currently allowed, which boosts corn farmers.

In what may become a pattern in many regions of the country where Trump continues to have immense popularity, even a Democratic congresswoman sought to meet and welcome Trump’s visit to her district in Southwest Iowa. Congresswoman Cindy Axne (D-IA) announced that she wanted to be with Trump for his visit on Tuesday, which included Trump’s tour of an ethanol plant.

Energy is a winning issue for Trump, as American oil production has increased and prices have generally fallen. Despite the tensions with Iran, crude oil prices have fallen by more than 20% since April, which should yield lower gasoline prices for family vacationers this summer.

The CNN poll of Iowans had more bad news for Democrats. A majority of likely caucus voters in that party insist that a candidate must support abortion, think climate change is the greatest threat to humanity, and ban assault-style weapons despite the Second Amendment.

All of these positions are on the losing side in a general presidential election, as Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton demonstrated last time. Perhaps that is why a solid majority of Americans, in another recent poll by CNN, expect Trump to win reelection.

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 4, 2019

Brits Should Listen to Trump and John Cleese

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

President Donald Trump’s visit to royal England is captivating the British as much as Americans, as Queen Elizabeth extends official state honors to him and his family. This is only the third time during her 67-year reign that Queen Elizabeth has welcomed an American president with such honors.

More than 150 participated in the royal feast with the Queen and the American president on Monday night. Despite all the overheated rhetoric against Trump, very few dignitaries declined to attend this fete epitomizing the Anglo-American tradition.

Dinner guests were seated precisely 18 inches from each other, and the royal family was adorned with their finest jewelry. Princess Diana’s son Harry, caught in an awkward spot between his anti-Trump American wife Meghan and the British tradition of cordiality, participated earlier that day.

The underlying politics marks a turning point for Great Britain, which is in the throes of division about its future. A majority want independence, as reflected by their vote in 2016 for Britain to exit Europe (“Brexit”), while a vocal minority want to be citizens of Europe.

This conflict is on display as one of Britain’s most famous entertainers of the last half-century, the Monty Python comedian John Cleese, criticized the loss in English identity. He tweeted last week that “some years ago I opined that London was not really an English city any more.”

Cleese continued, “Since then, virtually all my friends from abroad have confirmed my observation. So there must be some truth in it.”

For that, the internet erupted among those who demand political correctness, falsely accusing Cleese of being racist. But Cleese stood his ground, observing that “it’s legitimate to prefer one culture to another.”

Cleese is an icon of British humor, perhaps best known for his Monty Python skit “The Ministry of Silly Walks.” In it he portrays a government worker in charge of approving grants to develop silly walks, and Cleese’s own hilarious way of walking to his job caused fans to urge him to reprise his silly walk throughout his career.

But his criticism of the wrong turn taken by London is not silly at all, and is proven by many statistics. For example, last year the murder rate in London increased to its highest level this decade, often by gruesome stabbings and including at least one shocking murder by machete.

Cleese, though not known to be generally conservative, explained what London has become. “I suspect I should apologise for my affection for the Englishness of my upbringing, but in some ways I found it calmer, more polite, more humorous, less tabloid, and less money-oriented than the one that is replacing it.”

The anti-Trump mayor of London who skipped the gala for Trump at Buckingham Palace, Sadiq Khan, predictably criticized Cleese’s comments. “Londoners know that our diversity is our greatest strength. We are proudly the English capital, a European city and a global hub.”

But the London Mayor Khan went further in his personal attacks on Trump on the eve of his visit at the invitation of the Queen. Khan’s harsh rhetoric seemed contrary to the British tradition of genteel hospitality.

Mayor Khan published a strident newspaper article two days before Trump arrived, under the headline “It’s un-British to roll out the red carpet for Donald Trump.” Khan even insisted that Trump somehow “flies in the face of the ideals America was founded upon.”

Not content with those attacks on our American President, London Mayor Khan next did a video in which he insisted that Trump’s policies would somehow make women second-class citizens. Khan apparently supports legalized abortion, and asserted that Trump would cause women to have back-alley abortions.

Confronted with these potshots by the unleashed London mayor, Trump returned the favor by tweeting against Khan as Trump arrived in England. Trump compared Khan to the disastrous mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, and a greater insult is difficult to imagine.

Trump invites Britain to complete its exit from Europe without cutting any deals with the mainland, and instead look for future trade agreements with its longest ally, the United States. Trump-supporting Boris Johnson, who is the presumptive replacement of Theresa May as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, agrees with Trump that a “no deal Brexit” is the best approach.

“We will leave the [European Union] on 31 October, deal or no deal,” Johnson has declared. “The way to get a good deal is to prepare for a no deal.”

Europe’s loss can be America’s gain. A Great Britain under the conservative, Trump-like leadership of Boris Johnson can help revive that country and enable them to afford more of their share for military defense.
Trump properly embraces English culture rather than apologizing for it. So should British royalty and all of England.

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.

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Yes, President Trump was exonerated

It is amazing how the mainstream news media can distort the facts, even when the details are all publicly available. Such is the case with the Mueller statement to the press. Here is what I saw.

Mueller is a senile puppet. He just read a prepared statement, and did a lousy job of it. He did not have the appearance of someone who knew what he was doing, or who was proud of what he did, or even understood what he was saying. Considering that he prepared for two years, and this was his only public statement, it is hard to understand how he could do so poorly.

Maybe he was just pretending to be senile, because he wanted Democrats to think that he was incompetent to answer questions. He is obviously covering up something in his refusal to explain himself.

Russians did not interfere in the election. Mueller mentioned the supposed Russian interference a couple of times, but he was very careful to say that it was just a grand jury allegation, and we should regard the Russians as innocent of the charge. He seemed to be hinting that charging the Russians was just a political or diplomatic maneuver, and the charges will never be proved in court or anywhere else.

President Trump was exonerated. While the Mueller statement has plenty of innuendo that maybe someone should continue to investigate Trump, he denied that he had any quarrel with attorney general Barr's handling of the report. Barr wrote a letter saying that the report exonerates Trump, and most of the press claimed that Mueller disagreed with that letter. But Mueller now says that he "certainly did not question the attorney general's good faith".

What Mueller did not say. Mueller's most anti-Trump statement was "if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so." Okay, but it is also fair to infer that if they had confidence that the Russians clearly interfered with the election they would have said so. If they had confidence that the president clearly did anything improper they would have said so. And if it he were not a senile puppet in charge of a witch hunt, he would have said so.

Update: Alan Dershowitz writes:
Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.

Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict.
Yes, Mueller has no evidence against Trump, but is trying to help the Democrats anyway.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Mueller tries to please the Trump-haters

It is amazing that anyone ever took special counsel Robert Mueller seriously. He has now made his final statement as special counsel:
I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress. And it's for that reason, I will not be taking questions today, as well. ...

there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every American.
So every American needs to know about this, but he is refusing to testify!

He is clear that the "allegation" refers to a grand jury allegation that is not expected to ever see open court. Mueller and his team are refusing to say whether or not they agree with the allegation.

And what is that grand jury allegation? Mueller uses passive voice, so it is a little vague, but it is mainly that WikiLeaks timed its email releases to embarrass Hillary Clinton.

Yes, that was obvious to everyone in 2016. Julian Assange and Hillary Clinton are known to hate each other. He said that he expected her to win the election, and wanted to expose her misdeeds.

We still need to know how this was turned into a coup attempt against President Donald Trump.
And as set forth in the report, after that investigation if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
So Mueller has no opinion about whether the president did or did not commit a crime, except that he did not have confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime.

Okay, so Mueller spent 2 years and $50M looking for evidence of the president committing a crime, and did not find any, but is still not confident that the president clearly did not commit a crime.

Keep in mind that the Mueller report took an absurdly broad view of what can be considered obstruction of justice. For example, Mueller says it is a crime to conceal information from investigators, even if that information does not relate to any illegal activity. He also says it might be a crime to tweet that the investigation is a witch-hunt.

It is funny how Mueller goes out of his way to say that "Russian intelligence officers ... presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty", but he refuses to say the same about the American President.

This Mueller statement had nothing new.

Yes, President Trump was exonerated, even if Mueller prefers to state it differently.

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Elizabeth Warren’s Daffy Tax Proposal

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Trailing in the polls, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tries to boost her presidential candidacy by proposing an unprecedented new tax. Dubbed the Ultra-Millionaire Tax, Warren would force wealthy households to hand over 2% of their net worth above $50 million, plus an extra 1% on their assets above $1 billion — and not just once, but annually.

Consider how Warren’s UMT would affect a billionaire whose wealth consists of buildings like Trump Tower, the president’s 58-story landmark. The government would confiscate initially two floors per year, and would eventually own most of the building, which is what socialists want.

You might think that a wealth tax should be spent on developing infrastructure or paying down the national debt, but that is not what Warren has in mind. Her idea is to spend the extra money on undesirable programs of no lasting value, such as universal child care in government daycare centers even though most parents prefer to care for their own children at home.

Like other proposals to soak the rich with higher taxes, revenue from a wealth tax would fall far short of projections, as the rich inevitably find ways to conceal their property and shelter their income. Tax hikes result in lower economic growth, which reduces tax receipts for the government, and could actually decrease tax revenue as economist Arthur Laffer famously showed Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

A wealth tax might begin with the super-rich, but it surely won’t stay there. The same sort of trickery was used to slip through the federal income tax, which ultimately soaked the middle class more than the rich.

Opponents of the income tax in 1913 argued that the initially small tax, once it was allowed, would increase to become a massive burden on workers. They were ridiculed for predicting what did occur, as the marginal income tax rates for average Americans rose far above what most expected.

What began in 1913 as a modest 1% income tax, on people making less than today’s equivalent of a half-million dollars a year, inevitably increased through withholding to become a massive burden on working Americans. Is that a mistake anyone wants to repeat by allowing a federal tax on property?

The Framers of our Constitution included safeguards against abusive taxation by the newly created United States government. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and the other Framers supported a strong federal government, but they limited its taxing power.

The Framers gave us a Constitution that prevents Congress from directly taxing property, such as real estate. The Constitution allows such taxation only if it is apportioned based on population, which means it cannot be based solely on wealth.

Thanks to the genius of our founding fathers, the United States grew in wealth and prosperity faster than any country in the history of the world. For more than two centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated attempts to tax people based on their wealth, and the Sixteenth Amendment had to be ratified before Congress could tax personal income without apportionment.

In the 2012 Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice John Roberts and the entire liberal wing of the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Constitution’s limitation on direct taxation of property. The Supreme Court has “continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes” which must be apportioned by population, Roberts wrote for the Court.

The Obamacare ruling confirmed that the Constitution remains a bulwark against the fundamental tenet of socialism, which is to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Even the famous French economist Thomas Piketty, who endorsed Warren’s tax plan, admitted: “I realize that this is unconstitutional, but constitutions have been changed throughout history.”

A President Warren may not be able to change the written Constitution, so she has another plan to get her socialist tax implemented if she is elected. Along with other Democratic presidential candidates, Warren has endorsed a plan to pack the Supreme Court with progressive justices who share her political views.

The Democrats’ plan to expand the Supreme Court would be the same kind of politicized court-packing that Franklin Delano Roosevelt unsuccessfully sought in 1937. It would end adherence to the Constitution as written by our Founders and would deprive Americans of the constitutional protection against direct taxation by the federal government.

Warren had no difficulty in finding some law professors, including her former colleague Laurence Tribe, to pretend that her socialist scheme is constitutional. But many of those same law professors also wrongly insist that there is a constitutional right to abortion, yet no constitutional right to carry a gun for self-defense.
Warren is pandering to the left-wing of the Democratic Party with her daffy tax proposal. It is socialism in disguise, and voters should not be fooled.

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 21, 2019

The Battle for Pennsylvania Begins

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump and Joe Biden just held dueling rallies in Pennsylvania, but the difference in enthusiasm was striking. After Biden’s campaign kickoff on Saturday drew a respectable crowd to a cordoned-off thoroughfare in downtown Philadelphia, Trump attracted thousands more to a raucous rally on Monday inside a hangar at the Williamsport Regional Airport.

Sandwiched symbolically between the two presidential front-runners was Sunday morning’s planned destruction of Bethlehem Steel’s empty former headquarters, which for 50 years was the largest building in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley. Trump wants to rebuild America’s manufacturing might in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, while Biden’s platform is to forget about how China has been eating America’s lunch due to bipartisan policies of globalism and free trade.

At Trump’s rally, attendees cheered as the President recognized a supporter who wore a suit designed like a red brick wall and carried a sign that said “Build me.” The elderly Biden, by contrast, was low energy and low-key, oddly pleading for “unity” while denouncing Trump for “division.”

Biden’s rivals, though, are even less credible. “Beto” O’Rourke, who should be called “Beta” like an unfinished app, has dropped like a stone after launching his campaign by saying he was “born to run.”

“Born to lose” is more like it. Losing a Senate race despite having money to burn is not exactly a stepping-stone to the presidency, and “Beta” looks like a guy with zero chance of defeating the formidable Trump.

Then there is Senator Kamala Harris, a multi-racial female who has positioned herself as the most “diverse” candidate in the Democratic field. The former California attorney general, who married another California lawyer at age 50 and has no children, would be a tough sell to the ex-steelworkers and coal miners in Pennsylvania.

Kamala Harris has a radical plan to shift wages from gritty blue collar jobs typically undertaken by men, to soft, safe jobs typically filled by women. To overcome the purported pay gap between men and women, she would hit companies with fines of 1% of their profits for every 1% in the wage difference between the more dangerous male jobs and the more comfortable women’s jobs.

Her proposed interference with the jobs market includes nearly every bad idea opposed by Phyllis Schlafly, all in one package. The theory of “comparable worth” was discredited in the 1980s, but Senator Harris has renamed it “equal pay” in order to falsely imply that men and women are being paid unequally for the same work.

Harris figures that her fines would be heavy enough to generate $180 billion over 10 years, money that would be used to pay employees who take family and medical leave. Companies would be on their own to cope with the burden of hiring, training and supervising temporary replacement workers and then laying them off after the employee returns to work.

Like other socialist schemes being floated by Democratic candidates, Sen. Harris’s harmful proposal would bring the Trump jobs boom to a screeching halt. It would be particularly hurtful to men working blue-collar jobs who are rightly compensated for the higher risk and unpleasant working conditions they endure.

It is no fun working in road construction during the hot summer, as any driver can observe from the comfort of an air-conditioned car. Construction workers, who are almost entirely men, deserve to be paid more than easy jobs in plush air-conditioned facilities, which are taken mostly by women.

Equal pay for equal work has been required by federal law since 1963, and any woman who is paid less for doing the same work can hit the jackpot by suing over it. But equal pay for unequal work is unAmerican, and has been properly rejected by Congress and the federal courts.

Logging, roofing, collecting garbage, and installing power lines are difficult, unsafe jobs that result in greater compensation than secretarial jobs where the biggest risk is suffering a paper cut. Nothing prevents a woman from trying to wield a jackhammer on a hard concrete pavement, but few women want to.

Senator Harris whines that “women who work full time are paid just 80 cents, on average, for every dollar paid to men.” But many women opt out of the workforce to raise children, so they will make less due to less job-related experience.

The steelworkers and coal miners who built Pennsylvania were mostly men. Pennsylvanians want those jobs back, but Sen. Harris’s demand that men make no more money than women will not create these jobs for men.

Billy Joel’s song “Allentown” was really about the collapse of the steel economy in nearby Bethlehem, but Allentown is easier for lyrics to rhyme with. President Trump promises to revive that Pennsylvania economy, and the immense crowds there show that he is the real music to their ears.

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.