Saturday, December 31, 2016

Confused about raising a son in America

Jo Piazza writes in Elle mag:
I'm Terrified of Raising a Boy in Trump's America ...

How can I explain to a little boy that the year he was born, the President of the United States was an admitted sexual predator who treats women (including his own daughters) as "pieces of ass"? That the president thinks Time magazine changed its annual accolade to "Person of the Year" instead of "Man of the Year" just because it's more politically correct? ...

Every day I count my blessings that I'm married to a really good man. My husband, Nick, can often be more of a feminist than I am. ...

We can read our son Judy Blume, and Laura Ingalls Wilder, and all the Nancy Drew mysteries. We can talk to him about the man who was in office when he was conceived, a self-declared feminist who made the world a better place for men and women of all colors and stripes. The burden of raising a good man in the age of Trump is a burden, but it's on my husband and me to make sure that we do this right.

Just last week, right before we got the test results, it was Nick who ultimately set my mind at ease about the possibility of having a boy. "Regardless of whether we have boys or girls we need to raise children who defy these base stereotypes of what is masculine and feminine. Hillary Clinton did a good job of being that. We can do this," my husband said with intense confidence. He's a good man.

I'm still terrified about having a boy, but there is plenty I can do to make sure he becomes a good man. And I'll start on January 21. I'll be nearly five months pregnant when I travel to Washington, D.C., to march with thousands of other women who want to show our new president that there will be consequences for bad behavior.

I would have told our little girl that these are the women who are fighting for her future. I will tell my little boy the same exact thing.
Yes, I am worried about these Trump haters raising kids also.

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Trump, the Great Communicator on Twitter

by John and Andy Schlafly

How did it happen that a man we were told could not possibly be nominated, let alone elected, is about to take the oath of office as the 45th president of the United States?

Part of the reason is that Donald Trump spoke to a set of hot-button issues (immigration and trade) that no other Republican was willing to touch, and those issues resonated with thousands of Americans who had previously voted for Obama. But even with the right issues and a brilliant slogan, “Make America Great Again,” Donald Trump still had to bypass the mainstream media in order to speak directly to the American people, as Ronald Reagan did a generation earlier.

For the benefit of Americans too young to remember, Reagan was called the “Great Communicator” because he effectively used television to connect directly with voters. Reagan frequently won people over with a folksy story or a perfectly timed joke, like the way he deflected a hostile question about his age during the final presidential debate by leaving everyone, even his opponent, in congenial uproarious laughter.

Having grown up in the construction industry, Trump uses a blunt and caustic style that is the direct opposite of Reagan’s affable avuncularity. But Trump has mastered the art of the tweet, sending out very short messages on Twitter, which provides an effective way to connect directly with the public.

Consider the tweet he sent out just before Christmas: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” The media thundered in outrage, claiming the tweet endangered national security and could spark a new Cold War with Russia.

But Vladimir Putin, who controls Russia’s nuclear weapons, dismissed the tweet as “nothing out of the ordinary” because Trump had already promised many times to rebuild U.S. military forces. Most foreign leaders, whether they are friends or adversaries, respect a President who says what he means and means what he says.

Limited to 140 characters (20 to 25 words), Twitter would not have been much help to Reagan, but it has been a perfect fit for Trump’s blunt candor. Trump has a genuine style on Twitter and his voice comes through loud and clear in that medium, as authentic as Reagan’s mastery of speaking on camera.

Effective use of Twitter requires an economy of style and expression comparable to a great bumper sticker, such as “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Phyllis Schlafly, a master of political communication herself, emphasized the value of honing her message to an effective sound bite, presenting “more facts in fewer words” than other conservatives.

A good example of Trump’s mastery of the media happened in November when a student at tiny Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts burned the American flag to protest the election results, and the liberal college president responded by removing our flag from its place of honor on campus. More than 1,000 veterans gathered to protest that cowardly response, but the incident drew little national attention until Trump unloaded a tweet: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

The media jumped on Trump with a fierce intensity, keeping the story alive for days, until they realized Trump was being helped, not hurt by their criticism. Most Americans agree with Trump’s opinion even if a divided Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Even Obama’s press secretary weighed in, saying Trump should submit himself to “skeptical questioning from an independent news media” at a formal press conference with its built-in advantages for the liberal media. As skillful as Reagan was, at times he struggled with rude reporters repeatedly trying to trip him up.

Instead of taking the media bait, Trump lobs Twitter bombs like this one, two weeks ago: “Just watched @NBCNightlyNews - So biased, inaccurate and bad, point after point. Just can’t get much worse, although @CNN is right up there!” He doesn’t spare the late-night shows, either: “Just tried watching Saturday Night Live - unwatchable! Totally biased, not funny and the Baldwin impersonation just can’t get any worse. Sad.”

When the media feel compelled to report President-elect Trump’s tweets, repeating his own unfiltered words, it means he and not they control the daily news cycle. When they have to interrupt their own agenda to report how politicians and pundits respond to what Trump just said, media-created stories get lost in the shuffle.

Without press conferences, liberals have difficulty setting the agenda for a Republican president. The first President Bush held three times as many press conferences in four years as his predecessor Ronald Reagan did in eight, and the outcome was a disastrous defeat in 1992. Americans do not want a president whose agenda is set by the press corps in Washington, D.C.

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

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

How Obama Stole Christmas

by John and Andy Schlafly

The Trump transition team is working on its first package of executive actions, including steps to rescind or revoke numerous improper executive actions by President Obama. Here are two federal regulations and further actions that Trump should take care of in his first day on the job as president.

The liberal “war on Christmas” is a recurring feature of the holiday season, but this year a federal regulation is being blamed for continuing that unhappy trend. At a senior living center called Mercy Village in Joplin, Missouri, residents were told they are forbidden to put traditional Christmas decorations in any of the common areas.
Mercy Village is owned by Denver-based Mercy Housing Inc., which receives federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Mercy’s management claimed that it was merely enforcing a HUD regulation that prohibits “discrimination” by housing providers on the basis of religion.

Mercy Village did have a so-called “holiday” tree in the main lobby, but when residents (at their own expense) placed a Nativity scene in the hallway of an upper floor, it was removed by the management. Even though no resident complained, the display could have been seen by other residents who might claim to be offended by the sight of a Nativity scene beneath the Christmas tree.

Mr. Dee Wampler, a prominent attorney from nearby Springfield, Missouri, informed Mercy Village that a 1984 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court found it perfectly constitutional to include a Nativity scene within a publicly funded Christmas display. But the management of Mercy Village was unmoved, insisting that Christmas decorations must remain inside the residents’ individual apartments, and that all common areas must remain “religion neutral.”

President-elect Trump was criticized for naming Dr. Ben Carson as the new Secretary of HUD because the eminent Dr. Carson has no experience in “housing policy.” In fact, Dr. Carson’s years of experience battling the forces of political correctness make him perfectly suited for redressing the anti-Christmas regulations of federally subsidized housing.

Another regulation due for prompt revocation by the new administration is a last-minute rule to prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood. This new rule became final on December 19 following an unusually short 30-day comment period, and is set to take effect on January 18, just two days before the President Trump will be inaugurated.

Obama’s director of the Office of Population Affairs (OPA) complained that 13 states have restricted “certain types” of providers from participating in the federal program to prevent poor people from having children. Is it really the proper function of the federal government to prevent births to poor people? Yet that is the basic mission of the federal OPA, with the result that this new rule was issued at an especially offensive time, during the season when we celebrate the miraculous birth of a child to a poor family 2,000 years ago.

Trump won the pivotal Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania due to their loss in manufacturing jobs and due to the large numbers of Catholic and evangelical voters there who oppose the pro-abortion positions of Hillary Clinton. In Wisconsin, for example, many Democrats were unwilling to cast their ballot for Hillary Clinton, after her unapologetic support of abortion-on-demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy was exposed during the presidential debates.

Perhaps the most influential action that the incoming President Trump could take on his first day of office would be simply to withdraw the appeal by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) of a splendid decision that declared illegal the taxpayer subsidies of Obamacare on the health insurance exchanges. If Trump merely withdraws the appeal of U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, which is as easy as filing a one-page document with the court, the subsidies would cease and the Obamacare health exchanges would mercifully collapse.

Those taxpayer subsidies are funding abortion in addition to wasting billions of dollars in money that could be better spent on real health care and other good uses. In Alaska, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington, it is impossible to buy a health insurance plan on the exchange that does not cover elective abortion.

The incoming President Trump could go further and order the Internal Revenue Service not to enforce any fines or penalties for individuals who elect not to purchase Obamacare-compliant insurance, which would allow them to use their own money in ways that best suit their own needs. Nothing is more wasteful and inefficient as a government forcing people to purchase a product they do not want, in this case Obamacare and its funding of abortion.

Amid the holiday merry-making and revelry, which as Shakespeare observed 400 years ago “is a custom more honor’d in the breach than the observance,” we should remember the whole point of Christmas is the birth of a child.

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

For another view, the NY Times says:
The most organized attack on Christmas came from the Puritans, who banned celebrations of the holiday in the 17th century because it did not accord with their interpretation of the Bible.

Fast forward 400 years, and the idea of a plot against Christmas gained wide publicity when Fox News promoted a 2005 book by a radio host ...

There is no evidence of an organized attack on Christmas in the United States.
See here and here for details on the war.

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Could Hillary Hijack the Electoral College?

by John and Andy Schlafly

Remember when the liberals demanded that Donald Trump swear to accept the outcome of the presidential election? That was two months ago, when they were sure Trump would lose in a landslide.

Now many of the same people are chanting that Trump is “not my president.” In the days following the November election, thousands of anarchists participated in often violent protests in places like Oakland, California and Portland, Oregon, setting fire to police cars, smashing plate glass windows, and waving Mexican flags to express their contempt for the will of the American people.

Remember when the liberals complained that the Electoral College is undemocratic and should be abolished? That was one month ago, after Trump won all the battleground states and extended his sweep to four states that Republicans haven’t carried since Ronald Reagan’s time.

Now many of these same people are demanding that presidential electors assert more power than our Constitution gives them. They want the Electoral College to “deliberate” over who should be the next president.

The most ridiculous example is the “open letter” signed by 29 members of the Electoral College, all but one of them from blue states carried by Hillary Clinton. The lead signer is a California elector named Christine Pelosi, who happens to be Nancy’s daughter.

The Pelosi letter, addressed to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, demands a briefing from “the intelligence community” about Russia’s alleged hacking of John Podesta’s emails. The 29 electors claim they need that information in order to determine “who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve” as president.

“We do not understand our sole function to be to convene in mid-December and summarily cast our votes,” the letter goes on. “The Constitution envisions the Electoral College as a deliberative body. Accordingly, we seek an unrestrained opportunity to investigate, discuss, and deliberate with our colleagues about whom to vote for.”

No, the Constitution does not allow the Electoral College to deliberate; in fact, it prevents the electors from constituting themselves as a deliberative body. Electors are required to meet separately in each state, on the same day, and only the winning slate is eligible to attend each state’s meeting.

Next Monday, December 19, for the 58th time since our U.S. Constitution was adopted, presidential electors will gather in their respective state capitols to cast their ballots. Without deliberation, each state’s electors will cast their ballots for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state.

In the 30 states where Donald Trump won the popular vote, Republican electors will cast 306 ballots. In the 20 states plus the District of Columbia where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Democratic electors will cast 232 ballots.

The 538 electoral ballots will be sent to Congress, where they will be opened and counted during a joint session of the newly elected 115th Congress. On January 6, Speaker Paul Ryan and outgoing Vice President Joe Biden will announce that Donald J. Trump has been elected the 45th President of the United States by “a majority of the whole number of Electors.”

Since there’s no way to stop the Electoral College from doing its duty to confirm Trump’s election, liberals have floated a disturbing plan to undermine his legitimacy. Consider the campaign against Trump waged by our public and private schools and colleges against the man who will soon be inaugurated as our president.

A month before the November election, the National Education Association announced a six-figure expenditure for an all-out campaign to elect Hillary Clinton. “We are going to do everything humanly possible,” said NEA President Lily Eskelsen GarcĂ­a, whose union collects mandatory dues from 3 million public school teachers, including many Republicans.

The teachers union president justified her intervention with the absurd claim that Trump was responsible for an increase in student bullying. The NEA’s anti-Trump campaign “is not something that will go away after Election Day,” she warned, because “we’re seeing millions of people who seem attracted to (Trump’s) message, and those folks are still going to be here.”

On the day after the election in St. Louis, at a prestigious private school known as MICDS, the “head of school” sent an email to student families that began, “Today has not been an easy one on our campus.” Noting that “some teachers” were “deeply upset by the election,” Lisa Lyle continued, “our community has a higher level of anxiety, which means that some may feel unprepared to perform at their best in the next few days.”

When young people are “educated” to believe that our new president is a source of justifiable fear and anxiety, it’s no wonder that some take to the streets in violent protest. When Betsy DeVos becomes the next Secretary of Education, her first order of business should be to “drain the swamp” of our leftist-controlled educational system.

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

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Goldwater, Reagan, and the Trumpian Revolution

Patrick J. Buchanan writes writes:
Has the Trumpian Revolution Begun?

The wailing and keening over the choice of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the EPA appears to be a lead indicator of a coming revolution far beyond Reagan’s. ...

Yet, as with his choices of Steve Bannon as White House strategist and Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, he has shown himself to be an unapologetic apostate to liberal orthodoxy.

Indeed, with his presidency, we may be entering a post-liberal era.

In 1950, literary critic Lionel Trilling wrote, “In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”

The rise of the conservative movement of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan revealed liberalism’s hour to be but a passing moment. Yet, today, something far beyond conservatism seems to be afoot.
Phyllis Schlafly’s favorite US Presidential candidates were Goldwater, Reagan, and Trump. She liked Buchanan also, but never thought that he could get the broad base of public support that Reagan and Trump have achieved.

Friday, December 9, 2016

Democrat calls for censoring news

The NY Post reports:
WASHINGTON — In her first visit to the Capitol since her shocking election loss, Hillary Clinton on Thursday called on Congress to address the “epidemic” of fake news that she said was a danger to the nation.

Clinton was speaking at a ceremony to honor retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid when she diverted from her compliments to address “one threat in particular that should concern all Americans.”

She called on Congress to stop the “epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year.” ...

“It’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences,” Clinton said,
The Ctrl-left needs to control the news, in order to be effective.

Much of the last two months of her campaign was based on using fake news stories to slander Donald Trump.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Newspaper article on Eagle Forum dispute

The St. Louis Riverfront Times has a long article on turmoil within Eagle Forum:
The Man Who Replaced Phyllis Schlafly

At Eagle Forum, a bitter battle between Phyllis Schlafly's oldest friends — and Ed Martin, her chosen successor
Most of the people quoted are former eagles (ie, former followers of Phyllis Schlafly) who joined the #NeverTrump movement and rejected Phyllis Schlafly's leadership in endorsing Donald Trump for President.

The claims that she was manipulated into endorsing Trump, and that she was sheltered from talking to others, are vicious lies. She wrote articles in favor of Trump. She gave interviews in favor of him. The endorsement was no surprise to those who knew her or who understood her writings over many years.

She made many efforts to talk to those Eagle Forum board members. They refused to talk to her, and sued her instead. When she did talk to them, she said that they were like zombies.

Lawyer Erik Solverud is fond of recklessly accusing people of violating the law, and committing crimes. He has repeatedly gone into court with motions for contempt of court. None of those motions have been granted. He is the one who is trying to steal property that does not belong to him or his clients.

The big election is over. I wish the Trump-haters would go run their own organization, and stop trying to misrepresent Phyllis Schlafly. If they cannot understand that Trump is the right man for the job today, then they are very far apart from her views. Her work is being carried on by Ed Martin, her sons, and many loyal eagles.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Trump Starts Draining the Swamp

by John and Andy Schlafly

Donald Trump promised to “drain the swamp” when he reached the White House, but Washington’s swamp creatures are putting up a heck of a fight.  The people who inhabit the permanent government are doing their best to resist and obstruct the kind of change that Trump promised.

A good example is the furious reaction to the news that Trump accepted a 10-minute courtesy call from the president of Taiwan.  As if on cue, Washington-based pundits and so-called experts erupted with criticism of Trump for taking the call, and some even warned that it could provoke war with China.

Taiwan is a free and independent nation of 24 million Chinese people who live on an island off the Chinese coast.  Ever since Jimmy Carter, U.S. presidents have refused to extend diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, whose official name is the Republic of China, preferring to do business with the Communist People’s Republic on the mainland.

As we’ve learned to expect, Trump responded to his critics on Twitter:  “Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into their country (the U.S. doesn’t tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea?  I don’t think so!”

The uproar inside the beltway over Taiwan’s telephone call is a skirmish in the coming battle over global trade.  No matter which party wins the election, Washington is still the place where foreign lobbyists can gain access to the lucrative American market through one-sided trade deals.

The Taiwanese telephone call came right after the “Carrier coup” -- the deal brokered by the President- and Vice President-elect to save nearly 1,000 manufacturing jobs from moving to Mexico.  Trump astounded even his critics by redeeming a campaign promise so quickly, even before he’s inaugurated.

The Republican primary contest was in full swing last February when Carrier, the famous maker of air conditioners, announced it would close a large factory in Indianapolis and relocate its production to Monterrey, Mexico.  That decision would have allowed the company to eliminate 1,400 jobs where Americans earn over $20 an hour and replace them with Mexicans earning $3 an hour. 

A cell phone video captured a hapless Carrier manager giving the bad news to a roomful of angry workers who were soon to be laid off.  The manager pleaded that “this is strictly a business decision” the company made in order to “stay competitive and protect the business for the long term.”

Trump took up the cause of the Carrier workers, who perfectly illustrated his campaign speeches about the costs of bad trade deals, especially NAFTA.  Trump rode the issue to win Indiana, first with a decisive victory over Ted Cruz in the May 3 primary, before cruising to a 19-point victory over Hillary in the general election. 

As usual, Trump celebrated on Twitter:  “The U.S. is going to substantially reduce taxes and regulations on businesses, but any business that leaves our country for another country, fires its employees, builds a new factory or plant in the other country, and then thinks it will sell its product back into the U.S. without retribution or consequence, is WRONG!”

Although the Carrier deal involved much more carrot than stick, Trump’s tweet repeated his earlier warnings to companies pondering a move offshore:  “There will be a tax on our soon to be strong border of 35% for these companies wanting to sell their product, cars, A.C. units etc., back across the border. This tax will make leaving financially difficult, but these companies are able to move between all 50 states, with no tax or tariff being charged.”

In the final installment of his 6-part tweet, Trump concluded:  “Please be forewarned prior to making a very expensive mistake! THE UNITED STATES IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS.”

In a single brilliant stroke, Trump has already begun to reward the votes of his supporters while disarming the fears of his opponents.  A new poll from Politico/Morning Consult finds that 60 percent of voters have a more favorable view of Donald Trump as a result of Carrier’s decision to keep some of its manufacturing jobs in Indiana, while only 9 percent view him less favorably.

Before the election, the same people who assured us that Trump could not win, also predicted that his election would lead to a stock market crash and a collapse of world trade.  One month after he won, business conditions have already improved so much that people are calling it the “Trump bump” in the economy.

Trump’s decisive handling of the Carrier crisis recalls the way President Reagan, in his first weeks in office, dealt with the illegal strike by air traffic controllers.  George Shultz said that was Reagan’s most important foreign policy decision because it showed America’s enemies that our president meant what he said and his words were to be taken seriously.

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.

Friday, December 2, 2016

Ten Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters from Their Lives

Dennis Prager writes in National Review:
Many Hillary Clinton voters have ceased communicating with friends, and even family members, who voted for Donald Trump. It is so common that the New York Times published a front-page article on the subject headlined “Political Divide Splits Relationships — and Thanksgiving, Too.”

The article begins with three stories: ...

The Times acknowledges that this phenomenon is one-sided, saying, “Democrats have dug in their heels, and in some cases are refusing to sit across the table from relatives who voted for President-elect Donald J. Trump.”

A number of people who voted for Trump called my show to tell me that their daughters had informed them they would no longer allow their parents to see their grandchildren. And one man sent me an e-mail reporting that his brother-in-law’s mother told him that she “no longer had a son.”

All of this raises an obvious question: Why is this phenomenon of cutting off contact with friends and relatives so one-sided? Why don’t we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president — fundamentally transform the United States of America.
Prager goes on to give ten explanations.

The Ctrl-left is all about controlling what people think, and being intolerant of other people and ideas. Currently the Left is complaining about "fake news", and wanting to censor Facebook and Twitter.

The Alt-right is all about putting all ideas on the table, and using reason and honest discussion to sort them out.