Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Supreme Victory by Trump at High Court

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Monday, June 26, 2017

Hilarious new feminist web site

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

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

Saturday, June 24, 2017

The Passing of the Pelosi Era

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Trump: Even Better at 150 Days

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.



Sunday, June 18, 2017

NY Times trashes dads on Fathers Day

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

My comment on the piece:

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

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

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

Friday, June 16, 2017

Trump-hater attorney cannot handle phone calls

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

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

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Hyde Amendment Showdown on Obamacare

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Feminists portray Comey as pathetic

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

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

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

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Bernie Sanders berates Christian nominee

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

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

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

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

Friday, June 9, 2017

Comey compared to an insecure woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Comey deserved to get fired

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Trump Should Call His Opponents’ Bluff

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.


Monday, June 5, 2017

Iranian-American Trump hater

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, June 3, 2017

India wants differentiated responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, June 2, 2017

Yes, Trump is a Republican

Leftist writer Jonathan Rauch writes in a WashPost blog:
Why did the voters put Donald Trump, of all people, in the Oval Office? ...

Trump hijacked a party to which he did not, in any meaningful sense, belong. (And still doesn’t.)
If he does not see what Trump has to do with the Republican Party, then he will never understand why the voters elected him.

Trump ran as a Republican, and was nominated by Republicans. That is enuf to make him a Republican. Beyond that, he has taken Republican policy positions on judges, immigration, taxes, regulation, health care, and many other issues. These positions are well-known, and are precisely why the Democrats hate him so much.

When Trump started campaigning two years ago, a lot of pundits were not sure what to make of him. What is there excuse now?

At this point, Trump is as Republican as anyone. Those not supporting him might not be Republicans.

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Left is destroying more than monuments

On the subject of tearing down Confederate monuments, here is a guest post from Anonymous Berkeley Professor:

You might be right that the Confederacy fought for a bad cause, and that their military leaders don’t deserve reverance. But the SJWs who are trying to bring down the symbols of Southern culture, including their flag, are not primarily motivated by a fresh burst of virtue, however much they like to morally preen. Their main motivations are power, mob hysteria, and the plain joy of destroying their perceived enemies.

Let’s get away from the small-picture issue of whether the North has been insufficiently punitive of their defeated enemies from a war 150 years ago, and look at the big picture. There are three big-picture reasons why today’s statue-razing is inviting tomorrow’s tragedy.

First, America is moving rapidly toward a period of extreme chaos and disruption, as happens periodically to all societies, and every sign suggests that our time of troubles will be bigger than the Civil War itself. The modern left in America does not want reconciliation; they want blood. If the South cedes their flag and their statues, the SJWs will not thank them for their sacrifice and make friends; rather, the left will smell blood in the water and increase their demands, ordering greater and greater destruction for smaller and smaller deviations from leftist orthodoxy, with no limit until they are resisted with force. This parallels the current increases in purges for wrongthought (currently happening only in employment in America, but already including prison time for crimethink in Europe). Only a strong nationalist reaction has any hope of preventing this. I think we are moving toward a very violent climax before 2040–and if the left wins, the climax will be followed by Soviet-style ideological repression for 80 years or so. (Academic research hardest hit!)

Second, America and Europe are both rapidly building nationalist reactions against the excesses of the left. These reactions are inevitable and are not tied to specific personalities; they are outgrowths of embattled peoples (yes, including white working-class Americans and Europeans, who are being deliberately crushed) and it will continue to grow as the left becomes more malign. I notice that a lot of professors I know delusionally think that this right-wing reaction can be stopped if only we cure their “ignorance”, or if Trump is deposed. Wrong: Trump is merely an effect, not the cause. It is 100% certain that the nationalist backlash will continue to grow, regardless of who is in power. Because the pain caused by immigration, globalization, and anarcho-tyranny is real and extremely intense (though the elite deny it exists at all).

Third, America has been terribly damaged by immigration and can no longer hold together as a single nation. The nationalist reaction is inevitable because diversity and immigration really are incredibly, overwhelmingly destructive (not presently to the elite, who are safe in their enclaves and are ideologically forbidden to admit that diversity has downsides, but to ordinary Americans and Europeans). The multicultural utopia is a lie; America’s future is racial strife and, ultimately, partition into multiple nations. By renewing their attack against the South, the Yankees are reopening old fissures and bringing this partition closer to the present. Among the people who will suffer the most are American blacks, who have never been able to integrate into white society. Twenty years from now, whites will be a minority, the worldwide debt crash will have occurred, and even the most optimistic globalist will no longer be able to deny that America has degenerated into a land mass of quarreling tribes who hate each other and have absolutely no values in common (contrary to the lying managerial boilerplate we all mouth today). When that happens, white America will no longer be willing or able to carry black America on our shoulders via tax transfers and government jobs. Today, most white Americans have some genuine desire to see black Americans succeed. I predict that this will not be true in 2040.

It seems to be a trait of the left that they are never, ever capable of foreseeing the unintended consequences of their actions.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Travel Ban Thwarted by Judicial Supremacy

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Now we know why the Fourth Circuit took the unusual step of going “en banc” on its initial hearing of the appeal of President Trump’s second so-called travel ban. The Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals is stacked 10-5 with liberal Democratic nominees among its active judges, and by convening en banc it ensured a lopsided ruling against President Trump on his Executive Order limiting travel from certain Middle Eastern countries.

On appeal was Executive Order No. 13,780, which was issued by President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017, to protect our national security against hostile visitors from other countries. The Executive Order suspended temporarily, while vetting procedures could be reviewed, the entry into our country of non-Americans from six countries that are hotbeds of terrorism.

On Thursday, all 10 Democratic nominees voted against the Executive Order by Republican President Donald Trump, and all 3 Republican nominees voted in favor of it, with 2 Republican nominees absent due to recusal. With such a uniformly partisan outcome, one wonders what all the legal briefs were for.

The reasoning used by the Democratic super-majority of judges was even more alarming. Following a similar ruling from the Ninth Circuit, which also has an 18 to 7 supermajority of Democrat-appointed active judges, the Fourth Circuit dug deep into campaign statements made by candidate Trump, a campaign spokeswoman and one of his surrogates, in order to declare past and future actions by Trump as President to be unconstitutional and void.

One might wonder why a statement by a campaign spokeswoman would even be admissible in a court proceeding to consider the constitutionality of an Executive Order. Katrina Pierson, a Trump spokeswoman, once told CNN that “we’ve allowed this propaganda to spread all through the country that [Islam] is a religion of peace,” and the Fourth Circuit relied on that statement and others as the basis for striking down an Executive Order limiting travel from certain countries.

The Fourth Circuit also quoted Rudy Giuliani, the former popular mayor of New York City, who was described as an “advisor” to the candidate, which means that he did not speak for Trump but offered advice to him. Despite that relationship lacking in authority, the Fourth Circuit relied on a statement by Giuliani that President Trump wanted to enact a “Muslim ban.”

A trial judge would not ordinarily allow such hearsay to be admitted in an everyday trial, so why is a Court of Appeals basing its review of a presidential action on what talking heads say on CNN? Those statements were not under oath, were not subject to cross-examination, and lack the reliability and credibility usually required by a court of law before relying on it.

The Court even reached back to December 7, 2015, nearly a year before Trump was elected president, to cite a “Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration” that was posted on Trump’s campaign website by someone unknown. No court has ever relied so heavily on campaign rhetoric by a presidential candidate in order to invalidate actions he took after he became president.

Trump was, after all, ultimately elected president, based largely on his strong opposition to uncontrolled immigration and his promise to stop it. Under the logic of the Fourth Circuit, President Trump could be acting unconstitutionally just by sitting in the White House.

As pointed out by the Republican-appointed judges who dissented, the Fourth Circuit decision was wrong for at least three different reasons.

First, the Fourth Circuit ignored the clear precedent in favor of deferring to the president's authority to exclude aliens from the United States. Few matters are as clearly within the exclusive authority of the legislative and executive branches as immigration is.

Second, the Court invented out of thin air a new rule that allows mere campaign statements to be used against a president as he exercises his authority in the White House. Judges thereby inject themselves into the political process in a way never contemplated by the Founders.

Third, the Fourth Circuit vastly expanded the misuse of the Establishment Clause to sacrifice even national security on the altar of the phony “separation of church and state.” As the dissenters pointed out, this expanded view of the Establishment Clause is “totally unworkable and inappropriate under any standard of analysis.”

There are no vacancies on the Fourth Circuit for President Trump to fill. For now, the White House seems content to climb the ladder one more time, hoping for a 5-4 win before the Supreme Court.

But what if the Supreme Court rules against President Trump and the will of the People as the Fourth Circuit did? The Trump Administration needs to develop a “Plan B” that prevents the will of the People from continuing to be thwarted by judicial supremacy.

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Friday, May 26, 2017

Trump is the most honest President

It is funny how some people are always complaining about President Trump lying, while others say that his problem is that he is much too candid and truthful:
In fact, the “liar president,” as his opponents would have it, might just be the most pathologically unsecretive — dare I say, honest — president we’ve seen yet. ...

In a town of snakes and double-agents, the president’s extreme emotional transparency would be admirable, a sign of vulnerability, sincerity, guilelessness—that is, if it weren’t so self-incriminating. ...

No, Trump could not prevaricate. Evidently, the president dies in darkness. And it wasn’t even under interrogation lights that he gave up the truth. He volunteered it. I chopped down the cherry tree, Lester Holt!
Some comments here.

After the Confederates, Who’s Next?

Pat Buchanan writes:
Behind this remorseless drive to blast the greatest names from America’s past off public buildings, and to tear down their statues and monuments, is an egalitarian extremism rooted in envy and hate.

Among its core convictions is that spreading Christianity was a cover story for rapacious Europeans who, after discovering America, came in masses to dispossess and exterminate native peoples. “The white race,” wrote Susan Sontag, “is the cancer of human history.” ...

As scholar Charles Murray has written, 97 percent of the world’s most significant figures and 97 percent of the world’s greatest achievements in the arts, architecture, literature, astrology, biology, earth sciences, physics, medicine, mathematics and technology came from the West.

What is disheartening is not that there are haters of our civilization out there, but that there seem to be fewer defenders.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Despite Record Reporting Bias, Trump’s Base Remains Solid

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

A recent Harvard study confirms that there has been record-breaking reporting bias against President Donald Trump. An astounding 80% of the stories about Trump by the mainstream media during his first 100 days in office have been negative.
The real story, however, is how Trump’s base remains solid, unfazed by the persistent media negativity. Trump’s approval rating has not fallen to the low ratings of former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the prior Republicans in the White House.

For many of Trump’s supporters, the unrelenting bias against him simply confirms the nature of the problem facing America. The swamp known as D.C. and their allies in the media are protesting too much, to paraphrase Shakespeare’s famous expression from Hamlet.

Their hysteria against Trump underscores the urgency for someone to stand up against the entrenched interests in D.C. This unfolding battle reinforces how our country needs someone strong enough to get the job done against all odds.

There are 206 counties that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 but then for Trump in 2016, which Ballotpedia calls “Pivot Counties.” Located in 34 states, these Pivot Counties comprised a total of 7.5 million votes in 2016, which was 5.5% of the electorate and provided the margin of difference for Trump to prevail.

The Allott Brothers are studying a subset of these Pivot Counties as a project of the Washington Examiner. Their work illustrates that Trump’s most important support is not from the stereotypical rich white males as Trump’s detractors pretend.
On Monday Daniel Allott released his analysis of Robeson County, North Carolina, which switched from voting for Obama in both of his elections to voting for Trump last November. It is the state’s largest county, and was one of the six Pivot Counties in North Carolina that went from thoroughly blue to bright red, i.e., from Democrat to Republican, thereby enabling Trump to carry the state.

Obama had carried Robeson County by a landslide margin of 17 points in 2012, but then Trump carried it by 4 points in 2016. That is a 21-point swing in just four years.

Robeson County, like many of the Pivot Counties, is awash in poverty and what Daniel Allott calls “cultural despair.” Prior to Trump, a Republican presidential candidate had not won the county since 1972.

Robeson County is not overwhelmingly white in race as one might mistakenly think. To the contrary, Robeson County is racially diverse, with more than half of its voters either American Indian or African American.

It has been devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs, and its average income is only $30,000 today, far less than the national average. This is one of hundreds of counties in the United States which has been ravaged by the so-called “free trade” that deprives Americans of good jobs while enriching Wall Street.

Two-thirds of our country contains at least one Pivot County, and the biggest clusters of them are in Iowa and Maine. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois all have their share of these counties too.

Equally telling are the states that have no Pivot Counties, where voters are so locked into the Democratic machine that not even a charismatic candidate like Trump can dislodge the grip. Liberal strongholds of California, Massachusetts, and Nevada, for example, did not have a single county that switched from Obama to Trump.

Western Pennsylvania is the region perhaps most crucial to the presidential election in 2020, as the prize of 20 electoral college votes from that state is difficult to make up elsewhere. When it became apparent that Trump had won Pennsylvania last November, the keys to the White House were his.

Trump’s popularity in Western Pennsylvania has even increased amid all the media-bashing of his presidency. A 60-year-old Democrat there, Robert “R.J.” Sokol, was quoted recently as saying “I think he's doing what he thinks is best for the country.”

Sokol is a supervisor at a chemical plant, so he knows a thing or two about the need for manufacturing jobs. As to Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, Sokol said, “This country needs a shake-up.”

Statewide, Trump’s approval rating in Pennsylvania has risen nearly to that of its Democratic Senator Bob Casey, who is up for reelection. Given that Democrats have an advantage of nearly one million registered voters more than Republicans in Pennsylvania, it is phenomenal that Trump does so well there as a Republican, and Trump’s approval rating has even improved significantly there since he took office.

A Washington Post poll reveals that 96% of Trump voters would cast their ballots for him again, while only 85% of Hillary voters would. The more Trump is unfairly disparaged by the elite, the more his supporters rightly stand by their man.

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Friday, May 19, 2017

Dependency on foreign-born workers

Bloomberg reports:
The number of foreign-born workers in the U.S. rose to nearly 27 million in 2016, up about 700,000 from the previous year and representing 16.9 percent of the nation's labor force, according to an annual report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released Thursday. That's the highest proportion in records going back to 1996, when immigrants accounted for just 10.8 percent of the workforce.

The share has risen steadily over the last six years ...
Do we really need foreigners to do 17% of the work in the USA? We have become dangerously dependent on foreign workers. There is no need for it.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Election Integrity Will Make America Great Again

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

While the Washington Post searches high and low – mostly low – for another Watergate, it is nowhere to be found. The incessant attempts by President Trump’s enemies to fabricate a scandal fail to recognize that the American people choose our president, not a handful of media elites in the swamp.

The remarkable tranquility in the stock market belies the hysterical cries of disaster emanating from Washington, D.C. The financial markets evidently think nothing of the gossipy allegations of imaginary wrongdoing in the White House’s dealings with Russia, and the American people think nothing of it also.

The real news is that President Trump has acted to improve the integrity of our elections, and thereby ensure our future prosperity against the foes of freedom. The top priority is to eliminate the loopholes that facilitate illegal voting.

Last Thursday President Trump issued an Executive Order creating the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity, to safeguard our election system that the Obama Administration left in disrepair. President Trump is making America great again by taking steps to end illegal voting in our country.

This new commission will be formally headed by Vice President Mike Pence, and its driving force will be its vice chairman, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, whose energy and expertise are unequaled on this topic. For more than a decade the Honorable Kobach has been advocating, designing, and implementing reforms to stop the rampant illegal voting that occurs.

Kobach's Kansas is one of two states where state law requires proof of citizenship from persons registering to vote. Since Kobach began enforcing that sensible law, some 30,000 people left their voter registrations incomplete because they were unable to prove U.S. citizenship.

Secretary Kobach has also promoted wider use of the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck for catching people who are registered to vote in more than one state. Recently he obtained the conviction of a Kansan who voted for Colorado's Amendment 64 to legalize marijuana.

One need look no further than Wisconsin to see the positive results of voter integrity reforms. In the 2016 presidential election Wisconsin enforced strong new voter ID requirements to prohibit willy-nilly voting by illegals, felons, out-of-staters, and double-voters who happen to wander by a polling booth.

The Wisconsin voter ID law in effect for this past presidential election stamped out voter fraud, and supporters of Hillary Clinton are furious about it. They claim that as many as 300,000 people were unable to vote in Wisconsin due to this good law.

That’s baloney, of course, as nowhere near 300,000 or even 30,000 were turned away by the polling booths in Wisconsin for lack of a voter ID. Instead, many thousands of Democrats obviously stayed home rather than cast their ballot for pro-abortion, pro-immigration, pro-bad-trade-deals Hillary Clinton, whom even Bernie Sanders defeated there.

Wisconsin is a mixture of the Rust Belt and sentiments of the Bible Belt, a combination of religious faith and a longing for return of manufacturing jobs. Trump’s campaign message resonated perfectly there, where the massive turnout at his rallies confirmed the genuine groundswell of support for him and for down-ballot candidates like Senator Ron Johnson who endorsed Trump.

Nearly 3 million people cast their ballots in Wisconsin in this past presidential election. Yet voter turnout overall was down by 91,000 people, as huge numbers of Democrats stayed home, including 41,000 fewer votes in the Democratic stronghold of Milwaukee.

As with many elections, Trump’s final margin of victory was quite close in Wisconsin, less than 23,000 votes, and the margin was even closer for many Republican candidates down-ballot. Thousands of illegal votes could swing a close election like this or force a recount, and indeed liberals did demand a recount afterwards that could have impacted our entire Nation.

But thanks to Wisconsin’s strong new voter ID law, not enough illegal votes could possibly have been cast to swing the result to Hillary. Wisconsin’s law prevented double voting by out-of-staters, fraudulent votes on behalf of dead people, balloting by illegal aliens, and improper voting by felons.

Wisconsin requires a valid in-state drivers’ license, with a photo ID, in order to vote there. This is the same requirement for passing through security at airports, for entering most government buildings, and for opening a new bank account.

Safeguarding our elections is just as important as securing the entry into government buildings, and the integrity of the presidential election in Wisconsin was what it should have been in every state. Legal voters decided the outcome there, not the inaccurate polls that predicted Hillary would win it easily.

It is essential to improve the integrity of our elections and repair the holes in our rickety system of casting ballots, and President Trump’s creation of the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity is welcome relief. With so much hoopla about securing the confidentiality of routinely classified information, it is even more important to secure the integrity of our elections.

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Republican is the family values party


Steve Sailer writes:
Sine late 2004, I’ve been pointing out how the family values party does best in Presidential elections in family values states, which tend to be those with high rates of marriage, likely due to Affordable Family Formation. At the Electoral College levels, these correlations are extraordinarily high for the social sciences.
In other words, Democrats can win elections by destroying marriage and the family.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

How to Pay for the Wall

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

When President Trump signed a stopgap spending bill that funds the government for the next five months, the media trumpeted the news that the bill doesn’t include money to begin building a wall on our southern border. Nancy Pelosi gloated that the omission was “a defeat for President Trump,” and even some of his most ardent supporters expressed disappointment at the lack of progress on Trump’s signature campaign issue.

The critics spoke too soon, because adequate funding sources are hiding in plain sight. And yes, Mexico will indirectly pay for it, just as President Trump promised.

“We’ll build the wall,” the president assured the 80,000 people who attended this year’s convention of the National Rifle Association in Atlanta. “Don’t even think about it. That’s an easy one.”

The positive reaction of NRA members was illustrated by Kathleen Mahn, a 45-year-old stay-at-home mom and fitness instructor from Peachtree City, Ga. “So far, I think he’s done better than he’s been given credit for in the media,” she told USA Today after cheering Trump’s remarks.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions dropped a clue in his Sunday morning TV appearance on April 23, telling George Stephanopoulos, “We’re going to get paid for it one way or the other. There are a lot of ways we can find money to help pay for this.

“I know there’s $4 billion a year in excess payments, according to the Department of the Treasury’s own inspector general several years ago, that are going to payments to people — tax credits that they shouldn’t get. Now, these are mostly Mexicans. And those kind of things add up — $4 billion a year for 10 years is $40 billion.”

The attorney general was referring to a July 2011 report by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) who said that individuals not authorized to work in the U.S. received $4.2 billion in refundable tax credits in 2009. Not all illegal aliens are Mexicans, of course, but most of them either came from or passed through Mexico on their way to the United States.

Low-wage workers are eligible for both the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which requires a valid Social Security number, and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), which does not. Illegal aliens have learned how to cheat the system by claiming the ACTC to receive a “refund” of up to $1,000 per child.

As a presidential candidate in 2015, Donald Trump cited the $4.2 billion figure as part of his plan to enforce U.S. immigration law. Even the leftwing Politifact had to admit that the inspector general’s report “corroborates” Trump’s claim that $4.2 billion a year can be saved by stopping those illegal refunds.

The potential for illegal refunds has existed since the tax credit was first enacted in 2001, but a new member of Congress is determined to end the ripoff. The first bill introduced by newly elected Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-GA), would close the loophole by simply requiring a valid Social Security number to claim the refundable credit.

Stanching the flow of illegal tax refunds would be enough to pay for the wall by itself, but even that’s not the biggest source of indirect funding to build the wall. It would also relieve the burden that illegal aliens place on many other programs that make up our taxpayer-funded social safety net for low-income households.

Dr. Steven Camarota explained how this works in his April 27 testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The key point is that people who would be stopped by the border wall lack the skills or education that would permit them to earn enough to support themselves.

Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Camarota testified that the vast majority of illegal border-crossers never finished high school, a level of education that is far less than Americans as a whole or even immigrants as a whole. No matter how hard-working they may be, high-school dropouts just can’t make it in America without relying on tax-funded programs for food, housing, and medical care.

Dr. Camarota also cited the monumental 2013 report by Robert Rector, who has long been the leading authority on the 72 means-tested programs which are collectively known as welfare. Rector calculated that the average illegal immigrant imposes a lifetime fiscal cost (benefits consumed minus taxes paid) of $74,722.

In other words, for every 100,000 people stopped by the wall on the southern border, our nation saves $7.5 billion in what we would otherwise have to shell out to support them and their families. With that staggering savings, the border wall would clearly pay for itself. It’s the most cost-effective infrastructure we could build.

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

It is do-or-die for America

WND recalls its its May 6, 2015 article on Phyllis Schlafly:
The women credited – or blamed – by many in America for halting the Equal Rights Amendment in its tracks is now warning that this is another “do-or-die” moment for the nation, ...

This, she said on Wednesday, is another such moment.

“It is do-or-die for America,” Schlafly said of the developing battle over mass amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in the country.

Kids out of control, parents out of control, and people want to know “Who Killed the American Family?” Answers are here, in Phyllis Schlafly’s new analysis of the nation.

“Once you have one amnesty, people are lining up for the next one. It doesn’t stop or end anything. I think there are people who simply want to break up this country,” she said.

She said the critical time is coming when America will have to decide on open borders, amnesty, cheap labor and more, including its own future.

About the 2016 election, she pointed to the possibility it will be a Hillary Clinton - Jeb Bush fight for the Oval Office.

On one hand, she said, is a candidate who wants to give those already in the country illegally a chance to stay, and who recently claimed America has “11 million people that should come out from the shadows and receive earned legal status.”

On the other side is a candidate who recently proclaimed America must give illegal immigrants a path to “full and equal citizenship.”

If it comes down to Bush vs. Clinton, will the American people really have a choice on immigration? Schlafly doesn’t think so.
She did not know it at the time, but the following month Donald J. Trump announced his candidacy for President, and promised exactly the choice she had been asking for.

When it became apparent that Trump was the only candidate standing against the forces wanting to break up this country, she endorsed him. This caused a split with some of her Eagle Forum followers who wanted a pro-immigration candidate like Jeb Bush.

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Missile Defense Needed Against North Korea

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

North Korea is under the thumb of a communist dictator who has nuclear weapons that threaten to strike our West Coast and our allies in South Korea and Japan. Among many crises dumped by Obama on President Trump, this may be the worst.

The optimal approach for dealing with the rogue state of North Korea is as obvious as building a border wall to stop illegal aliens from pouring into our country from Mexico. The equivalent of a wall, an effective missile defense system, should be installed around North Korea.

We have long had the ability to develop this, more so with each passing day as our technology improves. So why don’t we have a combat-ready missile defense system to install immediately to shut down the frightening threat posed by Kim Jong-un of North Korea?

It is not due to a lack of resources or high-tech know-how that our missile defense system is not as advanced as our iPhones, Androids, and driverless cars. Our annual spending on defense (including pensions and veterans benefits) approaches a trillion dollars a year, more than the market value of Apple Computer or any other company in Silicon Valley.

Today officials confirmed that our Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is successfully installed in South Korea, which helps but may not intercept the intermediate-range missiles that North Korea has been deploying. Relying on THAAD is like continuing to use an outdated flip cell phone.

Developing state-of-the-art systems to protect people against missile attack should be enthusiastically supported by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, pacifists and hawks. A madman who gains control of a nuclear arsenal may be not deterred by the possibility of his country being bombed in retaliation if he misbehaves.

A high-tech missile defense system that intercepts enemy missiles in the boost phase, as envisioned by the “Brilliant Pebbles” system developed in the late 1980s at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, would cost only about $20 billion today. Brilliant Pebbles was cancelled by President Bill Clinton in order to pander to globalism.

Globalists have long opposed using American technology to build missile defense, just as they oppose building a border wall to stop illegal immigration. Globalism favors a less sovereign United States, one that is more dependent on the United Nations and international power brokers.

Globalists have interfered with missile defense development for a half-century, dating back to 1966 when Phyllis Schlafly advocated for the Nike X missile defense system. Nike did not stand for an athletic shoe then, but for the Greek goddess representing victory in both war and peace.

Phyllis pointed out then that development of a missile defense system would have weakened the resolve of the Soviet Union and could have dissuaded them from continuing to fund the war of attrition in Vietnam. Nearly two decades later, again at the urging of Phyllis, President Ronald Reagan promoted the development of a similar program and it helped enormously in causing the collapse of the communist Soviet Union.

In a speech delivered in October 1966 – more than 50 years ago – Phyllis Schlafly urged globalist Robert McNamara to drop his opposition to the Nike X missile defense program. McNamara was the longest-serving Secretary of Defense in American history, dictating policy under the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations.

Phyllis explained then that “American technological genius has developed a marvelous new weapon which can give us the anti-missile defense we need. It is called the Nike X. It has been developed, and thoroughly tested, so that we know it is reliable and ready to go into production.”

Arguments against missile defense are almost too silly to repeat. On one hand critics insisted that it is impossible to build, but then on the other hand they contradicted themselves by asserting that it would be destabilizing to construct one successfully.

President Reagan persevered against the naysayers, and his refusal to abandon this program was a major cause of the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, as the Soviets realized they could not keep up with our technological advances. When the Gulf War broke out during the presidency of the first George Bush in 1991, the newly developed missile defense system known as “Patriot” played a spectacular role in shooting down missiles launched by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Phyllis Schlafly referred to opponents of missile defense as the “gravediggers," because their senseless opposition to defending us against enemy attack was akin to digging graves for us. It is inevitable that an attention-seeking dictator will get control of a nuclear arsenal and start launching missiles far and wide.

That day may arrive soon, in the form of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. With so many technological advances in every other walk of life, now is the time for a new “Manhattan Project” to upgrade and perfect our missile defense systems.

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

100 Reasons to Celebrate Trump’s First 100 Days

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

There are at least 100 reasons to like what President Trump has already achieved in his first 100 days. For someone who is new to the “swamp” in D.C., Trump has accomplished far more than his counterparts down Pennsylvania Avenue on Capitol Hill.

For starters, Trump has issued 37 sensational executive orders, memoranda, and other directives. His order requiring federal agencies to eliminate two regulations every time they issue a new one is a brilliant curtailment of the overbearing regulatory state.

His memorandum requiring a 30-day review of military readiness is splendid. So is his memorandum instructing the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan within 30 days in order to defeat ISIS.

Liberals have sued to block several of President Trump’s finest initiatives, such as his Executive Orders limiting visas from Muslim-majority countries associated with terrorism. Judicial supremacy has delayed several of these Executive Orders from going into effect, but the vast majority of Trump’s actions have already benefited our country.

Trump rescinded the inane action by the Obama Administration to open up girls’ restrooms and locker rooms in public schools to any and every boy who decides that he wants to be girl. Trump also reinstated the “Mexico City policy” to stop spending federal taxpayer dollars to fund groups that advocate and refer for abortion in other countries.

Then there are President Trump’s 35 awesome nominations and appointments within the Executive Branch. These include Trump’s Cabinet, which is probably the most conservative in American history.

There has also been the “Trump effect,” which is voluntary, beneficial behavior by others in recognition of the pro-American winds that Trump has sailed with into the White House. This includes at least a half-dozen major companies deciding to keep jobs in the United States despite plans to move them offshore, the drop by 40% in illegal immigration during the first month of the Trump presidency, and the bull market on Wall Street.

Next are the half-dozen meetings Trump has held with leaders of other countries, such as his sit-down with Angela Merkel, Prime Minister of Germany, during which Trump bluntly told her that Germany needs to start paying its fair share of defense costs. In addition was the performance by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin at a G20 meeting, where he held firm that we do not endorse the phony “free trade” deals any longer.

Then there have been the roughly dozen rallies and visits by Trump outside the Beltway of D.C. since he became president. This included the unexpected recitation of the Lord’s Prayer to a massive crowd in Florida by the First Lady, Melania Trump.

Finally, for the 100th reason to celebrate Trump’s first 100 days, Trump’s use of Twitter as a president to go over the heads of the media and directly to the American people has taken power away from the media, much as Reagan successfully did a generation ago with television. Trump’s recent announcement that he will hold a rally in struggling Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, rather than attend the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, is icing on the cake.

Polling shows that 72% of likely voters favor Trump's “Buy American, Hire American” approach. Moreover, according to a Washington Post poll, if the presidential election were held today, then Trump would defeat Hillary Clinton by 43-40%.

Now let’s take a peek at what these first 100 days would look like if Donald Trump had not embarked on his unprecedented campaign for president, which means we would be stuck with Hillary. Imitating the movie classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” starring Jimmy Stewart, we look at what life would be like without Trump as president.

Hillary Clinton would have encouraged more places to become “sanctuary cities” to welcome illegal aliens and frustrate federal efforts to deport those who commit crimes. She would have ended any hope for building a border wall to stem the flow of illegal aliens into our country.

Hillary would have spent more taxpayer dollars on abortion, especially in other countries. She would have extended further the disastrous Obamacare.

Hillary would have eroded our American sovereignty and weakened the strength of our Armed Forces. She would have embraced more of the phony “free trade” deals that have cost Americans millions of jobs, and the middle class would be suffering greater drops in real wages than they already are.

Hillary would be ignoring the working class while pandering to the globalist elite in D.C. The media would be fawning over her regardless of what she said and did, while our Nation would be spiraling in decline.

Jimmy Stewart’s favorite movie role was that of George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life,” when the depressed man was given a glimpse of how terrible life would have been for others without him. Likewise, our Nation would be in a dire state without President Donald Trump and his first 100 days.

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American”

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Fourth Circuit ‘Lawyers Up’ Against Trump

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Phyllis was absolutely right about feminist movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, April 7, 2017

Judge Posner defends supremacy

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

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

End NFL Subsidies as It Moves to Gambling

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These columns are also posted on pseagles.com.