Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Trump Should Turn to His Solicitor General

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Winning the ‘Trade War’ with China

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

The ‘Caravans’ Are Coming

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Census Should Ask About Citizenship

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

American citizenship is the most valuable status in the history of the world, worth more than even Roman citizenship was.  It is elementary that a census of the people in our country should include in its questions whether someone is a citizen.

Yet asking for that basic information has created a massive firestorm among liberals who want to blur the distinction between those who are American citizens, and those who are not.  No one can claim it is an invasion of anyone’s privacy to ask about citizenship, given that it should be a matter of public record.

The genteel industrialist who runs the obscure 115-year-old U.S. Department of Commerce appears to be an unlikely person to cause such controversy.  Wilbur Ross, who will never light up a room or catch fire on social media while presiding over one of the grandest but least-visited buildings in Washington, holds a position that is considered a backwater in the president’s cabinet.

But Secretary Ross has become the most valuable player of the Trump administration.  Not only has he provided critical support for the president’s America First trade agenda, but he has laid the groundwork for the president’s reelection by restoring the citizenship question to the census.

The importance of his decision is shown by the fact that Democrats in California immediately filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to stop it.  Federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and even Jimmy Carter have become the first stop in the resistance to President Trump carrying out the will of the American people who elected him in 2016.

The initial lawsuit against Wilbur Ross was filed by the attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, who should have his hands full defending his state’s unconstitutional sanctuary laws against a federal lawsuit by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  San Francisco is not only a sanctuary for illegal aliens, but it is also a popular venue for liberals seeking judicial supremacy to block Trump at every turn.

Another lawsuit against Ross is being threatened by Obama’s disgraced attorney general Eric Holder, who was found in criminal contempt of Congress for his role in covering up the Fast and Furious scandal.  That should have derailed Holder’s legal career, but instead it’s treated as a badge of honor by those who advocate the alleged rights of illegal aliens.

The Constitution requires the federal government to conduct an “actual enumeration” every 10 years primarily because, as the Constitution also says, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective Numbers.”  This month is the deadline for finalizing plans for the next census that must be completed by April 1, 2020.

The census has always included all residents in its total enumeration, including both legal and illegal immigrants who are not U.S. citizens, and even slaves when slavery was legal.  But how many residents are citizens has also been counted throughout U.S. history, as far back as the fourth decennial census in 1820.

Until 1950, all respondents were asked to report whether each person being counted was a U.S. citizen.  From 1960 to 2000, the citizenship question was demoted to the “long form” census questionnaire that went to 1 in 6 households, and thereafter it was included in the American Community Survey which samples 3.5 million households per year.

As Secretary Ross explains in his decision, a sample of just 1 in 6 households is not accurate enough to determine how many citizens are living in small election districts. To obtain numbers accurate down to the level of small census blocks, which are required to enforce the federal Voting Rights Act, every person who is a U.S. citizen must be counted (in addition to every resident who is not a citizen).

Liberals claim that the citizenship question will discourage illegal residents from responding to the census, thereby undercounting them.  Even worse, in the critics’ view, is how this might result in a reduction of taxpayer funding of agencies that dole out massive benefits to the illegal population.

The wily Wilbur Ross anticipated those objections, pointing out in his 8-page statement that “no one provided evidence that reinstating a citizenship question would materially decrease response rates.”  On the contrary, there’s plenty of evidence that the citizenship question has no effect on response rates, even among “those who generally distrusted government and government information collection efforts, disliked the current administration, or feared law enforcement.”

Perhaps opponents of Trump should take solace in how Trump is not ordering a census like the one used by the Roman Empire at the time of Christ.  The Roman census required everyone to return to their home city to be counted, and today that rule would have the salutary effect of deporting at their own expense the many millions of illegal aliens.

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

Friday, March 23, 2018

Facebook helped Obama more than Trump

Politico reports:
Facebook is flailing amid the fallout from revelations about the alleged misuse of user data by Cambridge Analytica, the Trump campaign’s 2016 data firm, dating back to 2014.

But the narrow focus on Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign misses the broader problem with Facebook and lacks fundamental context. Facebook is, to put the matter bluntly, a deeply untransparent, out-of-control company that encroaches on its users’ privacy, resists regulatory oversight and fails to police known bad actors when they abuse its platform.

And it’s not just Republicans who have taken advantage of Facebook’s invasive features. Far from it: During the 2012 campaign, President Barack Obama’s reelection team built an app that extracted the same types of data in the same fashion as the Cambridge Analytica data in question, with one critical difference: Obama’s team extracted nearly five times the information.

According to Carol Davidsen, a member of Obama’s data team, “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” The social graph is Facebook’s map of relationships between users and brands on its platform. And after the election, she recently acknowledged, Facebook was “very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”

There’s been no word on whether the Obama team was asked to delete its data, nor has it been suspended from Facebook.
See also Ben Shapiro's comments:
What’s genius for Obama is scandal when it comes to Trump

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Trump Eradicates the Deep State

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

A whopping 74% of Americans recognize the problem of the “Deep State” – the entrenched bureaucrats in D.C. who control our government.  This was confirmed by a remarkable poll released on Monday by Monmouth University.

The FBI’s own disciplinary office recommended the firing of its disgraced former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions pulled the trigger.  But former Deep Staters sprang to the defense of McCabe, as if on cue, and tweeted invective at the people’s leader they hate, President Trump.

Chief among the chorus of former bureaucrats was John Brennan, who ran the CIA during Obama’s second term.  Brennan admitted he voted for the Communist Party in 1976, so it is unsurprising that he would rant against Trump’s efforts to clean house.

Quickly McCabe received multiple job offers from Democrat politicians, which would be at additional taxpayer expense.  He could also garner big bucks from a lecture tour at liberal universities, or like his mentor James Comey write a self-serving book with a hefty advance royalty.

Better yet, McCabe could form a band with Brennan, Comey, and James Clapper, all of whom are gone from their official positions but still dominate the news.  They could call their band the “Deep State Blues,” and perform to empty houses across middle America.

Trump played to a packed house in western Pennsylvania ten days ago, delivering a magnificent speech that was decried by the media but loved by the grassroots.  Trump laid out how he is trying to exorcise the evil that permeates D.C., which is fighting back like a trapped rabid dog.

The refreshing firing of McCabe was another shot across the bow in this comic-book-like struggle between the American people, led by Trump, and the dug-in Establishment.  This illustrates what Phyllis Schlafly wrote about in her
bestselling classic A Choice Not An Echo, which describes the long-running battle between the grassroots and the insiders who control government no matter who is elected.

Robert Mueller, or his superior Rod Rosenstein who fails to rein him in, should be next on the chopping block, and Trump needs to strike while the iron is hot.  And Trump should fire any advisers who stand in his way on this.

Republican impediments such as Sen. Lindsey Graham are probably still bitter about how Trump humiliated them in the 2016 presidential contest.  To this day Trump has a higher approval rating than Graham in South Carolina, which is Graham’s home state.

Mueller has already wasted far more than ten million dollars in taxpayer money while proving nothing of significance.  Instead, Mueller has intimidated those loyal to Trump, which may be the real goal.

If the only thing President Trump achieves is to loosen the grip by the power-brokers on D.C., then he will have accomplished more than his four predecessors combined.  But the fierce resistance by both political parties makes the outcome far from clear.

Fortunately, Trump does have some allies on Capitol Hill on this issue.  Senator Rand Paul rebuked Brennan for his attack on Trump, pointing out that what is really disgraceful is how Brennan “had the power to search every American’s records without a warrant” and how that is an attack on “the freedom of every American.”

The Deep State has control of all the federal agencies in D.C., so it is a steep climb to triumph over it.  Some might wonder if it is even impossible to return the power to the American people that is rightfully ours.

For example, in behavior typical of the Swamp, the IRS refuses to stop the use of 1.3 million stolen or bogus Social Security numbers of employed illegal aliens.  It would be a simple matter to pull the plug on the employers of those illegals, yet the IRS as a matter of policy refuses to take action.

This conduct by the IRS has compelled the valiant Tom Homan of ICE to risk the lives of his agents by conducting three raids in the sanctuary state of California.  The public overwhelmingly opposes employers hiring illegal aliens, jobs that could be going to Americans, and the IRS could easily stop the illegal employment without putting the lives of any enforcement agents at risk.

The Monmouth University survey was mostly of Democrats and Independents, with Republicans comprising only 27% of the respondents, so its results are even more extraordinary.  When asked about the possible existence of “a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy,” known as the Deep State, 47% said it “probably exists” and 27% said it “definitely exists.”

With unusual consistency across Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, about 60% said that unelected or unappointed officials hold too much power in government.  If Trump can end that, then Americans will be forever grateful.

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

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Trump Ends Globalism at the State Department

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Outgoing Rex Tillerson is, by all accounts, a very likeable fellow, and no one wants to kick someone when he is down.  But President Trump wisely fired him as secretary of state for having an outlook different from Trump’s, and from the agenda Trump was elected on.

We have “different mindsets,” Trump said about Tillerson, as a polite understatement.  “We got along, actually, quite well, but we disagree on a lot of things.”

Indeed. Tillerson was the CEO of ExxonMobil, one of the largest multinational corporations in the world.  No one could hold that position without being a globalist and he did not convert quickly enough to make America great again.

Tillerson was never on the same page as President Trump in standing up against, not with, the many parts of the world that are hostile to our sovereign interests.  A supporter of phony free trade, Tillerson seemed more like the appeasement-type of secretary of state that we would expect if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election.

It is not merely that Tillerson thought Obama’s sweetheart deal with Iran was “okay,” as Trump complained in announcing his termination of Tillerson.  It was also that Tillerson would say and do things out-of-sync with what the America-First stance needs to be.

Tillerson was mistakenly trying to use diplomacy with the North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong-un while Trump was pursuing tougher measures.  When Trump finally got Tillerson to stop groveling, the situation improved.

Even the media concedes that Tillerson’s departure will not hinder Trump’s highly effective handling of North Korea, which is all-Trump and contrary to Tillerson’s approach.  If anything, a successful outcome of the North Korean crisis is more likely with Tillerson gone.

Given how often Tillerson disagreed during his confirmation hearing with Trump’s positions, it is surprising that Tillerson lasted as long as he did.  In merely one day of testimony Tillerson disagreed with Trump about the harmful Trans-Pacific Partnership, Russian policies toward the Ukraine, so-called climate change, and the need for Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

President Trump indicated that the upcoming renegotiation of trade deals was a reason for his timing in letting Tillerson go now.  Trump recently stood up against China by blocking the foreign takeover of Qualcomm, thereby signaling that American technology secrets are not for sale to foreign countries hostile to us.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who has long been a much stronger Trump supporter than Tillerson ever was, will step in without the baggage of a globalist mindset.  Pompeo brings a welcomed enthusiasm and focus that Tillerson unfortunately lacked.

“Tremendous energy, tremendous intellect, we’re always on the same wavelength,” Trump said about Pompeo after picking him.  “The relationship has been very good, and that’s what I need as secretary of state.”

In addition to his stellar record of being first in his class in West Point and then serving in the Army, Pompeo has a strongly conservative track record as a congressman from Kansas.  His positions include being outspokenly pro-life and taking many stances that fit hand-in-glove with those of Trump and the conservative movement.

Phyllis Schlafly praised the freshman congressman Pompeo in early 2011, for sponsoring a budget amendment that would have cut $8.5 million from the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Registry.  She applauded how Pompeo observed that the registry would be “the very foundation of the EPA’s effort to pursue its radical anti-jobs agenda.”

Unlike Tillerson, Pompeo has been a leader in cracking down on terrorists from Muslim countries.  When confronted with an alleged hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for terrorists, Pompeo took it upon himself to personally visit the camp and quipped afterwards that it looked to him “like a lot of them have put on weight.”

For months it has been perceived that Tillerson, who is younger than Trump but appears older, has been unhappy in his position.  He failed to fill key vacancies in his department despite being on the job for more than a year, and at key moments seemed to be in his home state of Texas rather than in D.C.

Trump was perceptive in his post-firing comments: “I think Rex will be much happier now, but I really appreciate his service.”  With Mike Pompeo in charge at the State Department, Americans can be more confident that the interests of the United States will be foremost in any foreign policy decision-making.

It took a year, but we have finally arrived to the point of “let Trump be Trump,” reminiscent of the moment in 1984 when “let Reagan be Reagan” started to carry the day.  President Trump is acting boldly on his instincts rather than being blocked and dissuaded by naysayers around him, and there is no limit to what he can achieve with this approach.

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

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Russians did not subvert democracy

The NY Times reports:
Trouble has now arrived. Unfortunately for Mr. Thiel, the storm is centered on Facebook, whose board he has been a member of practically since its founding. The social network, which billed itself as bringing democracy and enlightenment to the world, was used by the Russians to subvert democracy and sow confusion in the United States.

Even people paid to see the future didn’t see that one coming.
And only extreme Trump-haters see it that way today.

Hillary Clinton spent about a billion dollars in her campaign for President. In addition, nearly all of the mainstream news media were supporting her in editorials and in biased news stories.

According to the NY Times, some Russians spent a couple of thousand dollars on a Facebook ad saying that Hillary was Satan, and showing a picture of Satan arm-wrestling Jesus. And that subverted democracy?!!
Last summer, there was a flap when a memo by a fellow board member, Reed Hastings, the chief executive of Netflix, appeared in The New York Times. In the memo, Mr. Hastings wrote to Mr. Thiel that he displayed “catastrophically bad judgment” in supporting Mr. Trump.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, did not ask him to step down from the board, and reports that he wants to leave the board are incorrect, Mr. Thiel said, noting that among other things that he brings “ideological diversity.”
So Facebook is willing, just barely, to tolerate 1 out of its 10 board members being a Trump supporter. The other 9 are leftist Democrats. And the big issue in Silicon Valley is whether to kick the one Republican out of town!

What the Left sees is an opportunity to monopolize the dissemination of political ideas. They can't control Rush Limbaugh and a few others, but they can control CNN, NY Times, Facebook, Google, etc. Now they hope to shut down free-lance Russians that they cannot control.

Saying that the Russians were subverting democracy with their silly Facebook ads is so crazy that it is hard to believe that anyone seriously believes it.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

How Trump Wins on Trade 

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

When President Trump announced he would protect American jobs by imposing tariffs on foreign-made steel and aluminum, naysayers of both parties rushed to the nearest microphone or TV camera. Pundits and politicians alike pretended to be “shocked, shocked” that Trump meant what he said as a candidate, and that he actually means to deliver what he promised during the campaign.

The Swamp, in short, is not happy.  But cheers rose from the manufacturing belt that runs through the states that put Trump in the White House:  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

“This is a good thing for the steel industry and for our country,” said Tim Timken, the fifth-generation leader of TimkenSteel, which has 3,000 employees in Ohio.  “We’re standing up to our foreign competition and essentially saying enough is enough,” he added.

While foreign lobbyists warned of a new “trade war” in which other countries retaliate against the United States, U.S. Steel CEO David Burritt pointed out that “We are, and have been, in a trade war for decades.   Countries which have economically prospered by creating our current trade imbalance will face repercussions to their own economies if they choose the path of retaliation.”

Peter Navarro, director of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, debunked the notion that the United States could lose a trade war with Europe or Asia.  “We are the most lucrative and biggest market in the world. We have the lowest tariffs in the world, we have the lowest non-tariff barriers, we are the free-tradingest nation in the world."

“And what do we get for that?” Navarro asked.  “We get every year a half-trillion-dollar trade deficit that transfers our wealth to other countries and basically offshores our jobs and our factories. All we are asking for is fair and reciprocal trade.”

The rest of the world wants unlimited access to the American consumer without complying with American regulations and without paying American taxes.  “Under my administration,” Trump boasted in his speech to CPAC last month, “the era of economic surrender is over.” 

“We’re renegotiating trade deals that are so bad, whether it’s NAFTA, whether it’s the World Trade Organization, which created China.  China has been like a rocket ship ever since, and last year we had almost a $500 billion trade deficit with China” ― money that finances the growing Chinese military. 

Critics are exaggerating the cost to consumers by adding a tax to foreign-made steel and aluminum.  Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ran the numbers and found that the aluminum tariff would add just six-tenths of a cent to the cost of a soup or beer can, while the steel tariff would add about $175 to the cost of a $35,000 car.

Tariffs are much like the out-of-state tuition that state colleges charge students whose families have not supported the college through taxes.  Most state colleges require out-of-state students to pay more, and most people fully support that sensible requirement.

Similarly, tariffs help level the playing field between offshore manufacturers that escape the extra burdens and costs of operating a business in America and providing jobs to Americans.  Requiring those foreign companies to pay more for the privilege of selling to American consumers is perfectly logical given how the foreigners have not been paying American taxes or complying with our regulations.

The resistance to tariffs comes from the same never-Trumpers who assured us that Trump could never be nominated or elected.  Peter Navarro noted that nearly all the other presidential candidates opposed Trump on trade, but “guess what?  He beat them.”

Thirty years ago, when Donald Trump was in his early 40s, his views on trade were much the same as they are now.  He told Larry King that he was “tired of watching other people ripping off the United States.”  He told Oprah, “I’d make our allies pay their fair share.”  

Trump told Letterman that nations such as Japan have “totally taken advantage of the country. I’m talking about the [trade] deficits. They talk about free trade [but] they dump the cars and everything else.”

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who supports the Trump tariffs, observed that “Free trade hasn’t worked well for West Virginia.” Maybe that explains why Trump carried West Virginia with 69 percent of the popular vote, a whopping 42-point margin over Hillary Clinton in that formerly Democratic state.

Just as entrenched politicians in D.C. have blocked Trump’s efforts to build a Wall, they also protest too much at his effort to impose a few tariffs.  Yet the approach of a tariff-less society has been a catastrophic failure for the American worker, so it is time to try the approach that originally made our country great.

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

Friday, March 2, 2018

The President is not a Monarch

Joseph Epstein writes a WSJ op-ed:
My son Mark, whose mind is more capacious, objective and generous than mine, nicely formulated the Donald Trump problem for thoughtful conservatives. “I approve of almost everything he has done,” my son remarked, “and I disapprove of almost everything he has said.” ...

I disapprove of the bragging tweets, the touchiness, the crude put-downs of anyone who disagrees with him ...

The presidency, like the monarchy in England, has a symbolic along with a practical aspect. ...

The obverse of Donald Trump’s presidency for me was that of Barack Obama. To flip my son’s formulation, I approved of almost everything Mr. Obama said, and I disapproved of almost everything he did. ...

I can easily imagine myself at lunch with Barack Obama, talking baseball, basketball, the University of Chicago, the intricacies of Chicago-style machine politics, whereas I cannot think of a single topic I might take up at a similar meal with Donald Trump.
No, the presidency is not like a monarchy.

If you agree with Epstein, then ask yourself: How would a President with Trump's policies ever get elected, without someone with a personality like Trump's?

Trump has had to tweet in order to get his message out, as the mainstream news media distorts everything about him.

Trump has had to abrasively challenge his enemies, as he would get destroyed otherwise.

Playing the role of a dopey nice guy worked well for Obama, but it would not have gotten us reversals of bad Democrat policies.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Victimized High School Triumphed where Olympics Failed

​The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

After the poor showing by the U.S. men’s hockey team at the Winter Olympics, it was inspiring that the Marjory Stoneman Douglas boys’ hockey team captured the state championship on Sunday and will represent Florida at the national championship next month.  The sister of one of the team’s hockey players was among the recent shooting victims at the high school in Parkland, Florida.

Boys’ hockey is thriving at the high school level, and this remarkable victory by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas team brings welcome relief amid the tragedy.  Medals from this championship team were added to the memorial site of the shooting victims.

But boys’ hockey stars will find limited opportunities to play when they get to college.  There are only a few dozen competitive college men’s hockey teams, not enough to develop the talent needed to compete with the rest of the world. 
 
As a result, a ragtag team of Russians humiliated the U.S. men’s hockey team with a 4-0 drubbing in Pyeongchang, South Korea.  The American team fared slightly better for its final game prior to its elimination in an overtime shootout against Slovenia, but NBC failed even to broadcast that exciting finish.

When the U.S. women’s hockey team won the gold in a victory against Canada, there was praise but none of the national excitement that occurred when our men’s hockey players defeated the Soviet Union at Lake Placid in 1980.  Men’s hockey is far more popular than women’s hockey, for both men and women spectators.

Unfortunately, federal regulators who implement Title IX against college sports refuse to recognize this fundamental difference between men’s and women’s sports.  Regulators require colleges to provide more athletic opportunities for women than for men, simply because there are now more women than men attending college.

Under the so-called proportionality test, which ignores the greater interest in men’s sports than in women’s, colleges have eliminated hundreds of men’s sports teams, many in Olympic sports.  This hurts our national competitiveness and induces many young men to opt out of going to college where they are prevented from competing in the sport they love.

The Title IX regulators’ quota that limits men’s sports to their proportional enrollment in the college is senseless and not part of the law that Congress enacted in 1972.  It’s based on a regulatory interpretation first imposed by President Jimmy Carter to appease the feminists, and President Trump could repeal it along with the many others he has been properly rescinding.

Many colleges have been unjustly sued when they do not comply with the feminists’ distorted view of Title IX.  To avoid costly litigation, colleges have repeatedly eliminated men’s sports programs while adding women’s programs that they then have difficulty filling.

The Title IX regulations created a vicious cycle, discouraging men from matriculating to colleges that eliminated their sport.  In 1980, equal numbers of men and women obtained college degrees, but now nearly 60% of college degrees are awarded to women and only 40% to men. 

The hockey competition won by the Marjory Stoneman Douglas team in the Sunshine State of Florida illustrates how much boys’ hockey has grown in popularity.  Colleges, however, are generally forbidden from having more sports teams for men than women, so if there is not enough interest in women’s hockey or another large team sport for women, the college is not likely to start a men’s hockey team.

In the traditional Olympic events of alpine and cross-country skiing, the United States men won a grand total of zero medals.  Today there are more college women’s ski teams than there are men’s, perhaps again due to the impact of the proportionality test under Title IX.

Olympic sports themselves have been emasculated by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which even tried to eliminate men’s wrestling from the 2020 Olympics.  The IOC reinstated wrestling after an uproar but cut 56 positions, replacing them with events that “include more women” in the summer games.

Women’s figure skating remains popular to watch, but in a continuation of political correctness the public heard more about the men’s figure skating instead.   Despite this, a large crowd did stay up past midnight on the East Coast to watch the exciting finale of the women’s figure skating competition.

Downplaying the overall nosedive in interest in the Olympics, some commentators say this is merely part of a more general trend.  But the decline in viewership of football, still as masculine as ever, has been small compared with the bottom falling out for the Olympics.

When Phyllis Schlafly spoke for her last time at Harvard, she was greeted afterwards by Professor Harvey Mansfield, author of a book entitled “Manliness.”  If NBC executives hope to recoup the billions they invested in exclusive rights for the Olympics then they might pick up a copy, and the Title IX regulators would also benefit from recognizing the greater demand for men’s sports.

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

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Courage Under Fire Award

The National Rifle Association (NRA) today gave its Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award to Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. ...

After Schneider spoke, Meadows told Pai that "the Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire award is sponsored by the National Rifle Association" in honor of the former NRA president, and it's not given every year. It is only awarded "when someone has stood up under pressure with grace and dignity and principled discipline," she said.

Previous awardees included Rush Limbaugh, Phyllis Schlafly, Vice President Mike Pence, Roy Innis, and Sheriff David Clarke, she said.

"We are honored to have you as part of this distinguished pantheon," Meadows told Pai.
Pai worked to roll back regulations that the Obama administration put on the internet in the last couple of years. The regulations, called "net neutrality", were promoted by Google in order to enhance Google's control of internet control. The regulations applied to internet service providers like Comcast, but exempted Google.

Meanwhile, the NY Times has another article saying that Google and Facebook should do more in order to censor right-wingers who are skeptical of leftist media narratives:
SAN FRANCISCO — On Wednesday, one week after the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., Facebook and YouTube vowed to crack down on the trolls.

Thousands of posts and videos had popped up on the sites, falsely claiming that survivors of the shooting were paid actors or part of various conspiracy theories. Facebook called the posts “abhorrent.” YouTube, which is owned by Google, said it needed to do better. Both promised to remove the content.

The companies have since aggressively pulled down many posts and videos and reduced the visibility of others. Yet on Friday, spot searches of the sites revealed that the noxious content was far from eradicated.
There are indeed a lot of fishy things about the Parkland anti-gun activists. See Vox Day on YouTube threatening InfoWars and on David Hogg.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Social Media Monopolies Advance Leftist Agenda

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

Despite his headline-grabbing indictment of Russian nationals for interfering with the U.S. election, special counsel Robert Mueller has still found no evidence of collusion between any Russians and the Trump campaign.  Mueller indicted 13 Russians who apparently operated a “troll farm” in St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, purchasing ads on Facebook and sending provocative messages to Americans through Twitter and other forms of social media.

According to the indictment, the Russian effort to sow turmoil, confusion and division started in 2014, well before Trump announced he was running for president.  Even after the 2016 election was over, the Russian trolls promoted a “not my president” rally featuring Michael Moore in New York City on November 12.  

The 13 Russians will never be extradited to face trial in the United States; the indictments are apparently merely a political ploy by Mueller.  The bigger question is whether our social media services such as Facebook, Google and Twitter will respond to the indictments by ramping up their own censoring of political speech on their platforms.

Already Facebook has announced it will hire 10,000 employees tasked with policing “hate speech” on its pages.  But the toxic label “hate speech” is likely to be used as a pretext to impose a politically correct ideology on millions of unsuspecting users.

No one denies that Facebook, Google and Twitter are among the most liberal corporations in America.  Virtually all their executives and most of their senior staff were avid supporters of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, and detested Donald Trump.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg chairs a pro-amnesty lobbying group called Fwd.us whose primary mission is to oppose Donald Trump’s efforts to secure the border.  Facebook’s number two executive, Sheryl Sandberg, was spotted in John Podesta’s leaked emails writing that “I still want HRC to win badly.  I am still here to help as I can.” 

The only prominent figure in tech who is known to have supported Trump for president is Peter Thiel, an early investor in Facebook and a member of its board of directors.  After beating back an effort to remove him from Facebook’s board for the heresy of supporting Trump, Peter Thiel announced he is moving both his home and his investment company to Los Angeles because he can no longer tolerate the suffocating politics of the Bay Area.

Google fired one of its highly paid engineers, James Damore, merely for raising questions about his company’s “diversity and inclusion” programs and policies.  In a thoughtful essay he shared with fellow Googlers last year, Damore slammed the Silicon Valley “monoculture” with its “ideological echo chamber” where contrary viewpoints are shamed into silence.

Other tech workers have told the Wall Street Journal that the echo chamber extends beyond Google to the entire industry whose “groupthink and homogeneity” make it a worse place to live and work.  Among tech workers polled in a survey quoted in the Journal, 59 percent of conservative respondents said they know someone who left the industry because they felt conservative views were unwelcome.

Two of the devious ways a social media platform can penalize conservatives are demonetizing and shadow banning.  Demonetizing a site means that it is prevented from carrying the advertising it needs to defray its costs, while shadow banning means that the service provider is throttling back access to recent posts or systematically hiding them from viewers. 

Cartoonist Scott Adams, a Trump supporter who draws the Dilbert comic strip, wrote last year that “hundreds of my Twitter followers have reported that I am being shadow banned on Twitter.”  Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey denied it, but Scott Adams insisted that “anecdotally, the evidence is overwhelming” and that “a number of other high-profile Twitter users report the same problem.”

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, pointed out last year that Twitter “appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or deverifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users.”  He cited the case of U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn whose campaign announcement was blocked because it featured a pro-life message.

The highest-profile Twitter user, of course, is Donald Trump, whose account was blocked (supposedly by accident) and threatened with deactivation for his politically incorrect tweets.  The company finally said it would allow Trump to continue using Twitter, not because Twitter believes in free speech but merely because Trump is a world leader whose statements are inherently newsworthy.

Facebook and Google dominate their industries just as Standard Oil and AT&T once did, which were broken up under the antitrust laws.  Why are Facebook and Google being given preferential treatment while they monopolize the market?

More than half of all advertising spending is now collected by Facebook and Google, which exceeds that of newspapers, television channels and other media combined.  Competition and accountability are badly needed for these social media monopolies.

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

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

The Right and Wrong Approaches to Immigration

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

“This will be our last chance, there will never be another opportunity!” to protect Dreamers, President Trump properly tweeted as the U.S. Senate plunged into a debate about immigration policy. The Left wants amnesty for Dreamers, who are illegal aliens who entered our country many as teenagers.

President Trump is right to insist on funding for a border wall, which would cost less than 1% of our national budget, and an end to chain migration whereby relatives of immigrants are brought in with little or no screening. President Trump’s approach is welcome relief to the failed, open-door policies of the prior Republican leadership.

Meanwhile, an unexpected voice weighed in from the other side of the world. In Abu Dhabi, an oil-rich emirate in the Persian Gulf, former President George W. Bush was speaking at a conference organized by Michael Milken, the junk bond king of the 1980s.
“Americans don’t want to pick cotton at 105 degrees,” Bush said in response to a question, “but there are people who want to put food on their family’s tables and are willing to do that. We ought to say thank you and welcome them.”

Bush was right that Americans don’t want to pick cotton at 105 degrees, as we can tell you from personal experience. But he was wrong to say we ought to welcome people from other lands so poor that they are willing to do that kind of work to put food on their family’s tables.

When we were teenagers, we spent a memorable summer vacation working on a cotton farm in the Mississippi delta east of Pine Bluff, Arkansas. It was a miserable experience, but fortunately for us, it lasted only about two weeks.

It was too early to pick the cotton when we were there around the Fourth of July, but we learned how to chop it. Chopping cotton means chopping weeds with a hoe without damaging the cotton plant.

After awhile, we wondered why we saw no one else doing this backbreaking work in the 100-degree heat of the Mississippi delta, where cotton fields extend as far as the eye can see. That’s when we realized that chopping and picking cotton were already being done by machines, and the people who used to do it by hand had moved on to better jobs.

Once upon a time, more than 200 years ago, Americans imported African slaves to do the unpleasant work of cultivating cotton. Slavery was abolished in 1865, but African Americans continued to toil on cotton farms in conditions of extreme poverty that prevailed in the defeated Southern states.

About 75 years after the Civil War, some inventors finally made a successful cotton-picking machine. This invention came years later than the famous harvester invented by Cyrus McCormick, because cotton is so much harder to pick than wheat, corn or soybeans.

During the same period in which mechanization swept the cotton fields of the South, millions of African Americans moved north in search of economic opportunity and greater freedom. During this period known as the “great migration,” many black Americans found higher paying jobs in the factories of Chicago and Detroit, while others achieved success and fame in sports and entertainment.

Thanks to a legal and economic system that rewards invention and innovation, our high standard of living means that no American of any race has to chop or pick cotton at 105 degrees anymore. Bush grew up in Texas, which grows more cotton than any other state, and he should know that.

Bush’s foolish comment combined two of the worst slogans of the pro-amnesty movement, the myth of “jobs Americans won’t do” and the myth of “crops rotting in the fields.” On the contrary, the enormous growth of computer-aided automation, robots, artificial intelligence, and driverless vehicles is eliminating whatever opportunity there used to be for poor people from other countries to earn a living here.

While the debate rages in Washington, another debate is roiling the state of California, which has more immigrants (10 million) and more illegal aliens (2.4 million) than any other state. California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, is warning that state’s employers not to cooperate with the federal government.

“Businesses are increasingly caught between California and Washington,” the Wall Street Journal reports. A new state law imposes fines of up to $10,000 on employers who provide information about their employees to federal immigration officials.

In the last presidential election, California went in a markedly different direction from the rest of our Nation. But the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution requires that California obey the same federal laws on immigration with which the other 49 states must comply in protecting American workers against illegal aliens.

In the end, Californians might thank President Trump for taking a strong stand against illegal immigration, which is estimated to be costing that state about $30 billion per year. That’s far more than the costs of building a border wall to permanently solve the problem.

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

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Trump Keeps Winning on Immigration

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump’s approval rating jumped 10 points in January, rising to the highest level since soon after he was inaugurated. As Congressman Steve Stivers noted, “No president in their second year has seen their approval rating go up except this one.”

Many were surprised that Trump has managed to break through the incessant opposition of a hostile media. Our explanation is that Trump lured the Democrats into a high-profile debate on the immigration issue, and the president won the debate because the public agrees with him.

Democrats proved they are so committed to the principle of amnesty for illegal immigrants that they would even shut down the government over it. To the surprise of many Democrats, the public is not buying it.

Immigration is a subject on which there is the greatest disconnect between what ordinary Americans want and what our government delivers. We allowed about 1.5 million immigrants a year to settle in America in 2014 and 2015, the latest year such figures are available, but a new poll shows that Americans think that number is way too high.

According to the respected Harvard-Harris poll, 72 percent of Americans think we should admit fewer than 1 million immigrants a year. Of those, 54 percent think we should have fewer than 500,000 immigrants a year, and 35 percent think the number should be 250,000 or even less.

“Americans are Dreamers too,” President Trump declared in the best line of his superb State of the Union address. The president holds a winning hand, and the news on immigration keeps supporting him.

On Super Bowl Sunday, football fans awoke to the sad news that Edwin Jackson, a linebacker for the Indianapolis Colts, and his Uber driver were killed by a drunk-driving illegal immigrant from Guatemala, Manuel Orrego-Savala. The culprit, who had twice been previously deported, fled the scene on foot, but was later caught and found to have three times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood as he drove his pickup truck without a license.

Near San Diego last month, U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two illegal immigrant Dreamers with DACA privileges who had been making a living by smuggling other illegals into the United States from Mexico. The 20-year-old Dreamer was caught driving two illegals in his car, while the 22-year-old was acting as a scouter to warn another smuggler when Border Patrol agents were sighted in the area.

While President Trump has been acting as “good cop” with his extremely generous offer of eventual citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers, his essential “bad cop,” Acting ICE Director Tom Homan, has been enforcing the law in sanctuary cities and states. Homan raided 77 businesses in Northern California last week, looking for employers who harm American workers by knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

The Obama administration had essentially allowed San Francisco and other liberal areas to opt out of federal immigration law, but that is changing under Director Homan, who promised a 400 percent increase in workplace enforcement. “We’ve got to take these sanctuary cities on,” Homan declared, even suggesting that local officials could be criminally punished for harboring illegal aliens in their jurisdictions.

Americans sympathize with immigrants who were brought here as young children (although that’s not really true of many who would receive amnesty under the bipartisan Dreamer legislation), but not the adults who illegally brought them here. Still less do Americans want the Dreamers to import their distant relatives under the process known as chain migration.

How that works was explained by the eminent Harvard Professor George Borjas, himself an immigrant, in the New York Times. “Our current system lets a new immigrant eventually sponsor the entry of her brother, who can then sponsor the entry of his wife, who can sponsor her father, who can sponsor his sister, and so on.”

Professor Borjas continued, “Does it really make sense for one entry today to eventually lead to a visa for the immigrant’s sister-in-law’s aunt?” Obviously not, which is why Americans oppose letting new immigrants import relatives beyond members of their immediate family.

President Trump has insisted that any deal for DACA must include provisions limiting family reunification to an immigrant’s spouse and minor children. Democrats have refused to accept that reasonable restriction, which means there likely won’t be a deal anytime soon.

The Harvard-Harris poll shows that most Americans not only think total immigration should be reduced, but also that we should give preference to immigrants with something to contribute to our country, based on their education and skills. That opinion was shared by all demographic groups polled, and was especially high among African Americans.

That opinion used to be shared by Democrats, too, including Bill Clinton who praised the late Barbara Jordan during his 1995 State of the Union address. “It is wrong,” Bill Clinton said then, “to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

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

Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Open for Business, not Phony Free Trade

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

A few days before delivering his report to Congress on the State of the Union, President Trump took a victory lap at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. That’s the annual gathering of CEOs, celebrities, and liberal politicians who think they run the global economy.

Trump was not on the initial guest list for Davos, and few in the audience were pleased when he decided to crash their party. After all, Trump had won the presidency partly by campaigning against the global elites who dominate the goings-on in Davos.

“The world is witnessing the resurgence of a strong and prosperous America,” Trump told the world’s movers and shakers. “There has never been a better time to hire, to build, to invest and to grow in the United States. America is open for business, and we’re competitive once again.”

Trump flattered his reluctant audience of “business titans, industry giants and many of the brightest minds in many fields.” But he warned them that they owe “a duty of loyalty to the people, workers, customers, who made you who you are.”

In an obvious reference to China, Trump said: “The U.S. will no longer turn a blind eye to unfair economic practices including massive intellectual property theft, industrial subsidies and pervasive state-led economic planning. These and other predatory behaviors are distorting the global markets and harming businesses and workers, not just in the U.S. but around the globe.”

President Trump sent a high-powered advance team to Davos including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. At a press conference the day before Trump arrived, the cabinet secretaries pushed back against the media’s disdain for the American president.

When a reporter asked the inevitable, tiresome question of whether Trump’s America First policy would start a trade war, Wilbur Ross was ready with a crisp answer. “There have always been trade wars,” he said. “The difference now is U.S. troops are now coming to the ramparts.”

“Trade wars are fought every single day,” Secretary Ross continued. “Unfortunately, every single day there are various parties violating the rules and taking advantage.”

Ross’s comments echoed what the president told CEOs at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in November. “We are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of anymore,” he said. “From this day forward, we will compete on a fair and equal basis.”

The day before Secretary Ross spoke in Davos, President Trump signed off on a recommendation to impose tariffs of up to 30% on Chinese-made solar panels and up to 50% on large residential washing machines from South Korea. These remedies for unfair trade practices are authorized by Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 and were recommended by the independent U.S. International Trade Commission.

The decision was announced by Robert Lighthizer, who works at the White House as U.S. Trade Representative. As Lighthizer declared, “The president’s action makes clear again that the Trump administration will always defend American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.”

The trade action was welcomed by employees of Whirlpool, the Michigan-based appliance manufacturer that employs 10,000 Americans at five plants in Ohio. Whirlpool announced it would immediately hire 200 more manufacturing workers at its plant in Clyde, Ohio.

“This is a victory for American workers and consumers alike,” said Whirlpool’s Chairman Jeff Fettig, who wasn’t invited to Davos. “By enforcing our existing trade laws, President Trump has ensured American workers will compete on a level playing field with their foreign counterparts, enabled new manufacturing jobs here in America and will usher in a new era of innovation for consumers everywhere.”

In a rare act of bipartisanship, Trump’s decision was praised by both of Ohio’s U.S. Senators, including Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, who’s up for reelection this year, and Republican Senator Rob Portman, who had Lighthizer’s job during the free-trading George W. Bush administration. “After moving their production from overseas back to Clyde, Ohio,” Portman said, “Whirlpool has had to fight a series of cases against companies who would rather cheat than compete.”

Trump was predictably criticized by the hard core of never-Trumpers such as Nebraska’s Republican U.S. Senator Ben Sasse and the columnist George Will, who called it protectionism. But the broad public support for a policy of putting Americans first shows why Trump won the states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa in 2016 and can do so again in 2020.

Back in Washington, Trump told reporters that his State of the Union address would be “a very important speech on trade. The world has taken advantage of us on trade for many years and, as you probably noticed, we’re stopping that. We’re stopping it cold.”

“We have to have reciprocal trade,” Trump declared. “It’s not a one-way deal anymore.”

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

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Trump’s Breakthrough Win Against Shutdown

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump proved the pundits to be wrong, once again, with his breakthrough victory against the shutdown. Nearly all political experts pompously declared that Republicans cannot win in a shutdown, and yet Trump did exactly that.

Margaret Thatcher, the late British Prime Minister who was Ronald Reagan’s ally throughout Reagan’s two terms as our president, explained how she achieved her improbable success as Britain’s longest-serving prime minister. Her pithy reply: “First you win the argument, then you win the vote.”

Thatcher’s motto explains how President Trump was able to win the shutdown showdown with Democrats: first, he won the argument. Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, turned the lights back on when they realized they were losing the argument with the American people.

In order to win the debate, though, Trump first had to frame the debate, which he did brilliantly on Twitter: “Democrats are far more concerned with Illegal Immigrants than they are with our great Military or Safety at our dangerous Southern Border.”

U.S. citizens should not lose access to our own government in order to protect people who have no right to be here in the first place. By forcing the shutdown, as Trump said on Twitter, “The Democrats are turning down services and security for citizens in favor of services and security for non-citizens. Not good!”

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that Senator Schumer’s decision to end the government shutdown “enraged liberals, who accused the lawmakers of betrayal and threatened to mount primaries against some of the Democrats who voted yes. They accused Schumer of capitulating to protect senators up for re-election in November in Republican-leaning states.”

“It’s hard to overstate how disgusted many progressive leaders are,” a Times columnist observed. Trump thus not only emerged victorious, he cut off the Democratic leadership from their own base which they will need for the upcoming midterm elections.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s promise to hold a future vote on DACA was merely a fig leaf for Democrats, since a promise to vote on something unspecified is as meaningless as a promise to merely consider agreeing to something unknown.

Representative Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-IL), one of the Democrats’ chief advocates of amnesty for illegal immigrants, bitterly observed: “It’s the one word they know in Spanish: mañana.” That word literally translates as “tomorrow,” but it really means “some day, maybe never.”

President Trump has already properly rejected the so-called bipartisan bill floated by never-Trumpers Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham, because it utterly fails to include three essential conditions of any immigration compromise: ending chain migration, eliminating the visa lottery, and building a border wall. That bill not only snuck in millions of additional Dreamers, it even protected their parents who brought them in illegally.

President Trump had been willing to extend DACA in exchange for new border controls, but USA Today reported that “There are 3.6M ‘DREAMers’ — a number far greater than commonly known” (and far greater than the 690,000 DACA recipients). “A number so large raises the stakes for both sides.”

Not only did Trump win the first-ever clear victory for Republicans on a shutdown, he won it with the equivalent of a first-round knockout. Democrats are bewildered by the drumming they just received, and how they had to capitulate to avert a disaster for their party.

Trump defined the issue and stuck with it, astutely declining to discuss DACA with Democrats until the government is reopened. In so doing, he taught his fellow Republicans a great deal about how to negotiate with the Democrats in the future.

Trump showed how he is not a Republican like the first President George Bush, who declared “Read My Lips” in promising not to raise taxes, and then famously broke his pledge as soon as Democrats pressured him on the issue. Trump is not like Republicans leaders in Congress, either, many of whom have been trying to appease liberals on DACA and other issues.

The benefits of President Trump's forceful leadership on the shutdown extend far beyond immigration. President Trump has finally ended the stranglehold that liberals have had over Republicans, by holding the government hostage to a shutdown unless the GOP caves in.

Instead, it was the Democrats who completely caved in by ending the shutdown, and even the liberal media are admitting their ignominious defeat. Reasons are being floated as to why the Democrats lost this time when they are perceived to have always won on the shutdown issue in the past, but much of the post-game analysis misses the point.

The real cause of this massive political blunder by the Democrats can be summed up in merely four words: they underestimated Donald Trump. By now, this is not a mistake that political experts should still be making.

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

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

Trump Should Stand His Ground on Immigration

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

The mainstream media have had a field day reporting on President Trump’s alleged use of coarse language in a closed-door meeting at the White House last week. According to one tally, CNN repeated the offensive word 195 times in a single day last week, including 22 times in a single hour, not including its display on the chyron at the bottom of the screen.

The initial report was denied by President, and his denial was corroborated by two U.S. Senators and a cabinet secretary who (unlike the media) were present in the meeting. But all the fuss over coarse language has reinforced the point that Trump was making, that we should be much more selective about the immigrants and others we allow to enter the United States.

Whether or not Trump used a bad word to describe impoverished countries, which have been plagued by political systems that do not reward hard work, Trump is right that most of the people living there are not prepared to immigrate here without imposing a burden on Americans. Most of the people in the rest of the world just don’t have the skills to support themselves in our high-tech society.

Too many Americans have been misled by the sentimental myth that our immigration policy is (or should be) based on a poem that includes the lines “give me your tired, your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” In fact, that poem does not reflect the purpose of the Statue of Liberty and it was only hung in the visitor’s lounge many years after the statue was erected and dedicated.

In 1883, when Emma Lazarus wrote her famous poem, America could accommodate millions of poor immigrants willing and able to work at low wages, but that’s not true anymore. Such jobs are disappearing fast in our economy, and we’ve built a vast safety net so that our own low-skilled citizens can live in dignity without working.

On the day Donald Trump announced he was running for president, he vowed to change the way our immigrants are selected and screened. “When Mexico sends its people,” he said about the country that has sent about 50% of our immigrants, both legal and illegal, “they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.”

As Trump himself conceded in that June 16, 2015 speech, there are of course some “good people” coming from Mexico and other poor countries. His point, then and now, is that we’re not selecting the best candidates for immigration from among the much larger number of people who do not share our values.

More than three-quarters of the 1.2 million people who legally settle in the United States each year never pass any qualifying test for their fitness to live and work here. Their average level of education is well below that of American citizens, which means those immigrants are doomed to a life of near-poverty supplemented by food stamps and other taxpayer-funded benefits.

Numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau tell the story. Immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have the least education (many never attended high school), the least command of English (most are “functionally illiterate” in our language), and live in households that depend on at least one major welfare program.

This is what happens under a system of chain migration under which immigrants are allowed to sponsor their unscreened, unvetted distant relatives for a green card. In effect, this year’s immigrants are selected by last year’s immigrants instead of by the American people as a whole.

President Trump said that any deal for DACA must include an end to chain migration, tweeting over the weekend: “I, as President, want people coming into our Country who are going to help us become strong and great again, people coming in through a system based on MERIT. No more Lotteries! #AMERICA FIRST.”

A group of leading House Republicans has just unveiled a bill to do just that. Called the Securing America’s Future Act (H.R. 4760), the bill has support from all factions of the conference including two committee chairmen (Goodlatte and McCaul), the Puerto Rican-born Raul Labrador and the moderate Martha McSally, who’s running to succeed Jeff Flake in the Senate.

The House bill extends DACA benefits while meeting the president’s proper demand to end chain migration and the diversity visa lottery. It requires employers to use E-Verify, and it cracks down on sanctuary cities and those who overstay their visas or reenter after being previously deported.

In an effort to attract support from rural states, the bill unwisely allows more low-skilled agricultural guest workers, and the bill’s definition of high-skilled work may not be high enough to protect our own engineering graduates from foreign competition. But Securing America’s Future Act would help Make America Great Again.

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

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Marijuana Lights Up the Wrong Way

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is being attacked on both sides of the aisle for rescinding the Obama policy that opened the floodgates to marijuana addiction. Funded by libertarian billionaires such as the Koch brothers, pro-pot senators like Cory Gardner are demanding that AG Sessions stand down and continue Obama’s misguided policy.

Sessions rescinded Obama’s command that the Department of Justice ignore federal law against marijuana production and sales, and instead Sessions instructed U.S. Attorneys to begin enforcing well-established federal statutes against large-scale cultivation and distribution of marijuana. These federal laws preempt state law, particularly in Colorado and California where a culture of pot addiction has virtually taken over.

Sessions wrote on January 4th that “today’s memo on federal marijuana enforcement simply directs all U.S. Attorneys to use previously established prosecutorial principles that provide them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal organizations, tackle the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent crime across our country.”

That hardly seems controversial, but money talks and politicians beholden to mega-donors went ballistic in response. Senator Cory Gardner, who heads the misguided fundraising arm of Republican senators, even took to the Senate floor to rant against Sessions for wanting to enforce the law.

Sen. Gardner is the same guy who is pushing the agenda of the same mega-donors to enact amnesty for certain illegal aliens, wanted for their cheap labor. Yet every time Gardner opens his mouth he makes it more difficult for Republicans in Congress to hold onto their majority in the upcoming midterm elections, because American voters reject Republican candidates who support either amnesty or legalized pot.

New Year’s Day rang in the sale of pot in retail stores in California, which expands the hazards it poses to the public there. In addition, anyone over the age of 21 may smoke pot on private property now in California, simply to get high over and over again.

This push for pot is not really coming from the freedom-loving culture of rock music. Instead, like gambling, legalizing pot is driven by a multi-decade campaign of investors seeking to profit from cannabis, as it’s now being advertised for marketing purposes.

First it was sold to the American people under the guise of “medical marijuana,” and predictably anyone with a little back or joint pain was obtaining prescriptions to get high. The strategy was to open the door to the inevitable recreational use by anyone, which is occurring now in eight states.

This is too much even for rock fans, as California's popular Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival recently responded to the legalization of marijuana by banning it at its concerts: “Sorry bro. Marijuana and marijuana products aren’t allowed inside the … Festival. Even in 2018 and beyond.”

If concerts won’t allow smoking pot, why do the rest of us have to put up with its pungent odor and harmful consequences? Costly emergency room visits by “potheads” and deadly car accidents are just two of the burdens that rampant marijuana addiction brings to our society.

Among traffic fatalities in Colorado when operators were tested for marijuana, 25% of those crashes had an operator who tested positive for the drug. This is a sharp increase since marijuana was legalized there, and the real number may be higher because unlike alcohol there is no close correlation between impairment and tissue levels.

Although supposedly limited to adults, marijuana use by youths between 12 and 17 years old, and college-age adults between 18 and 25, has risen sharply in Colorado since pot was legalized there four years ago. Now Colorado has the highest rate of marijuana use by youths in the country, according to the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.

Meanwhile, the town of Pueblo, Colorado, is buckling under the expense of “marijuana migrants,” attracted to the town’s pro-marijuana publicity. Instead of finding real work, however, these marijuana migrants live mostly in boxes, resorting to buckets as toilets.

Billionaire George Soros has been behind the push to legalize marijuana around the country, but the problem now is that he has been joined by a few billionaires associated with the right side of the political spectrum. They are misleading GOP politicians to make the colossal mistake of embracing this leftist agenda item.

Starved for money to finance their campaigns for office in 2018, hopeful Republican candidates will feel the pressure to cave in to pro-pot demands of mega-donors. But while Democrats can get away with that, Republican candidates surely cannot.

The vast majority of our country, and particularly working-class Republicans, reject the legalization of marijuana with all of its harmful consequences. Republican candidates for office who go along with the demands of billionaire donors to endorse their pro-pot agenda will see their own candidacies go up in smoke among voters.

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

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

How Trump Changed the Debate

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

When President Trump announced his decision to wind down DACA, which protects illegal aliens who came to America before their 18th birthday, Democratic leaders were secretly pleased. They thought DACA gave them a way to defeat the President, and compel him to cave in on the issue in order to avert a government shutdown just before Christmas.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was created by a stroke of President Barack Obama’s pen in 2012, even after Obama said 22 times that he lacked the power to do that. DACA provided a two-year work permit with a valid Social Security number to around 800,000 illegal aliens, a number that has since dropped through attrition to about 690,000.

No one denies that Trump has the power to rescind an executive order by his predecessor, but many were misled by polls showing that DACA is a popular program. Depending on how the question is asked, polls show many Americans sympathize with the plight of young people who were supposedly brought here through no fault of their own.

But the real poll is on Election Day, and Donald Trump was elected president primarily because of his commitment to control our borders and reduce immigration. If Trump could be rolled by the media on his signature issue, it would undermine his presidency and make it that much easier for Democrats to defeat the rest of the Trump agenda.

Thinking they had Trump on the defensive, Democrats laid plans to expand DACA from a two-year work permit for 700,000 people all the way to permanent residency for some 4 million illegal residents. Democrats felt so confident that they would win on the DACA issue that they started posturing already for how to expand its amnesty to include many millions.

Now Democrats are making similar threats about extending DACA as a condition for the next budget deadline on January 19, but the terms of the debate have changed. Instead of DACA and the Dream Act, Trump has forced public attention on chain migration.

Between Christmas and New Year’s Eve, Trump served notice via Twitter about the new deal that Democrats would face in the new year: “There can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border,” he warned, “and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our country at all cost!”

A helpful web page was created by the White House to elaborate on the president’s tweet. According to this page at whitehouse.gov, chain migration is “the process by which foreign nationals permanently resettle in the U.S. and subsequently bring over their foreign relatives, and so on, until entire extended families are resettled within the country.”

The numbers are huge. On average, according to the White House, “every 2 new immigrants bring 7 additional foreign relatives to permanently resettle in the U.S.”

In just the last ten years, some 9.3 million people have been allowed to settle permanently in the United States solely because of their familial ties to another immigrant. That’s more than the total population of Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, and Cleveland – combined.

“This system of chain migration – whereby one immigrant can bring in their entire extended families, who can bring in their families and so on – de-skills the labor force, puts downward pressure on wages, and increases the deficit,” explains the White House website. The Trump administration is absolutely correct that low-skill immigrants increase the fiscal deficit by consuming more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

Chain migration “de-skills the labor force” because those immigrants, on average, have lower or fewer skills than the Americans who are already here and struggling to find adequate employment. While the vast majority of immigrant green cards were based on family ties, only 6 percent were issued on the basis of skills.

Despite low unemployment figures being reported, as President Obama’s chief economic adviser Jason Furman recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “some 9 million men of prime age – that is, between 25 and 54 – still are not working.” Furman ignored immigration, but it’s not just a coincidence that 9 million men exited the labor force during the same period that 9.3 million low-skill immigrants settled in the United States.

“The bulk of the decline in employment,” Jason Furman continued, “has been for men with a high-school diploma or less, who have seen their employment rates fall from 97% in 1964 to 83% today.” That’s the same group that is most harmed by the policy of allowing low-skill immigrants to come here and fight for the same jobs.

For more than 50 years, America’s immigration policy has been set by an unholy alliance between liberal Republicans, who seek to please their donors with access to cheap labor, and Democrats in search of more votes for their progressive agenda. Under the Trump administration, that corrupt bargain is finally coming to an end.

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