Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Stephen Miller is our Rock of Gibraltar

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

When the Left resorts to digging up someone’s uncle to smear someone, then you know they are getting desperate.  Yet that is the pathetic length to which the Trump-haters are going, to try to stop the most effective adviser in the White House.

Stephen Miller has been the guiding light on President Trump’s agenda to make America safe again after decades of illegal immigration and open borders.  He is extraordinary in how he both writes Trump’s speeches on many topics, while also giving him substantive advice on the most important issues.

It has taken the media awhile to recognize that the low-key Miller is the Rock of Gibraltar in the White House amid the storms that fake news repeatedly creates.  Miller is the one who stayed strong while House Speaker Paul Ryan and other sellouts on Capitol Hill demanded that Trump cave on DACA and other immigration controversies.

Phyllis Schlafly praised Miller back when he was crafting immigration policy for then-Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.  Miller authored detailed, highly effective reports against open borders while he worked for Sen. Sessions, which Phyllis then distributed nationwide.

When John McCain ran for president in 2008, Phyllis educated the grassroots in Iowa about the immigration issue and urged them to question McCain at gatherings he attended around the state.  He expressed surprise and dismay afterwards about how significant the immigration issue had become in rural Iowa.

Significant indeed.  Since then Miller first guided Senator Sessions and then President Trump on the issue, championing the needs of America against those who hate us around the world.

Enter Dr. David S. Glosser, a retired neuropsychologist and Miller’s uncle who wrote a recent article highly critical of his nephew Stephen Miller in Politico.com.  It is unclear if Dr. Glosser knows Miller well enough to criticize him on a personal level; instead, Dr. Glosser relies on how Miller’s maternal grandmother immigrated through Ellis Island more than a century ago without being able to speak English.

But those immigrants worked hard to learn English and assimilate fully into American society, and they raised their children to love America.  Many of the Ellis Island immigrants, like Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, were highly patriotic and outspokenly supportive of America.

Justice Frankfurter, for example, was so patriotic that he voted against a constitutional right for any schoolchild to refuse to salute the American flag.  The Supreme Court ultimately decided that issue in favor of a First Amendment right not to salute, but the immigrant Justice Frankfurter passionately dissented in support of West Virginia and its mandatory salute to the American flag in public school.

Stephen Miller has described how his experiences at his own public high school helped shape his views.  He quoted President Teddy Roosevelt in his high school yearbook: “There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country.”

Now Stephen Miller is reviving the “public charge” doctrine to reduce public welfare handouts to immigrants.  If someone has been milking the taxpayers for Obamacare and other welfare programs, then why should he be granted American citizenship?

We do not have enough resources in the United States to give perpetual handouts to the rest of the world, and we should not be attracting immigrants who want to live on such entitlements here.  Miller should take sensible steps to tie citizenship to self-reliance, and he does not need approval by Congress to do so.

The Department of Homeland Security confirmed that the Trump Administration “is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are self-sufficient.”  The Department added that it “takes the responsibility of being good stewards of taxpayer funds seriously and adjudicates immigration benefit requests in accordance with the law.”

Bravo!  But liberals are howling mad, decrying how this could affect one million people in New York City alone.

Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, explained decades ago that “in a welfare state … the supply of immigrants will become infinite.”  In other words, the combination of immigration and the welfare state is a recipe for economic disaster.

For example, liberals want Medicare for All, by which they mean all residents, legal and illegal.  That is projected to cost the American taxpayer an astronomical $32.6 trillion over ten years.

President Trump can save us from that by enforcing “public charge” doctrine, by which all participants in such government handouts will be disqualified from obtaining American citizenship.  This will advance Trump’s goal of attracting the best from other countries, not those who are least willing to work.

We are grateful to Stephen Miller for his courageous stance on immigration.  Not even the welcoming poem at the Statue of Liberty invites those who are coming here for a handout.

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

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

Congress AWOL as courts derail the Trump Train

President Trump’s party controls Congress, but one would never know that by how it has been AWOL (absent without leave) while courts block Trump at every turn. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House who is retiring at the age of only 48, is doing so little that the public might wonder if he is even still in office.

Meanwhile, the judicial war of resistance against Trump continues unabated. In the last few days and weeks, federal courts have issued rulings requiring Trump to restart DACA, fund sanctuary cities, stop asking about citizenship in the census, include transgenders in the interpretation of Title IX, reunite illegal alien “families” even where the adults are criminals who have already been deported, and so on.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement on Monday criticizing the rash of judicial activism against the Trump Administration. “We have recently witnessed a number of decisions in which courts have improperly used judicial power to steer, enjoin, modify, and direct executive policy,” General Sessions explained.

“This ignores the wisdom of our Founders and transfers policy making questions from the constitutionally empowered and politically accountable branches to the judicial branch,” he said. General Sessions vowed that the “Trump Administration and this Department of Justice will continue to aggressively defend the executive branch’s lawful authority and duty to ensure a lawful system of immigration for our country.”

New lawsuits against policies Trump campaigned on are being filed by the Left nearly every day. Last week four liberal-controlled cities – Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, and Columbus – asked a federal court to force Trump to support Obamacare.

Imitating a familiar pattern pursued by liberals in other cases, the new lawsuit for Obamacare quotes out-of-court statements by President Trump as though they were evidence. For example, the lawsuit demands relief because Trump has said that “essentially, we have gotten rid of” Obamacare.

The power vacuum on Capitol Hill encourages judicial supremacy, as courts see that Congress is not providing any check or balance to the overreach by the judicial branch. Like unsupervised kids in a candy store, judges will grab as much power as they can until Congress checks their conduct.

The Supreme Court does too little, too late to rein in lower courts that legislate from the bench. Deciding only 58 argued cases during its recently ended term, the Supreme Court has been barely more than a remote outpost that takes far too long to protect our Constitutional rights.

In the last year the Supreme Court has ducked issues and declined to accept appeals on anti-Second Amendment rulings upholding gun control, and an anti-First Amendment ruling censoring videos taken by pro-life David Daleiden. This renders liberal Courts of Appeals the last word on key issues.

In a tactic known as forum shopping, Trump’s opponents file their lawsuits in courts where Democratic trial judges will likely rule in their favor at the district court level. Then, a year or two later at the appellate level, the overwhelmingly Democrat-nominated judges in the Fourth and Ninth Circuits predictably affirm.

Trump ultimately prevailed when the Supreme Court reinstated his temporary, so-called travel ban from several hostile nations, but it took nearly a year-and-a-half to do so, even with the expedited attention that case received. That wasteful litigation consumed more than a third of Trump’s entire first term in office, and far too much of his personal time, allowing uncertainty to persist and undermine other actions that Trump could have been taking for our country.

The Ninth Circuit presides over a fifth of our nation’s population – more than 64 million people – and more than two-thirds of its active judges were appointed by Presidents Clinton and Obama. Despite seven vacancies on that Circuit for Trump to fill, the Senate has so far confirmed only one, a compromise nominee opposed by more than half the Republican senators due to his weakness on the Second Amendment.

More than a decade ago, Congress did take an important step to curb judicial hostility to the Second Amendment. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prohibits all courts, both federal and state, from entertaining lawsuits against gun manufacturers for crimes committed by their products.

This good law stands as a model of what Congress should also be doing to rein in the courts on additional issues where they are out of control. Despite the resounding success of the PLCAA in achieving its stated goal to “preserve a citizen’s access to a supply of firearms and ammunition,” Congress has not yet expanded this approach to eliminate other judicial activism.

Immigration policy is an issue uniquely within the domain of the President and Congress, and courts should have little say in the matter. Congress should take heed of Attorney General Sessions’ criticisms of judicial overreach on immigration, and withdraw the issue from the courts.

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

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Trump's right to push back against Koch bros

Fed up with rants against him by the globalist Charles Koch, President Trump tweeted back that the Koch brothers “have become a total joke in real Republican circles.” “I don’t need their money or bad ideas,” he added, or their political baggage.

Republican politicians who have fallen for the Koch agenda of weak borders, phony free trade and a toxic image have often lost as a result. Trickles of money given by the Koch network are insufficient to offset the immense radioactive political effect.

Yet Koch allies just slipped three open-border provisions into the Fiscal Year 2019 Appropriations Bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Rep. Kevin Yoder, R-Kan., inserted these pro-immigration amendments, as approved by a voice vote to avoid political accountability, whereupon the House Appropriations Committee recommended the entire bill by a 29-22 vote on July 25.

The pro-immigration provisions include blocking Attorney General Jeff Sessions from tightening the requirements for illegal aliens who seek asylum. The last-minute changes also seek to expand the limit of visas for foreign workers and lift the per-country cap, which would open the floodgates to thousands of guest workers from India.

Koch’s recent semiannual conference of ineffective muckety-mucks turned into an unhelpful bashing of President Trump a mere 100 days from the midterms. A top spokesman for Koch accused Trump, and not his opponents, of being too divisive.

At the conclusion of the conference, the Koch network declared they would not support the Republican Senate candidate in North Dakota, Kevin Cramer, who has a chance to oust a Democratic incumbent and preserve GOP control of that chamber. A Koch organization has already run ads promoting the pro-abortion Democratic incumbent, to the dismay of conservatives.

In Pennsylvania, Koch money is funding ads against the pro-life Republican Lou Barletta, who is challenging the entrenched liberal Democrat Bob Casey Jr. for the Senate. As Republicans struggle to hold the Senate, this shocking betrayal by the Koch network should cause all conservatives to disassociate from it.

Rep. Yoder’s fellow Kansas congressman Tim Huelskamp was a rising conservative star until he went for the Kochs’ peculiar resistance to farmers, whereupon he was defeated in his own primary in 2016. Huelskamp was even outspent by his opponent despite how the Koch network brags about having so much money.

Jim Ryun, a good man who has held the American record for more than 50 years for a teenager in running the fastest mile (and 1,500 meters), was ousted in 2006 from his congressional seat in Kansas by a Democrat who then sponsored a bill to crack down on Mexican trucks. “A Republican cannot win if he allows a Democrat to get to the right of him on an issue people care about,” Phyllis Schlafly wrote in Spring 2010, lamenting how Ryun’s political comeback in 2008 fell short of the finish line.

Far from any border, one might think that Kansas would be immune from immigration controversies that rage in Arizona, Texas and Florida. But shocking crimes have been committed by illegal aliens in the otherwise safe Kansas, such as the reckless murder last year of a Johnson County sheriff’s deputy by a badly intoxicated illegal alien who drove a pickup truck into his police car.

Kansas is also on high alert for the West Nile virus, a deadly disease that was first imported into our country in 1999. This mosquito-transmitted virus of Africa and the Middle East made it all the way from Queens, New York, where it was first discovered in America, to the middle of Kansas.

Pushing the Koch agenda might boost a candidate’s campaign coffers, and Rep. Yoder’s has swelled to $2 million for his re-election. But a candidate still needs a base to win, and all the money in the world may not salvage a Republican who crosses Trump on immigration or trade, as some Republicans are doing.

Criticism of President Trump by the Koch network is publicized widely by the liberal media, due to the false perception by some that the Koch mega-donors are conservative. In fact, Trump disavowed support from the Kochs during his own campaign for president, and spectacular success for Trump’s campaign followed.

Trump was then free of all the negative baggage among many voters that is associated with the Koch network. Current candidates should pause before pandering to the Koch network, because embracing the Koch agenda will bring out the Democratic base against them while doing nothing to energize conservative voters needed to win.

The Kochs “were the first people to put the knife in [Trump’s] back,” Steve Bannon observed in a recent interview with Politico. He added that the Koch network should “shut up and get with the program,” which is the necessary “ground game to support Trump’s presidency” in order to enable “victory on Nov. 6.”

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

Monday, July 30, 2018

Revoke the Deep State’s Security Clearances

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, our wonderful White House Press Secretary, sent liberals into a tizzy on Monday with her announcement that President Trump is considering revoking the security clearances of several Deep State leaders. John Brennan, a liberal mouthpiece who became Obama’s CIA director after having once voted for the Communist Party for president, would be among the first to lose his security clearance.

Oh my. The Left has not panicked so much since the Election Night returns put Donald Trump into the White House.

Another candidate for revocation is Susan Rice, who was Obama’s national security adviser thought to have improperly obtained the identity of General Michael Flynn on a wiretap. The since-replaced national security adviser H.R. McMaster allowed Rice to retain her security clearance, waiving the customary “need-to-know” requirement to allow Rice unlimited access to anything she ever reviewed or received when in office.

In addition to Brennan and Rice, revocation is being considered for the discredited FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe, the former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, and the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. It was Clapper who famously lied under oath to Congress about his secret surveillance program of Americans.

“They’ve politicized, and in some cases, monetized their public service,” explained Sanders to the media on Monday. “Making baseless accusations of an improper relationship with Russia is inappropriate,” Sanders added.

Sanders is precisely right that “the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.” Those who repeatedly make false accusations against our Commander-in-Chief are unfit to be trusted with confidential information about our national security.

The Never-Trumpers will always enjoy their First Amendment rights, but they should not have access to our national secrets while they are writing books and profiting from their irresponsible, false claims about our president. Some of them respond by saying their ability to see classified information has already been terminated, but those security clearances could be easily reinstated unless Trump revokes them.

Americans voted for a new direction for our country under President Trump, in repudiation of the path that Obama was taking us, so why are the losers still around pretending to speak with authority? Many Americans are probably wondering why the security clearances of these acolytes of Obama were not fully revoked long ago.

Phyllis Schlafly often criticized past Republican presidents who failed to “clean house” and replace the supporters of their defeated opponents. She extracted a promise from President Ronald Reagan that he would never appoint a Deep Stater from the Nixon-Ford era, Henry Kissinger, to anything of significance, and Reagan kept his promise.

Tossing out the entrenched insiders who are so determined to defeat President Trump requires, at a minimum, taking away the special authority they unjustifiably continue to enjoy. John Brennan and James Clapper would still be able to pontificate all they like on television, but they should not be able to do so with the implied authority of an active security clearance.

Late last Friday, in a delayed release to avoid the news cycle, the Deep State finally partially complied with a court order to hand over its FISA application for wiretaps of a former adviser to the Trump campaign in 2016, Carter Page. The heavily redacted, secret application was for repeated wiretaps of Carter Page’s phone, in an unsuccessful attempt by the Deep State to catch Trump in a misstep on a secretly recorded line.

FISA stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which authorizes secret proceedings to order wiretaps that would not ordinarily be allowed. This shadow system enabling investigators to obtain wiretaps from a secret court has grown ever since, with no meaningful check or balance.

The FISA application to wiretap the Trump adviser is filled with innuendo and false allegations that came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Wiretaps of someone connected with a presidential campaign, on such a flimsy basis, bring new meaning to the term “rubber stamp” in describing how the FISA court grants whatever the Deep State demands.

Allies of Brennan, Clapper, and the others, protest that President Trump may lack the authority to revoke their security clearances, but the power of the president to do so can hardly be doubted. They may run to court to enjoin the president on this, but hardly any Supreme Court Justice would rule against the presidential power to decide, in his own discretion, who should not have a security clearance.

“Mr. Strzok — as I understand — has lost his security clearance,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions declared last month about the disgraced FBI official Peter Strzok who stated he would “stop” Trump from becoming president. Trump should take similar action to ensure that others like him do not continue to have special access to our nation’s most confidential information.

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

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Trump’s Remarkable Press Conference

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump’s press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin was remarkable in how Trump refused to pay homage to liberal fiction about hackers stealing the last election. Instead, Trump went on the offensive and laid blame for deteriorating relations with Russia where blame is due: at the doorstep of Mueller’s delusional investigation.

Many on the Left dislike Russia now because it is an increasingly Christian country that changed the name of Leningrad to Saint Petersburg and even enacts pro-life laws. Communism was overthrown in Russia more than a quarter-century ago, and its trend toward conservative values today angers Leftists immensely.

President Trump batted away the anti-Russian questions at the presser in Helsinki, and explained that there was “zero collusion” between hackers and his “clean” campaign that trounced Hillary Clinton in 2016. After more than a year of looking for collusion and not finding any, Mueller’s investigation should be winding down rather than winding up.

But last week, in a transparent attempt to disrupt the Trump-Putin summit, Mueller indicted the equivalent of 12 more ham sandwiches. Elusive hackers, a high-tech counterpart to witches of yesteryear, supposedly entered the Democratic National Committee’s computers when no one was looking and had no discernible impact on any election results.

Mueller was never given a blank check to investigate thousands of hackers, who may merely be teenage boys engaging in mischief on the internet from the basement of their parents’ homes. Mueller was authorized to investigate alleged collusion by the Trump campaign, of which there was no evidence, and tens of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars later, there is still no such evidence.

So far Mueller has indicted 25 Russian individuals and three Russian companies on charges that Mueller knows he will never have to prove in a court of law. At one hearing an attorney pointed out to the judge how one of the companies did not even exist at the time it was alleged to have done wrongdoing.

Senator Rand Paul stands with President Trump in repeatedly criticizing Mueller’s investigation as a “witch hunt,” pointing out that Trump’s alleged nefarious ties with Russia are a “hoax.” On Sunday, Senator Paul explained that it is a “waste of time” to attempt to penalize Putin for alleged interference by Russian hackers in American elections.

Meanwhile, Never-Trumpers came out of the woodwork once again to try to find fault with Trump. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, an ally of the Koch brothers and other Never-Trumpers, declared from the Senate floor that “everyone in this body should be disgusted by what happened in Helsinki.”

Sen. Sasse himself has an abysmal approval rating in the strongly conservative state of Nebraska, as Never-Trumper Sen. Jeff Flake has in Arizona. Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts, a Trump supporter, is being urged to run against Sasse in two years but so far Ricketts has declined in order to focus first on another term as governor.

Retiring congressman Trey Gowdy, a rising star until he opposed Trump, has apparently also fallen for Mueller’s indictment stunts. Gowdy absurdly suggested that Trump should ask Putin where the 25 Russian witches, that is, hackers, can be picked up.

Gowdy has given Mueller more job security than anyone else in D.C., by implicitly inviting him to spend years indicting more ham sandwiches. No problem, the American taxpayer will be stuck with the tab of tens of millions of dollars.

President Trump’s takedown of the media concerning Mueller is an encore to draining the swamp of the North American Treaty Organization (NATO). That entrenched bureaucracy has been bilking the American taxpayer for years while we get nothing in return.

NATO developed as a counterweight to the communist Soviet Union, but with Russia becoming more conservative than Europe it is unclear why we are still spending billions on NATO. Its largest country, Germany, is dependent on Russia for natural gas and no amount of American troops in Europe can force Russia to turn that pipeline on if she were one day to shut it off.

“Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they will be getting between 60 and 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline,” observed Trump at the opening of the recent NATO summit. “It’s a very bad thing for NATO, and I don’t think it should have happened,” he properly explained.

NATO member Poland, also a formerly communist country that is increasingly conservative, immediately praised Trump’s criticisms of Germany’s self-defeating globalism. Poland is buying natural gas from the United States and President Andrzej Duda astutely observed that “one of the most important goals for the European Union in the energy sector” should be to avoid dependency on any particular foreign country.

Globalists are not pleased by President Trump’s one-two punch abroad. But standing against globalism plays well with the American voter, as it should.

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

Friday, July 13, 2018

Europe is losing its culture

News from Europe:
Mr Trump told The Sun: “I have great love for countries in Europe.

“Don’t forget, essentially I’m a product of the European Union, between Scotland and Germany.

“Right? My father Germany, my mother Scotland.

Trump says the wave of migrants from the Middle East and Africa is permanently changing the continent
But in a controversial outburst, he added: “I think what has happened to Europe is a shame.

“Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame.

“I think it changed the fabric of Europe and, unless you act very quickly, it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way.

“So I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad.

“I think you are losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn’t exist ten or 15 years ago.”

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Trump Cements Legacy with SCOTUS Pick

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

With his second conservative nomination to the Supreme Court, President Trump has already exceeded Ronald Reagan.  Brett Kavanaugh is stellar on immigration and sovereignty, the life issue, and the Second Amendment.

Trump made this look easy, but liberals did everything they could to dissuade him from selecting Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy left by Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court.  A coordinated, sophisticated campaign to criticize Kavanaugh from the right was both insincere and deceptive.

The tiny Never-Trump wing of the Republican Party does not like how Kavanaugh has long agreed with Trump on core issues.  Unlike Kavanaugh’s liberal rivals for nomination to the Supreme Court, he has participated in more than 3,800 cases and unflinchingly defended principles loathed by liberals.

How refreshing it is to actually have a Supreme Court nominee who supports American sovereignty, and does not defer to international law!  Writing alone as he has often had to do on the liberal D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has explained that the War Powers Clause is not restricted by international law.

That was in a 2016 decision which considered a challenge to a military commission by Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul, who was convicted as the personal assistant to Osama bin Laden.  Judge Kavanaugh stood strong against the lawsuit, as the entire Court of Appeals should have.

In another case that began in 2007, Judge Kavanaugh dissented from a decision that gave illegal aliens the same rights as American workers in forming unions for collective bargaining. Kavanaugh explained in dissent that “an illegal immigrant worker is not an ’employee’ under the NLRA for the simple reason that, ever since 1986, an illegal immigrant worker is not a lawful ’employee’ in the United States.”

On the Second Amendment, Judge Kavanaugh was on the panel that heard a challenge to DC's strict gun controls after the Supreme Court established an individual right under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms.  The majority of that panel then upheld the gun control as courts do across the country now.

Judge Kavanaugh strongly dissented from that pro-gun-control decision, and wrote in favor of a Second Amendment that should be defended as strongly by courts as the First Amendment is.  Justice Clarence Thomas will have a strong ally on the Supreme Court for the Second Amendment once Kavanaugh is confirmed.

None of the other eight justices on the Supreme Court, including Neil Gorsuch, would join Justice Thomas’s dissent in February decrying how gun control laws are being upheld by Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court is refusing to accept those cases to review and reverse.  The stark reality is that the Supreme Court has not taken a real Second Amendment case in years, and lower courts have gotten the message that they can uphold gun control laws without fear of being reversed.

Trump’s brilliant nomination of Kavanaugh to the High Court changes that.  We can expect Kavanaugh to call out his colleagues if they continue to duck Second Amendment appeals, and his strong legal reasoning should help protect that fundamental right against further erosion.

On the life issue, liberals are of course sharpening their knives to try to block Kavanaugh from confirmation by insisting that he might overturn Roe v. Wade.  But that is a very tough sell by the Left, as young people are increasingly pro-life and nearly a half-dozen Democratic Senators are running for reelection in pro-life states that Trump carried by a landslide.

The issue of Roe v. Wade has never sunk a nominee in the Senate, despite all the hoopla by pro-abortion feminists pretending that they can block a nominee on that issue.  They failed in trying to block Justice Clarence Thomas on that issue, and were unable to block the confirmation of John Roberts or Samuel Alito, either.

We hope that Kavanaugh does not grovel to pro-abortion senators as they demand reassurances that the fallacy of Roe v. Wade be enshrined forever even though it has absolutely no basis in the Constitution.  Kavanaugh need not answer questions about the issue, just as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg set the precedent herself for declining to answer specific questions about cases.

The isolated criticisms of Kavanaugh by the Never-Trump crowd have been unjustified.  His ruling to uphold a narrow part of a campaign finance law relating to political parties is not a core issue to the conservative movement, and certainly not a basis for opposing his nomination.

Justice Anthony Kennedy turned to the right in his final year on the bench, both in his decisions and in allowing Trump to fill his vacancy.  It is unlikely that Justice Kennedy would find anything to criticize in this nomination of Kavanaugh for the seat that Kennedy is leaving, and neither should any Republican or moderate Democrat.

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

Sunday, July 8, 2018

An American city speaks Spanish

The Trump-hating Wash. Post
‘An all-American city that speaks Spanish’: Immigration isn’t a problem for this Texas town — it’s a way of life ...

But now this town built on immigration has become ground zero for the nation’s nastiest political battle in the angry summer of 2018. ...

The [ICE] policy is seen as unwanted and unfair in this border city of 142,000 whose population is 90 percent Hispanic and so fully bilingual that roadside anti-littering signs say “No dumping basura” (trash). ...

Darling said that although McAllen is often portrayed as a “dusty border town,” it is a vibrant industrial hub closely linked to factories across the border in the much larger industrial city of Reynosa. ...

“It’s really strange,” he said. “This is not who we are. We need people to wake up.”
In case you get the impression that McAllen is a paradise, check out this:
Vibrantly multicultural McAllen, Texas is:

- The least educated city in America

- The 3rd most obese city in America

- Worst city in America for residents feeling unsafe
And this:
As of 2012, just 50.6% of McAllen area adults under 25 years old had a job — the lowest rate in the country. Unlike many of these cities, the employment rate of young adults has been low for some time, barely falling from 2000 to 2012. One contributing factor may have been the low educational attainment among young adults. Just 4.2% of adults ages 20 to 24 had a college degree, the fourth lowest rate of any major metro area. Residents of the McAllen metro area were also among the nation’s poorest. As of 2012, 34.5% of McAllen area residents lived below the poverty line, the second highest percentage in the nation and more than double the national rate of 15.9%.
This is the future of immigration. The open-borders abolish-ICE Democrats are bringing towns like McAllen all across the USA.

Monday, July 2, 2018

Trump Can Surpass Reagan with His Pick

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump has a golden opportunity to surpass Reagan on the all-important issue of the Supreme Court.  With a good pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, Trump can achieve what Reagan could not.

As good as Reagan was, two out of his three Supreme Court Justices were disappointments.  Reagan’s first selection was his worst, and Trump’s advisors should take care not to allow history to repeat that mistake.

Reagan chose Sandra Day O’Connor after she was inadequately vetted as to her liberal positions on abortion, the Establishment Clause, and feminism.  Reagan erred by picking her because she was the first he interviewed for the job, without Reagan bothering to interview the other candidates.

Immediately it was obvious that Reagan and his advisors had blundered.  Although Reagan had promised to nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court, his more important promise was to appoint pro-life judges and yet he broke that pledge with his first nominee.

Let’s do as Reagan said when he urged a “trust but verify” approach.  Whether by mistake or design, there are several candidates on Trump’s list who should not be nominated for Kennedy’s seat.

One candidate would fail to honor Trump’s pro-life pledge, and another would violate Trump’s Second Amendment pledge.  The selection of either would be a devastating setback to the Trump agenda.

Ms. Joan Larsen was a volunteer for Joe Biden for president in 1987, where she helped with mailings and telephoning for Biden's campaign as she admitted on her Senate questionnaire.  That political work for Biden is not something a pro-lifer would do.

Ms. Larsen has claimed there is sexism in the career of law, a common refrain by those who support abortion under the guise of equal rights for women.  She has encountered Roe v. Wade often, without criticizing it.

Ms. Larsen, who kept her last name after marrying a law professor, is touted by her supporters as having been a law professor herself at the liberal University of Michigan law school.  But in fact she never obtained a tenured chair, and her writings are not up to the level of real law professors.

The other candidate on the short list who should not be picked is Raymond Kethledge, whose selection would violate Trump’s pledge on the Second Amendment.  Judge Kethledge notably failed to support the “strict scrutiny” standard for the Second Amendment that is essential to safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms.

Sixteen years of court-packing by Presidents Clinton and Obama have left most of our Nation’s population under pro-gun-control Courts of Appeals.  The population-heavy 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits are all dominated by judges who refuse to treat the Second Amendment with the same respect they give to the First Amendment.

Justice Clarence Thomas laments how gun control laws are being upheld by the Courts of Appeals, and then petitions to the Supreme Court to review those decisions are being denied.  Justice Thomas explained in February, in his dissent from one of those denials of cert, that the strict scrutiny standard of review used for the First Amendment is not being applied as it should be to the Second Amendment.

Yet there Judge Kethledge was in 2016, refusing to join an opinion by conservative judge Danny Boggs to adopt the strict scrutiny standard of review for the Second Amendment in the Sixth Circuit.  Kethledge typifies the problem that Justice Thomas subsequently highlighted in explaining why gun control laws are not being overturned.

In Sherlock Holmes’ classic “Silver Blaze,” the compelling evidence overlooked by Scotland Yard was the failure of a dog to bark when a midnight visitor stole a prized racehorse away from his stall.  That meant the dog knew the criminal, and the compelling evidence of silence should be a criterion in vetting the replacement for Justice Kennedy.

Many important decisions are made by the Supreme Court in refusing to grant a petition for cert, as it did earlier this year in denying David Daleiden’s petition concerning the infringement on his rights by the Ninth Circuit.  By denying that petition and others like it, the Supreme Court allows anti-life, and anti-Second Amendment, rulings by liberal appellate courts to stand.

We do not need justices who are timid about speaking out or reviewing and reversing liberal decisions that come out of the Ninth and other Circuits.  Similarly, we do not want a nominee who is unwilling to overturn prior mistakes of the Supreme Court itself.

Of all the pitiful clamor by Democrats and a few liberal Republicans, the most preposterous is their demand that the nominee refuse to overrule Court precedent.  Every year the Supreme Court overturns its own mistakes, as it should, including its recent overruling of its own precedent of 41 years ago that wrongly imposed mandatory dues on government employees.

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

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Triumphant Trump Vindicated Again

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

Only Donald Trump wins as comfortably in the hushed halls of the Supreme Court as on the backroads of rural America.  In the past few days he has triumphed before the Supreme Court, leads by 51-36% in the latest approval poll concerning his economic policies, and prevailed by an incalculable margin in rebuking the restaurant that denied service to his press secretary and her family.

The new liberal strategy of harassing Trump officials is backfiring.  As leading Democrats themselves recognize in unsuccessfully trying to rein in their extremists, it is un-American to harass fellow Americans for their political views.

Time magazine piled on with a ridiculous cover image of President Trump standing stubbornly over a little girl detained at our border.  Yanela Hernandez was supposed to become the poster child for family separation, after she was brought here by her mother all the way from Honduras.

But it is the facts that are stubbornly ruining the anti-Trump script.  The girl was actually separated from her father not by Trump but by her own mother, who took the child on a dangerous 3-week, 1,600-mile journey without telling her husband (the girl’s father).

Nearly 20 years ago, a 5-year-old Cuban boy named Elián González was brought by his mother on a dangerous journey to Florida.  Elián was placed with relatives in the United States after his mother drowned, but as demanded by liberals President Clinton ordered him seized him at gunpoint and returned to communist Cuba.

Illegal immigration is what is separating families, not President Trump.  Yanela Hernandez would not have been taken away from her family in Honduras if we had sensible border control.

Referring to the deprivation of his little girl from him by her mother in Honduras, her father Denis Hernandez told a reporter for the Daily Mail, “I do think it was irresponsible of her to take the baby with her, because we don’t know what could happen.”

“I thank God I have a good job here,” Mr. Hernandez said from his home in Puerto Cortes, Honduras, which is safe enough to be a tourist destination. “I would never risk my life making that journey.”

This case illustrates someone who should be sent back immediately without a judicial hearing, since the Hernandez family has no basis for claiming asylum or refugee status.  When Trump suggested that, a news story in the New York Times declared it was “an escalation of his attacks on the judicial system.”

That criticism of Trump is ironic in light of the Supreme Court ruling in his favor on Tuesday, for which he patiently waited for nearly a year-and-a-half.  Far from attacking the judicial system, Trump fully complied with all its procedures and prevailed as the Court upheld his so-called travel ban from nations hostile to us.

Let’s hope lower federal courts take a cue from the Supreme Court in deferring to presidential authority in these matters.  But earlier this month, on June 6, a federal judge in San Diego allowed the ACLU to continue its lawsuit against the “practice” of separating migrant children from their parents without showing that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.

On June 5, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement blasting the Trump administration’s policy of zero tolerance for illegal entry into the United States.  The statement ordered our government to “stop criminalizing what should at most be an administrative offense — that of irregular entry or stay in the U.S.”

The UN human rights office accused our government of committing “a serious violation of the rights of the child,” before complaining that the U.S. “is the only country in the world not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”  That’s right, the United States has wisely refused to ratify that dangerous UN treaty since the 1990s, when it was pushed by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and properly opposed by Phyllis Schlafly.

On June 19, the U.S. formally withdrew from a related UN agency called the Human Rights Council, whose members include some of the most repressive regimes on earth.  Ambassador Nikki Haley denounced the council, which has passed more resolutions to condemn Israel specifically than to condemn Syria, Iran and North Korea combined, as “an organization that is unworthy of its name.”

Another globalist tribunal which our country declined to join more than 15 years ago is the international criminal court, located in the Hague.  That did not stop a clueless protester from shouting at Kirstjen Nielsen, Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security, that “you belong in the Hague!”

As hard as the Left smears and harasses him and his team, the stronger Trump becomes.  “Triumphant Trump” emerges victorious again and again.

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

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Trump Should Stand Firm Against Illegals

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

The push for amnesty for illegal aliens is turbo-charged by stories of separating children from their parents at the southern border.  But children are often separated from lawbreaking and even law-abiding American parents, so it is curious why liberals and others would suddenly complain when it happens to families for entering our country illegally.

The critics do not provide an alternative to the current policy of prosecuting lawbreaking parents while allowing their children to go free.  If we had a border wall then these separations would not occur, and the critics of Trump are the same ones who oppose building the wall.

Migrant camps would be needed to keep all families together as the adults break the law, but that is a European rather than American approach.  There is no crisis in Central America that justifies establishing refugee camps.

“The United States will not be a migrant camp,” President Trump rightly declared, “and it will not be a refugee holding facility.  Not on my watch!”
The timing is suspicious for this media campaign about separating children from parents.  The push for an amnesty bill has reached a fever pitch for more than a million young adults, who are euphemistically called “childhood arrivals” because many of them crossed our border illegally while teenagers.

These migrants would be wonderful assets to their homelands, and they have more relatives back home than they do here.  Amnesty would merely encourage more illegality.

Lobbying groups in D.C. are turning up the heat on congressmen to get this amnesty passed, and the Koch donor network is demanding it, too.  Big business benefits from cheap labor that crosses our borders illegally.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law an immigration bill that granted amnesty and created the incentive for more illegal immigration.  Far from solving a problem, amnesty induces more illegal immigration in the future.

So to attract support by President Trump, the House compromise amnesty bill includes funding for construction of a border wall, to the tune of $25 billion.  But funding a wall is not the same as building a wall, because liberals run to court to block almost anything Trump does related to immigration.

Before the ink could dry on such a bill, even if it were to pass the Senate intact, liberals would file suit to obtain injunctions blocking the construction of a wall.  They would sue in predictably activist jurisdictions such as San Francisco and Hawaii, where multiple injunctions have already been issued to block Trump’s executive orders that were tame compared with a border wall.

Congress has the authority to “strip” federal courts of jurisdiction, and has done so on many occasions.  As explained by Phyllis Schlafly in her classic book The Supremacists, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) once stripped jurisdiction from federal courts over challenges to brush-clearing in his home state.

Before President Trump signs any immigration bill, he should insist on broad jurisdiction-stripping provisions.  He should demand that Congress remove federal court jurisdiction over his executive orders limiting travel from hostile nations.

If federal courts are allowed to wield authority over the construction of a border wall, then multiple Clinton – or Obama – appointed judges will surely enjoin its construction.  Reasons given will range from environmentalism to non-existent prejudice.

Fortunately, few Republicans who want to win reelection will cross President Trump at this point, after his tweet sunk Never-Trumper Congressman Mark Sanford in his own primary in South Carolina.  There is no reason for Trump to cave into Republicans now.

Lame duck House Speaker Paul Ryan, who is stepping down at the age of only 48 rather than fight for the Trump agenda, has long given priority to the agenda of the pro-illegal immigration lobbyists.  But their goals are not those of the American people who elected Trump as president.

Trump announced that he is not going to sign the Ryan immigration bill, which reminds us again why Trump is so much better than any other Republican presidential candidate.  Anyone else would have capitulated to the pressure from Republican mega-donors and lobbyists to sign into law an amnesty bill.

No immigration bill can become law without the support of President Trump, and House leaders are meeting with him on Tuesday to seek a compromise.  Trump should adhere to non-negotiable requirements, including a withdrawal of jurisdiction from the courts over issues relating to construction of the wall, Trump’s executive orders concerning immigration, and challenges to deportation.

Congressmen Steve King and Lou Barletta, who is a candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania against a Democrat incumbent, have long been leaders on this all-important issue of immigration.  Both oppose the compromise bill being pushed on President Trump, and no bill on immigration is worth supporting unless Representatives King and Barletta are on board.

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

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Trump's Winning Economic Positions

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump reasserted American leadership on trade and security in the last week, sending his doubters into disarray.  Trump’s historic performance at the G-7 meeting in Canada, followed quickly by his meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in Singapore, left no doubt that America is indeed great again on the world stage.

Justin Trudeau, Canada’s leftwing prime minister, was unnecessarily belligerent to Trump at the end of the G-7 summit, and Never-Trump Republicans should not have piled on.  Lame duck Republican senator Jeff Flake, who is so unpopular in Arizona that he decided not to run for reelection, once again lashed out at Trump, as did other globalist Republicans.

But American workers are behind Trump, and the stock market shows no harmful effects of Trump’s pro-American, pro-tariff trade policies.  The G-7 summit, a gathering of the leaders of seven large economies, demonstrated that it has become a farce.

It held a breakfast meeting devoted to "gender equality," and we applaud how Trump showed up late for such an unproductive attempt at political correctness.  The politicians at the G-7 summit are in denial about how voters throughout Europe, as in the United States and more recently in Italy, are rejecting the business-as-usual approach of the Establishment.

Meanwhile, although Trump's pro-tariff positions receive all the attention, a little-noticed appointment back home may be nearly as important.  Makan Delrahim, Trump's handpicked leader of the antitrust division at the Department of Justice, is working hard to ensure more competition domestically and Silicon Valley monopolies are nervous about this.

Small businesses create far more jobs than big business does, a fact lost on the pre-Trump Republican Party.  President George W. Bush pursued policies favorable to big business and it all cratered in 2008, handling the election to Obama.

Once the home of countless tech start-ups, Silicon Valley has devolved into a two-tier society of haves and have-nots, and little real competition.  A mere handful of giant companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google have exploited the H-1B visa program and failed to compete with each other for labor, such that salaries have not kept up with the cost of living there.

The latest average salary increase of tech workers in Silicon Valley -- the region between San Francisco and San Jose that is the birthplace of many familiar technology behemoths -- is only 0.4% per year.  That is because there is not real competition there, but merely large companies that fight to maintain the status quo with them on top.

The cost of living goes up there, but real wages do not.  The result is a large homeless population of people who simply cannot earn enough, even working multiple jobs, to afford housing.

Worn-out RVs line one edge of Stanford University, and homeless camps of families litter the landscape close to wealth centers like Google's headquarters. Monopolies interfere with a healthy distribution of wealth, creating enormous disparities more familiar in countries like Mexico, where a few people control much of the property.

Big companies rarely innovate, and in fact often stifle inventions that threaten their dominance.  The largest Silicon Valley companies have been most responsible for changing our patent system from one that rewarded the inventor to one that favors big business.

Trump's outspoken criticism of Amazon.com has led others in his Administration and the Republican Party to look more critically at Silicon Valley monopolies like Facebook.  The scrutiny is long overdue, and some antitrust enforcement may be just what the doctor ordered.

This is welcome relief from the failed policies of the administration of President George W. Bush, which rolled over for the Microsoft monopoly and got nothing for the American public in return.  Bill Gates then poured some of his wealth into promoting Common Core and other liberal goals, which conservatives have fought ever since.

Many of these tech monopolies are too anxious to give away American trade secrets to China in exchange for making a few bucks in that market.  Already China is manufacturing cheap smart phones, but where did it acquire the secrets to do so?

Apple itself did not invent the smart phone, as the Blackberry deserves more credit for that.  But then Apple embarked on a business plan of selling in China, which typically requires giving China technology secrets to do so.

The profits Apple made on those sales have been mostly kept outside the United States, so they have not helped Americans at all.  The long-term effect of Apple's sales in China may simply be to transfer secret technology developed here to a foreign power hostile to the United States.

A strong antitrust policy against the monopolistic technology companies will complement Trump's principled support of fair trade.  Trump was right to reject the globalism of the G-7 summit, and to send a long-overdue message that the United States will no longer be taken for granted on trade.

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

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Abortion Rights for Illegal Aliens Rejected

Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Promoters of abortion are aggressively pursuing a legal strategy to establish a new constitutional right to abortion for illegal aliens.  Young girls are entering our country unlawfully, while pregnant, and a cadre of attorneys demand that courts compel the Trump Administration to be complicit in facilitating abortions for them.

This combination of illegal immigration and demands for a right to abortion may be opening people’s eyes to both.  To those who support abortion, do they support a right for illegal aliens to abortion here?

The D.C. Circuit convened en banc, which is a rare sitting of all its active judges, for the majority Clinton and Obama-nominated judges to declare a constitutional right to abortion by illegal aliens.  Then the attorneys pushing this issue for a 17-year-old girl, who apparently entered our country unlawfully while pregnant, arranged for a middle-of-the-night abortion to circumvent timely review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The abortion mooted the case, and the precedent of the en banc D.C. Circuit ruling supposedly settled the issue for use nationwide.  Ordinarily there is nothing left to appeal when a case is moot.

But something did not sit well with the Supreme Court Justices, perhaps including Justice Kennedy.  He had silently sided with expanding the rights to abortion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), which overturned a Texas pro-life law, but is he really fine with establishing a new right to abortion for pregnant girls unlawfully entering the United States from countries having pro-life laws?

Perhaps not, and perhaps that is leading him and others to rethink their logic towards abortion.  Trump’s Solicitor General Noel Francisco brilliantly appealed the D.C. Circuit concerning the pregnant illegal alien to the Supreme Court, after finding a precedent that authorizes overruling decisions that were mooted by a subsequent factual development.

Solicitor General Francisco also requested that the High Court consider disciplining the attorneys on the other side who arranged for such an irregular abortion to evade Supreme Court review.  The lack of respect for the orderly administration of justice – not to mention the possible exploitation of the immigrant girl – should be troubling even to those who support abortion.

In a similar case, another immigrant changed her mind about having the abortion amid the legal maneuvering.  But a middle-of-the-night abortion does not lend itself to the clarity of mind needed for informed consent up until the operation, nor does it maximize the safety of the operation because complications are known to be higher for late-night surgeries.

Something evidently troubled at least five of the Supreme Court justices about this case of Azar v. Garza, probably including Justice Kennedy, because it bounced through an extraordinary 15 conferences before a terse decision emerged from the Court.  The opinion was obviously a compromise, as near the end two competing views of the tactics used by the attorneys in procuring the abortion were recounted without resolution.

It was probably to avert a worse defeat for the Left in this case that four Justices who typically side with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU joined the unanimous decision to overturn and vacate the D.C. Circuit opinion.  This wipes from the books that appellate precedent for a right to abortion by illegal aliens.

If this decision merely stood alone, one might be reluctant to read too much into it.  But it comes less than a week after a surprise denial of a petition for cert by Planned Parenthood to challenge a new pro-life law in Arkansas that is expected to cause some abortion clinics to close there.

There was no dissent from that denial of cert in Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, and the media was dismayed about how Planned Parenthood could lose before a Court that supposedly had five votes in its corner.  The lack of a dissent suggests that the 5-4 majority on the Court for the pro-abortion side is in jeopardy or may no longer exist.

Later this month we will learn if any retirements are forthcoming from the Court, which would give President Trump the opportunity to nominate a strong new Justice.  But even without a retirement, this pair of decisions and the spectacle of 15 conferences to issue a unanimous decision against an abortion precedent suggests that something is afoot internally at the Court.

A majority of the Court may feel, as they should, that illegal aliens from pro-life countries do not have a constitutional right to abortion here.  They need to return home to give birth, because their homeland prohibits abortion, or they should give birth here.

That means a majority on the High Court would give effect to the pro-life laws of South American countries.  If Planned Parenthood and the ACLU lose on that issue, as they should, then it follows that they should lose on their similar arguments that demand invalidation of pro-life laws enacted by democratically elected legislators in our country.

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

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Media Smear of Trump Backfires

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Social media had a field day with a photo which appears to show that the Trump administration is keeping migrant children penned in cages along the U.S.-Mexican border.  A photo that went viral shows two Hispanic children sleeping on a concrete floor behind a chain-link fence.

A news report that confirms what you already believe to be true is said to be “too good to check.”  In this case, the photo seemed to corroborate what the media falsely believe about our President.

“Look at these pictures,” tweeted former President Obama’s chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau.  “This is happening right now, and the only debate that matters is how we force our government to get these kids back to their families as fast as humanly possible.”

The picture was retweeted by other anti-Trump personalities including Shaun King, an activist who supported Black Lives Matter.  “Take a look at these pictures,” tweeted Linda Sarsour, the radical Muslim activist who co-founded the Women’s March.

Donald Trump, as usual, had the last laugh on his critics.  The photo was actually taken in June 2014, when Barack Obama was President.
The picture was one of 10 photos published by a Phoenix newspaper, the Arizona Republic, under the headline: “Immigrant children flood detention center.”

The children, about 900 in all, had crossed the border illegally in Texas without their parents.  They were shipped to Nogales, Arizona where the U.S. government set up a makeshift processing center bigger than a football field.

“The children, mostly of high-school and junior-high-school age, are housed behind 18-foot-high chain-link fences topped with razor wire,” said the reporter who was allowed to visit the facility. “They pass the day sitting on benches or lying side by side on tiny blue mattresses pressed up against each other on nearly every square inch of the floor in the fenced areas.”

“Democrats mistakenly tweet 2014 pictures from Obama’s term showing children from the Border in steel cages,” President Trump tweeted on the day after Memorial Day.  “They thought it was recent pictures in order to make us look bad, but backfires.”

“Dems must agree to Wall and new Border Protection for good of country.”  Once again, Donald Trump emerges the winner while his critics, like Linda Sarsour, debase themselves.

“Our immigration system was a disaster long before Trump came along,” Sarsour insisted after her gaffe was exposed.  “Now it will become increasingly worse under this White Supremacist Administration.”

It’s all very frustrating to George Lakoff, a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California Berkeley.  Lakoff has made a second career trying to teach Democrats how to communicate the progressive agenda to ordinary Americans.
“When you repeat Trump, you help Trump,” Professor Lakoff wrote in an exasperated post to his friends on the left.  “You do this by spreading his message wide and far.

“Think about it: every time Trump issues a mean tweet or utters a shocking statement, millions of people begin to obsess over his words.
“Reporters make it the top headline. Cable TV panels talk about it for hours. Horrified Democrats and progressives share the stories online, making sure to repeat the nastiest statements in order to refute them.

“Nobody knows this better than Trump. Trump, as a media master, knows how to frame a debate” wrote the distinguished professor, who published a whole book on how to frame the debate.

“When the news media and Democrats repeat Trump’s frames, they are strengthening those frames by ensuring that tens of millions of Americans hear them repeated over and over again.”

The 900 children who were pictured in Nogales were among the tens of thousands of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) who flooded across the southern border in 2014.  Under the Obama administration, most UACs were placed with relatives living illegally in the United States, instead of being returned to their parents in Honduras or Guatemala, as they should have been.

President Trump is determined to change the system that allows UACs from countries other than Mexico (OTM) to remain here indefinitely.  When the number of UACs spiked this spring, Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions took several steps to stem the flow.

Meanwhile, pro-immigration Republicans are pressuring Trump to cave by extending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) without building a border wall.  A pro-immigration group funded in part by the Koch brothers, LIBRE, is running ads urging Congress to pass “a permanent solution for Dreamers.”

In the pro-amnesty Koch orbit is Colorado Senator Cory Gardner, who complained about Attorney General Sessions considering enforcement of federal laws against marijuana sales.  Legalizing marijuana is another hobby horse of the Koch network of donors, to the detriment of average Americans.

President Trump is welcome relief from politicians who care more about donors than voters.  Trump should continue to be a “choice, not an echo” on immigration, and stand firm for a border wall.

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

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

Santa Fe School Was Victimized by Censorship of Prayer

Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Another tragic shooting at a public school leads to another round of liberal demands for gun control.  But missing from their clamor is how this shooting by a former football player occurred at the very same high school where the Supreme Court censored prayer at football games in a ruling in 2000.

The ACLU insisted that student-led prayer be banned at this same high school, and the Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the ACLU and against the school in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe.  Ever since, prayer has not been allowed over the loudspeakers at games, prayer that the shooter would have heard because he played in many football games there.

Liberals are notably quiet in commenting on how prayer was eliminated at this same school by judicial activism from the Supreme Court.  The gun control typically proposed would not have stopped this crime, because it was perpetrated by a shotgun, which is not semi-automatic, and a revolver.

The student killer should have attracted immediate scrutiny for how he would wear a black trench coat on hot Texan days, and had postings on Facebook that included a “Born to Kill” t-shirt and images of Satan and atheistic communism.  Likewise, the former student who shot up Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, was widely known to be a risk for violence, and multiple complaints about him to law enforcement fell on deaf ears before he massacred 17.

Had either student been profiled based on his public behavior, then both tragedies might have been averted, or at least curtailed.  A reasonable dress code would have prevented hiding a shotgun in a black trench coat on a hot day, or at least allowed immediate preventive action to be taken.

Nobody wants airport-style security at every entrance to a public school, but no one wants more carnage either.  Yet rather than suggest workable approaches to prevent copycat incidents, senseless attempts to blame President Trump fill the airwaves.

Entering stage left is Jimmy Kimmel, the late-night comedian who broke the record for the lowest Oscars audience ever when he hosted it in March.  He insisted that Trump and the GOP are somehow “cowardly” because they supposedly “care more about the support of the NRA than they do about children.”

But none of the usual liberal remedies such as banning assault rifles, a ban on high capacity magazines, stricter background checks, tougher mental health screening, or closing the so-called gun show loophole would have prevented this tragedy.  Yet that hasn’t stopped gun controllers from proposing the same litany of legislation.

Knee-jerk appeals to political correctness might boost Kimmel’s career after tanking in his Oscars performance.  In his record-setting ratings failure for the annual show, Kimmel paid homage to the feminist Me Too movement without challenging the industry for the hypersexual content of so many of its movies.

“The only way we can make a meaningful impact,” Kimmel pontificated, “is if we vote for politicians who will do something,” without saying what that “something” might be.  If he meant banning shotguns and revolvers in Texas, perhaps Kimmel himself was too “cowardly” to propose something so absurd.

An assistant secretary of education in the Obama administration suggested that parents keep their kids out of school until Congress passes “background checks for all gun purchases, a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and funding for gun research.”

His former boss Arne Duncan, who was Obama’s longest-serving Cabinet member, tweeted: “This is brilliant.  What if no children went to school until gun laws changed to keep them safe?”

Not attending public school is something some conservatives have been saying for years, after witnessing the rapid deterioration in culture and values there.  It is ironic that Obama’s Secretary of Education might finally be right for the wrong reason.

But missing from the script is any criticism of Facebook for how it has been the common denominator for many of these school shootings.  The killers use Facebook to publicize their wanton desires in seeking their “15 minutes of fame,” to paraphrase Andy Warhol.

Meanwhile, if anyone hoped that the courts would defend the Second Amendment based on Justice Scalia’s 5-4 decision in D.C. v. Heller, that optimism has proven to be unfounded.  Only one Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, defends the Second Amendment there, and he alone dissented in criticizing his colleagues’ refusal to review a pro-gun control decision from the Ninth Circuit.

Make no mistake: if the Democrats take control of Congress and have the votes to block Trump’s nominees for judges, courts will toss out the Second Amendment by permitting severe restrictions on gun ownership, and mandatory gun registration to be followed by gun confiscation.  This has already happened in Great Britain and Australia, followed by predictable rises in non-gun crimes.

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, May 15, 2018

Floodgate Opens to Sports Gambling

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

The $250 billion domestic gambling industry gains access to a new $150 billion market, thanks to the Supreme Court.  The 6-3 decision by the Court in Murphy v. NCAA opens the floodgates to sports gambling, while naively inviting Congress to clean up the mess that the Court just created.

Gambling wrecks families with a vengeance.  The suicide rate among gamblers is higher than for any other addiction, and estimates are that a wagering habit pulls down ten people associated with the addict.

A family can lose its entire savings in one gambling binge, and many do.  Gambling also corrupts our political system more than other addictions, as casino owners toss donations to candidates who then return the favors in spades after their election.

Gambling afflicts the poor more than the rich, and the uneducated more than the college graduates.  Minorities and youth are particularly exploited by gambling.

Congress and most states have repeatedly expressed the strong public policy against gambling, which was illegal nationwide at the turn of the 20th century but expanded during the Great Depression.

Today 60% of Americans are sports fans, most of whom rearrange their schedules to watch their favorite teams.  Until now, it has generally been illegal to target those sports fans with solicitations to bet on games.

But the Court dealt the gambling industry a royal flush on Monday, when the Court held that Congress was wrong, the Trump Administration was wrong, and conservative groups (including these authors) were wrong in urging the Court to uphold the federal law against sports gambling.

Justice Sam Alito wrote this decision that struck down an Act of Congress, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which has worked well for 26 years in limiting sports gambling.  This ruling illustrates that when the Court makes headlines, it is almost never in a good way.

As a result, the task of defending against the scourge of sports gambling falls on state legislatures and the Department of Justice.  Families will need to be more vigilant to keep their sports-fan children from getting pulled into the dark underworld of gambling that will destroy their lives.

Professional sports leagues, from the NFL to Major League Baseball, are making a colossal mistake if they think gambling will boost their declining attendance.  Changing Yankee Stadium from “The House that Ruth Built” to “The Casino that Gamers Built” is not a way to fill seats in a ballpark.

It was nearly a century ago when professional baseball saved its sport by taking a strong stance against betting on the World Series, and college basketball did likewise in the 1950s.  But future scandals seem inevitable under the Court’s decision allowing nationwide wagering on sports.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions should beef up enforcement of the Wire Act, which is a federal law enacted in 1961 to limit interstate betting.  Professional and amateur sports are inherently interstate, and the Department of Justice should announce that it will enforce the Wire Act to shut down all attempts to ramp up betting on interstate sports.

State legislatures should pass strong laws prohibiting betting in their states, and can do even more than that.  States should require all the teams based in their jurisdictions to take affirmative steps to discourage wagering on games by fans.

Perhaps Justices on the Supreme Court thought they were doing something good for states’ rights, but what about states wanting to be free from the plague of gambling?  Texas has long stood strong against gambling, but soon its beloved Dallas Cowboys football team could become the object of multi-million-dollar gambling schemes nationwide.

Absent from the 49 pages of opinions of the Court was any observation that gambling is a vice, for which there is voluminous evidence about the enormous harm it causes to individuals and communities.  Instead, the Court did selective research on the internet to paint an illusion that gambling somehow has a respectable history in our country.

The Court espoused euphemisms like “Americans have never been of one mind about gambling,” which is a vacuous statement that could be said about anything.  Three hundred million Americans, of course, are not “of one mind” about anything, and that is a meaningless cliché.

The Court’s opinion epitomizes a “law without values” judicial philosophy, which is as morally bankrupt as it sounds.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was a famous advocate of this approach a century ago, and it led to some dreadful rulings such as upholding the forced sterilization of a woman because she supposedly had a very low I.Q.

Hopefully Attorney General Sessions, state legislatures, and families themselves will stand up now against gambling.  They have trump cards of their own they can play to halt sports gambling.

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. 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, May 8, 2018

Standing Up to Globalism

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

President Trump’s stand against world pressure for him to continue the one-sided deal with Iran is a defining moment in world history.  His announcement at 2 p.m. on Tuesday to terminate the agreement is a watershed as the end of globalism.

One small event for man, one big moment for mankind, to paraphrase Neil Armstrong’s words when he landed on the Moon.  It is not the interaction between the United States and Iran that is so significant here, but the rejection of the world order that has reigned supreme since World War II.

The wrong path of globalism will no longer be the road for our country, as President Trump wisely charts a new course in which international deals must be as fair to the United States as they are to foreign countries.  Just as important is how the United States will no longer bow to pressure from Western Europe or anyone else about how we manage our foreign policy.

A few days earlier, the use of the word “Orwellian” from the White House in rebuking China for trying to boss around our airlines likewise signaled the dawn of this new era.  Communist China insisted that airlines stop referring to Taiwan because China is in denial about the independence and freedom of that island nation, which was formed by those who fled the communist Chinese revolution in 1949.

In 1971, globalists seeking to appease communist China arranged for the United Nations to expel Taiwan, whose real name is the Republic of China.  Early the following year, globalist Henry Kissinger persuaded President Richard Nixon to turn his back on Taiwan by visiting communist China and giving it legitimacy.

Then, in over-the-top bravado by Nixon that would have made Trump blush, Nixon declared that his trip to China was “the week that changed the world.”  Eight months earlier Phyllis Schlafly published her P.S. Report warning that Nixon could lose the confidence of the grassroots, and the subsequent Watergate operation that got him in trouble arose from doubts about his winning reelection.

China and globalists have been trying to ostracize Taiwan ever since.  They have even prevented Taiwan from competing in the Olympics as the independent country that it is, since 1976.

But the sentiment on the island of Taiwan is increasingly independent, as globalism is being rejected there like almost everywhere else.  Taiwan’s current president, Tsai Ing-wen, is more willing to assert the nationalism that Trump asserts for Americans.
Recently China demanded that businesses stop referring to Taiwan, Tibet, and Hong Kong as countries.  Quickly Marriott, the hotel chain associated with globalist Mitt Romney, caved in and pandered to communist China by apologizing to it.

China made its demand on 36 foreign airlines, insisting that they stop referring to Taiwan as a country.  Many of these airlines are American carriers, such as Delta which has already apologized.

But President Trump, more so than any president since World War II, rejects globalist pressure like China’s demand.  Trump will “stand up for Americans resisting efforts by the Chinese Communist Party to impose Chinese political correctness on American companies and citizens,” press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced.

Sarah Sanders declared that the Trump Administration is telling China “to stop threatening and coercing American carriers and citizens.”  That’s right:  China has no authority to push around our citizens and our businesses.

Then Sanders used the “O” and the “C” words, which not even past Republican presidents were willing to do enough.  “This is Orwellian nonsense and part of a growing trend by the Chinese Communist Party to impose its political views on American citizens and private companies,” Sanders observed.

George Orwell was a visionary in criticizing the communist mindset, as a former Leftist himself.  It is doubtful that any press secretary has ever applied Orwell’s truths so properly to the communist attempts at mind control, as Sarah Sanders just did.

Meanwhile, the disastrous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is up for renegotiation, and Trump’s rejection of globalism bodes us well for this issue also.  Far from seeking to renew that deal, Trump should look to terminate as much of it as possible.

Economically, NAFTA has been far more harmful to the American economy than the Iran deal was.  Trump’s criticism of the Iran deal as one-sided applies with greater force to NAFTA.

The flood of illegal drugs into our country, along with illegal aliens, has been facilitated by NAFTA.  The loss of manufacturing jobs to south of the border is the result of NAFTA, too.

NAFTA was never properly ratified as a treaty because it never had the necessary support in the Senate.  The agreement should be terminated and any replacement should only be considered under the 2/3rds ratification requirement of the Treaty Clause, which is the provision that globalists hate most about the Constitution.

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.

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

New Trump-hater book

About once a month, the news media promotes some new anti-Trump book by some Trump-hater. Here is the latest:
THE SOUL OF AMERICA: The Battle for Our Better Angels, by Jon Meacham. Random House, 416 pp., $30.

Historian and journalist Jon Meacham has written biographies of, among others, George H.W. Bush, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson; that last book won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009. With “The Soul of America: The Battle for Our Better Angels,” Meacham addresses a decidedly loftier subject: the very essence of the nation. He does so by documenting the words and actions of presidents and other historical figures who helped shape the nation’s culture and politics to make the United States into the country it is today.

Meacham’s book arrives at a time when much about the American political system seems broken. People are angry, ambivalent, anxious. But Meacham, by chronicling the nation’s struggles from revolutionary times to current day, makes the resonant argument that America has faced division before — and not only survived it but thrived. “This book,” Meacham writes, “is a portrait of hours in which the politics of fear were prevalent — a reminder that periods of public dispiritedness are not new and a reassurance that they are survivable.”
I heard this guy on the radio plugging his book, and his two favorite presidents were FDR and LBJ!

Historians like him credit FDR with getting the USA out of the Great Depression, but you get a different story from economists. The consensus there is that almost all of FDR's policy made the economy worse.

LBJ was a terrible president for a long list of reasons.

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Visas Plague Baseball Like Everything Else

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
by John and Andy Schlafly

Alarm bells are sounding across Major League Baseball as attendance at ballgames has plummeted.  One recent game drew less than a thousand fans, prompting some to wonder if there were more players than spectators.

Half of the major league teams have already broken their records of 2017 for their smallest attendance at a game, including traditionally popular franchises like the St. Louis Cardinals and Chicago Cubs.  The Miami Marlins are doing so poorly in attendance this season that they have repeatedly drawn less than 50% of their record-low attendance for all of last year.

Baseball has been in a slow slide in fan attendance, and the dismal attendance last year was the lowest in 15 years.  But the particularly poor start this year should spark some soul-searching about what has happened to our national pastime.

The rules of baseball have not significantly changed over the past century, but the players certainly have.  Today baseball has become a sport for foreigners playing on workers’ “P-1” visas, which are every bit as objectionable as the “H-1B” visas that Phyllis Schlafly and other Trump supporters have complained about for years.

Roughly a quarter of Major League Baseball consists today of foreign-born players, and an even higher percentage of foreigners have flooded the minor leagues.  Today, some minor league rosters look more like a World Cup soccer team than a baseball squad.

Owners have figured out that they can sign foreign players to smaller bonuses, and have greater strings attached, than give nice contracts to American youngsters.  The foreigners do not play baseball any better than Americans, and few of the foreign players are genuine Hall of Fame candidates.

In sharp contrast with a quarter-century ago, every baseball team today has a high-paid foreign player.  Free traders brag about this as a model that Americans should imitate in other industries, but the reality is that fans prefer rooting for hometown heroes like Lou Gehrig, who grew up in New York City, played baseball for Columbia University, and then became the “Pride of the Yankees.”

The primary reason given by the so-called “free traders” for workers’ visas is that they are supposedly needed to fill jobs that Americans refuse to do.  That’s a comical excuse when it comes to professional baseball, which are the most desired jobs in all of the American economy.

With less risk of injury than football, basketball, or boxing, professional baseball players enjoy a greater career income than any of those other sports.  Players are not even required to be in particularly good physical shape to play the game, as Babe Ruth famously demonstrated.

Images of near-empty baseball stadiums during games leaves a lasting impression in sports fans thinking about where to spend their money.  Atlanta saw an attendance boost in its new stadium last year, but a city cannot build a new stadium every year to try to prop up the fan base.

Baseball owners have exploited the P-1 visa to get bargain players who are cheaper than the top American talent.  Apparently no one told the owners that foreign players with names no one can pronounce are not going to fill a stadium the way that Stan Musial, Ted Williams, and Jackie Robinson did.

Jackie Robinson, and Willie Mays and Hank Aaron after him, inspired a generation of young African-Americans to become baseball stars like them.  That motivation is gone today with the deluge of foreign players on P-1 visas, and without enough black baseball stars hardly any young African-Americans play the sport anymore.

While major league teams have an oversupply of foreign players, and even more in the minor leagues, nearly one-third of the Big Leagues today have only one black player on their roster.  Last year there were fewer black players in major league baseball than 1958, shortly after Jackie Robinson retired.

Like the H-1B worker visas for ordinary employment, the P-1 visa rules are twisted to allow foreigners to take jobs away from Americans despite how that was not the original intent.  P-1 visas were supposed to be limited to athletes who want to come to the United States "temporarily to perform at a specific athletic competition," such as the Olympics, explains the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.

But later the same website says that P-1 visa holders can stay for a whopping five years in order to "complete the event, competition or performance," even though no athletic events last anywhere as long as five years.  Even worse, the government website explains further that the total stay can actually be up to ten years, by which time the professional baseball player will have found another way to stay here permanently.

Baseball was a fabulous way to inspire multiple generations of boys to play a healthy game that emphasizes the virtues of teamwork, patience, discipline, and following rules.  But something is lost in the translation, and the motivation is lost, when the visa program is abused to reward foreigners rather than American youth.

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 24, 2018

Travel Ban’s Moment of Truth for GOP, Court

THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
by John and Andy Schlafly

After being routed in the 2016 presidential primaries, a motley band of unreformed Never Trump Republicans gathered this week to make their last stand in the Supreme Court.  They are asking the court to overturn what, other than the wall on the Mexican border, was the most decisive promise of the Trump campaign.

The group includes Republicans who were prominent on the national scene ten, twenty and even thirty years ago, including former New Jersey Governors Tom Kean and Christine Todd Whitman, who publicly declared in February 2016 that "I know I won't vote for Trump."  Others, such as failed Utah candidate Evan McMullin, had a brief flicker of fame in 2016 before flaming out.

In case anyone needed a reminder why grassroots conservatives support Trump, the divide in the GOP on this case is conclusive evidence.  Phyllis Schlafly's classic book, "A Choice Not An Echo," explained how an Establishment within the Republican Party works perpetually to withhold power from the conservative wing of the Party.

Trump ended the insiders' control of the GOP.  These filings by Republicans of yesteryear, however, illustrate that the Establishment is still fighting back.

Trump's proposal for a temporary halt to immigration from Muslim countries was first announced in December 2015, following the massacre in San Bernardino, California, where a husband-and- wife team of legal Muslim immigrants shot and killed
14 people and seriously wounded 22 others at a Christmas party.

It was one of Trump's campaign promises that drew wide support and helped Trump win the primaries and then the election.  After Trump became president, the campaign promise was refined (some would say watered down) in versions 1, 2 and 3 of an executive order, which is now before the Supreme Court.

Trump tweeted that his restrictions "should be far larger, tougher and more specific."  Polling showed the public agreed more with Trump than with his detractors on this issue.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted immediately after Trump signed the first and strongest version of what has come to be known as the travel ban, found that 48% of Americans agreed and only 41% disagreed.  A Rasmussen poll of likely voters found
57% agreed and only 33% opposed.

Support for Trump increased when the current version of the policy was issued last summer.  Some 60 percent of Americans in an AP-NORC poll said they support the "new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominantly Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to enter the country," while only 28 percent were opposed.

Among Republicans surveyed in the same poll, 84 percent of respondents supported the policy, while 9 percent opposed it.  That poll demonstrates that liberal Republicans who signed the briefs in the Supreme Court are out of step with the base, even in California where a recent poll by the University of California at Berkeley showed that 59% favor an increase in deportations.

Yet that public sentiment has not taken hold in many federal courts, and particularly not in the Obama-dominated Fourth and Ninth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals.  The federal judiciary, which is supposed to be the "least dangerous" branch in terms of power, has embraced a relentless agenda to block Trump's actions at every turn.

Time and time again, from as faraway places as the federal district court in Hawaii, activist judges repeatedly enjoined Trump's travel ban.  Hawaii, of course, sees little harm from illegal aliens because so few can travel there, and California already benefits from a southern fence to stem the flow of illegal migration from Mexico.

The Supreme Court has allowed Trump's restrictions to go into effect during the pendency of this appeal, so the Court should have no difficulty affirming presidential power to control our borders in this manner.  President Trump acted property to suspend, temporarily, migration from North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen.

Yet the resistance to Trump's protection of our country against foreigners continues to be intense, as the briefs filed in the Supreme Court opposing Trump far outnumber those which support him.  Even a group of former national security and so-

called intelligence officials ask the Supreme Court to strike down Trump's travel ban, despite how it obviously enhances our security by keeping potential enemies out.

Andrew C. McCarthy, as the former prosecutor of a terrorist, filed a brief in support of Trump's position.  "At the end of the day," he points out, "it is not the role of the judiciary to intercede in such matters, and this Court should clearly say so."

Fourteen States, including immigrant-popular Texas and Arizona, weighed in with the Supreme Court to support President Trump's travel ban.  The Court should listen to these States that are on the front lines of illegal migration into our country, and to the grassroots that support Trump.

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.