How tradition empowers women

Michael Knowles says in a short new video:

Did Phyllis Schlafly prove that tradition empowers women?

Apr 28, 2026 #PhyllisSchlafly #MichaelKnowles #Tradition

History reveals that women have always played significant roles in their communities and political spheres, long before modern movements took shape. Phyllis Schlafly stands as a prime example of someone who successfully balanced raising a large family with monumental political influence, effectively leading the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. This perspective argues that recognizing and embracing the unique, inherent strengths of womanhood is the true path to avoiding disadvantage. It challenges the modern narrative by suggesting that tradition and domestic roles are not barriers, but rather complementary to a woman's public and professional potential.

I made my point though, which is that you say throughout history, including long before feminism ever came onto the scene, women did plenty of things, you know, in addition to just being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, right? They had uh they were involved in their community. They had side hustles, as you put it. Um, so so they did all these things. I mean, I think of the most famous anti-feminist American of the 20th century. It was Phyis Schlafley. Phyllis Schlafley had six kids. She was a housewife. She uh said the only person whose permission she needs for her political activism is her husband's which irritated feminists to no end. She's one of the most important political figures of the whole century.

She single-handedly killed the Equal Rights Amendment, traveled all over the country, one of the most vaunted figures in the American right. Uh she she was able to do a lot of things in public, but she recognized that her particular role that her husband never could have, that no man on earth ever could have, even if he kids himself, is to have children, to be a woman, to be graceful, to to do the things that men can't do. And so she can do she can do things beyond that as well. But uh if if you erase the particular advantages of women, then women are are put at a disadvantage.

Is SCOTUS Ducking Transgender School Cases?

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

If anyone feels that the transgender issue has been won by conservatives, think again. In the past eight days the U.S. Supreme Court has ducked not one, but two, important cases in which public schools encouraged students to socially transition to the opposite sex without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Social transitioning means adopting a name, pronoun, clothing, and gender expression suitable to the opposite sex. Many public schools have a policy of reinforcing such behavior by students and concealing it from their parents.

The latest denial of cert by SCOTUS was on Monday, on a petition by parents which had been supported by many amicus briefs. Nearly half the states joined a brief in support of parents to be informed and have control over what public schools are doing to push their children toward transgender behavior.

In just the last two years, the Supreme Court has turned away five transgender cases in which parents object to the secret transitioning of their children in public schools. This latest denial by SCOTUS arose from a lawsuit initiated by Florida parents, in which the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sided with the public school despite the swing vote on the three-judge panel describing the school’s treatment of the parents as “shameful.”

In that case, a 13-year-old girl had delays in development and struggled with learning, and began doubting her gender. Her parents hired a private therapist and informed the school that they were opposed to social transitioning.

But even in Republican Florida, school officials were allowed to meet secretly with the child, label her as “nonbinary,” mandate that all school personnel refer to her as “they” or “them,” allow her to use boys’ bathrooms, and prohibit anyone from informing her parents. The school rejected the parents’ objections, denied their request to participate in this process, and refused the parents’ request for school records of meetings with their own daughter.

The school was acting pursuant to a parental-exclusion policy, which the Eleventh Circuit held was “executive” conduct that parents could not prevail against. In an opinion that the swing judge sided with but said “makes no sense,” the Court held that parents must first prove that an infringement on their rights “shocked the conscience” to compel a school to comply with the parents’ request.

A week earlier, the Supreme Court likewise refused a petition by two Massachusetts parents who had “repeatedly directed their public middle school not to interfere with the upbringing and mental healthcare plan for B.F., their eleven-year-old daughter.” Despite the parents’ objections, “school officials followed district protocol and secretly facilitated B.F.’s social gender transition anyway” and treated her “as though she were nonbinary.”

The entirely Democrat-appointed First Circuit panel sided with the public school by holding that an 11-year-old’s desires had priority over parental rights, and that this transgender issue supposedly did not concern her mental health. The public school even provided counseling to facilitate the gender transition of the child despite the parents’ objections, and the First Circuit sided with the school.

With these two latest denials of cert, the Supreme Court has now denied petitions for its review from anti-parent decisions by the First, Fourth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. In each case, often over dissent by a conservative appellate judge, the federal judiciary sided with schools as they secretly transition children without the knowledge or even over the objection of the parents.

Washington, D.C., is the transgender capital of the world and the Supreme Court justices and their clerks are immersed in that culture. The percentage of law students who are transgender also continues to climb, who become law clerks at the Supreme Court to do most of the work in screening cases for review.

The Supreme Court did intervene in an emergency appeal from a case in California, to reinstate a district court injunction against a California law that prevented public schools from notifying parents about their child’s gender identity or sexual orientation. Captioned Mirabelli v. Bonta, this case continues to be litigated in federal court in California and does not directly affect the rest of the country.

This case is based on a “religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the 6-3 Supreme Court wrote in temporarily siding with the parents. California’s opening brief is due on July 6 in the left-leaning Ninth Circuit, which has previously held against parents.

It was this same Ninth Circuit that infamously declared two decades ago that a parent’s right over her child’s upbringing “does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door.” Phyllis Schlafly then led such an uproar against that arrogant denial of parental rights that the court extraordinarily amended its decision to reword its much-criticized statement. SCOTUS then denied cert in that case, too.

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

These columns are also posted on PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.

Is Political Feminism Finished?

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Political feminism is the push to elect women to high office, such as the U.S. Senate and the Presidency. Two out of the last three Democrat nominees for president have been women, and their campaigns ended in crushing failures.

In Maine, the very formidable two-term Governor Janet Mills appeared to be a shoo-in for the Democrat nomination to run against the incumbent Republican Susan Collins. Kamala Harris won this deep-blue state by 7 points in 2024, and traditionally that margin increases in the midterm elections in favor of the party not in control of the White House.

Mills faced off against Trump himself at an event held for governors at the White House early last year, when Trump called out Maine on the transgender issue. Mills told Trump that she would see him in court, to the thrill of liberals nationwide.

EMILYs List, the preeminent group supporting feminist candidates, praised Mills as “the first woman to be elected as a district attorney in New England,” and the only female attorney general and governor in Maine history. She won her last election in 2022 by 13 points, which was the largest margin for a statewide Democrat there since 1988.

Her opponent is a political newbie named Graham Platner, who is an oyster farmer with a checkered past that includes a Nazi-linked tattoo and posts unsympathetic to women on Reddit. EMILYs List says that “Graham Platner’s comments blaming victims of sexual assault are unacceptable and disqualifying.”

But Platner is a progressive endorsed by Bernie Sanders, the senator for nearby Vermont. Progressives seem to be taking control of the Democrat Party away from liberal feminists.

The latest polling shows Platner with a phenomenal 33-point lead over Mills. Platner is so far ahead for the June 9th primary that he is starting to steer his campaign ads to target his November opponent, Susan Collins, rather than focus on Mills.

Meanwhile, after just a few months on the job the approval rating of Virginia’s new Democrat Governor, Abigail Spanberger, has plummeted below 50%. The pollster State Navigate observes that she is the “most historically unpopular governor at this point in the most recent Virginia governors’ terms.”

The feminist wife of California Governor Gavin Newsom, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, is not helping his presidential ambitions. She insists on being called “First Partner" rather than the traditional title of “First Lady,” in order to push the DEI mindset.

She’s accused some Christians of “living in this silo, this evangelical, conservative silo that, ultimately, is just pulling us back as a country to a time and a place where we don't deserve to be, and we’re not going to be.” Her husband tried to shut churches down in California during Covid, while allowing some businesses to remain open, and the Supreme Court ruled against that.

Jennifer Newsom added, “young women and fathers of daughters are awake now, and they’re woke, and they’re not going to let us go back.” Gavin Newsom and his woke wife are struggling in early polling among contenders for the 2028 Democrat presidential nomination, trailing behind Kamala Harris who lost last time.

Meanwhile, there is backlash by young men against feminists in South Korea, where birth rates have plummeted to the lowest in the world, thereby endangering the long-term survival of the country. A survey last year found that roughly 50% of men in their 20s and 30s agreed with the statement that “There needs to be a movement that honors masculinity and advocates for men’s rights.”

Over the last half-century feminists have passed many laws that continue to cause harm today. These include programs that profit from turning women against men, and family court procedures that deprive men of their rights of fatherhood.

In 2015 the Obama Administration fully placed women in combat roles in our military. Our ground troops and warships, which are now in harm’s way near Iran, are coed with women and men.

Phyllis Schlafly warned 50 years ago that ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment would result in court-ordered taxpayer-funded abortions, and she successfully blocked that terrible idea from ever becoming part of the U.S. Constitution. Feminists pretended that Phyllis did not know what she was talking about, but time has proven her correct.

On Monday, a 4-3 decision by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ordered taxpayers of our fifth-largest state to start funding abortions there, based on its state ERA. The court used the same contorted logic that Phyllis predicted would be used by feminists to force the public, against the conscience of many, to pay for abortions.

As a state court decision grounded in state law, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn this on appeal. Advocates for ERA back in the 1970s insisted this would not happen, and yet it just did.

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 PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.

The Bible Belongs in Public School Readings

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

A strong education includes reading from the greatest works of all time. A full understanding of history requires knowledge of the books that influenced leaders, thinkers, and decision-makers.

The Texas State Board of Education has released its tentative 53-page list of about 300 literary works that will be part of the public school curriculum for grades K through 12. Many familiar classics are on this list, including Charlotte’s Web, Animal Farm, and the humorous story by Mark Twain about the amazing jumping frog, which are for students prior to high school.

This list results from the enactment of HB1605 back in 2023, and will not take effect until 2030. A full seven years from the passage of this reform to its implementation is appalling.

The biblical excerpts on this reading list, which is not yet final, include the Golden Rule (which is not solely from the Bible), the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and the Road to Damascus, for Kindergarten through 3rd grade. Then there is a gap until 7th grade, when recommended readings include the Book of Psalms and the tale of Jonah and the Whale.

For high school, Bible readings are passages from David and Goliath, Lamentations, the Tower of Babel, Ecclesiastes, and the Book of Job. The Board should be criticized for recommending almost nothing from the New Testament.

The loudest protests are from those who oppose including anything at all from the Bible in public school reading lists. The Bible is the most influential and widely read book ever, and continues to rank first in readership annually.

The Bible should be listed #1 in every bestseller list, but it is kept off those lists because it wins every time. People are misled by weekly bestseller lists omitting the Bible at the top, which is the hottest seller now and has been ever since the invention of the printing press more than 500 years ago.

Sales of the Bible have been increasing, too, soaring to high levels with Gen Z who are even more interested in the Bible than older generations have been. In 2025, Bible sales reached new record highs in the U.S. and U.K., as U.S. sales totaled over 19 million copies, double the number sold in 2019.

In light of this, it is straightforward to include passages from the Bible on any list of required readings for public schools. Stories like the parable of the Prodigal Son, which is unique to the Bible and cannot be found in any prior works, are often cited and every educated person should be familiar with them.

There are threats of lawsuits to block the inclusion of any part of the Bible in a public school curriculum. Any such lawsuits will fail.

The Bible has been incorporated into great speeches like President Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech, where he used that Gospel metaphor to argue against slavery. Many of the greatest scientists of all time, such as Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur, were avid readers of the Bible.

No one is forced to believe in the Bible or in any other reading assigned in school. Works by Leftists, such as Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, are routinely assigned to high school students and they are expected to understand, analyze, and repeat the themes of these controversial writings.

Unfortunately, too much liberal propaganda remains on this list for high school students, during their formative years. The Texas Board recommends Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, which uses the Salem Witch Trials in 1692 as an allegory for the congressional investigations of communism in the 1950s, after which Miller himself was held in contempt (later reversed) for refusing to identify the communists he knew.

Books that promote the LGBTQIA+ agenda are commonly assigned to students today, and are more controversial to most parents than anything in the Bible. The books preferred by liberals and atheists are also far less influential or quoted than the Bible is, and thus less likely to prepare a student to become a knowledgeable adult.

A significant segment of our society quotes from the Bible or cites biblical figures frequently, and students should receive an education that enables them to understand these references. When someone hears a suggestion that he “turn the other cheek,” he should have been educated to understand immediately what that biblical expression means.

The Texas State Board of Education expressly states that students can opt out of any Bible reading based on religious or moral beliefs. It seems that Democrats are not really concerned about the rights of a few families who will be free to opt out, but instead are protesting that students whose parents want them to read from the Bible will be allowed to do so as part of public school curricula.

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 PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.

Wanted: An Unconfirmable Attorney General

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

With the sudden departure of Pam Bondi last week, President Trump is searching for a new Attorney General. He may be looking for a new Deputy AG as well.

Under current Federal law, President Trump has the power to appoint an attorney to fill these crucial offices in an interim or “acting” capacity for up to 210 days without Senate confirmation.

A glance at the calendar reveals that this year’s midterm elections are set for November 3, 2026, which is exactly 210 days from today. Coincidence? We think not.

The next Attorney General and Deputy AG should be someone who is willing and able to accomplish the MAGA goals within that 210-day time frame, or he’ll be another failure. These 210 days (30 weeks) could be virtually all the time that remains on the clock for the second Trump administration.

No one passes a basketball to a player who ignores dwindling time on a shot clock. No coach installs a quarterback after the final two-minute warning who ignores the game clock.

The liberal media and even some of Trump’s advisers are telling him that he needs to choose a new Attorney General who is confirmable by the Senate, but that is malarkey. Trump needs an Attorney General who will get the job done before the midterms, such as someone who could not be confirmed by the weak sisters in the Senate.

Before a nominee could even be voted on by the full Senate, he would have to pass the gauntlet of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Republicans hold a 1-vote margin that several of Trump’s best nominees have failed to clear. The RINO lame duck Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is on that committee, and he should not be allowed to block a strong nominee.

Certain types of attorneys should be ruled out of consideration immediately. The next Attorney General should not come from a major Establishment law firm, should not be a former lobbyist or lobbyist wannabe, and should not be a former federal prosecutor.

If the next Attorney General is afraid of liberals, Congress, or the media, then he will fail to make badly needed changes at the Justice Department. MAGA still awaits a prosecution of ringleaders among more than 200 Justice Department employees who wrongfully persecuted Trump.

Many excellent candidates would do a terrific job at saving our country from the Swamp. Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Ed Martin, Mike Davis, and Sidney Powell would be superb choices without worrying about Tillis and other RINOs.

President Abraham Lincoln did not win the Civil War by appointing an insider to lead the Union Army. After D.C.-favored generals like George McClellan failed to get the job done, it was the outcast, probably unconfirmable U.S. Grant who ultimately won the war.

Even if eventual confirmation could be assured, we don’t have time to waste on a long and agonizing confirmation process, with the clock winding down for the midterms. The next Attorney General should not subject himself to browbeating by liberals, as when Markwayne Mullin had to make a damaging retreat from Trump’s deportation agenda before he could be confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security (which includes ICE).

The ideal candidate would be someone who views D.C. and the liberal media with contempt, as Trump does. Anyone who seeks praise on Capitol Hill or by the press should not apply for this job that requires wrestling with Swamp creatures.

If the next Attorney General cannot get the job done for MAGA in 210 days, then he should not be appointed. Coaches do not give the ball to players who ignore the game clock as it winds down to zero.

There is probably no confirmable candidate for the top two positions in the Justice Department who will fulfill the MAGA goals that Trump promised in 2024. If a majority of the senators approve of a candidate, then he is unacceptable to MAGA.

In 2020, the Senate-approved Attorney General Bill Barr abruptly quit his office early to avoid post-election issues, and then obtained a book deal for his memoir entitled “One Damn Thing After Another.” That failure would probably happen again if Trump picks a confirmable candidate to lead the DOJ.

Nearly everyone liked by senators in D.C. is angling to make a buck for himself, as many senators themselves are, too. Several have left the Senate to cash in with private equity firms, while others take lucrative corporate jobs as Barr did after being Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush.

Installing MAGA leadership at DOJ was one of the key pledges made to the American people in 2024, which helped elect Trump and other Republicans. The vacancy at the position of Attorney General makes it possible now to honor that pledge.

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 PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.

Conversion Therapy Wins Big in SCOTUS

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Do physicians and counselors have the right to speak freely to their patients and clients? One would think that licensed professionals enjoy the First Amendment as much as anyone else, but 23 Democrat-controlled states and the District of Columbia have passed laws making it illegal for counselors to help young people go straight, in the face of confusions about sexual orientation or gender identity.

These state laws ban what is known as “conversion therapy,” a scary term that Wikipedia falsely contends is a form of child abuse. More than 100 cities and counties have also banned conversion therapy for minors, despite how local ordinances are not typically so political.

But today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all such laws are almost certainly invalid, because the First Amendment protects the right of professional counselors to give advice without viewpoint discrimination, even on controversial topics like sexual orientation.

In his ringing opinion in favor of the Colorado Christian counselor who brought the case, Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote: “The Constitution does not protect the right of some to speak freely; it protects the right of all. It safeguards not only popular ideas; it secures, even and especially, the right to voice dissenting views.”

It is not surprising that Gorsuch was assigned to write this decision, as he is from Colorado and presided on the Tenth Circuit in Denver before going to the Supreme Court. But the strength of his opinion is refreshing, particularly given how he had declined to support granting certiorari in similar prior appeals.

Kaley Chiles, the licensed mental health counselor who challenged Colorado’s ban on so-called conversion therapy, is indeed a committed Christian, but six Justices ruled in her favor in a strong endorsement of freedom of speech regardless of religion. By a 6-3 margin the Court held that “every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.”

Concurring with the Republican majority, Obama-appointed Justice Elena Kagan agreed that “because the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.”

The single dissenting opinion was authored by Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who, during her memorable confirmation hearing, was unable to say what a woman is. In her overwrought, cliche-ridden opinion, Justice Jackson said “the majority plays with fire in this case,” “opens a dangerous can of worms” and “we could now be standing on the edge of a precipitous drop in the quality of healthcare services in America.”

In his response to Jackson’s heated dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote that Justice Jackson “may believe that state-imposed orthodoxies in speech pose few dangers and many benefits in this field (and who knows what others). But their policy is not the First Amendment’s.”

Although the speech ban at issue in this case attracted only one vote on the Supreme Court, it is frightening that such an onerous restriction on free speech has been passed by legislatures of nearly half our states. The gist of those state laws, which Joe Biden’s appointee to the Court would have upheld, is that doctors and other licensed professionals have no right to give their own best advice, but must convey state-approved messages to their clients or patients.

The lobbyists for those laws argue that conversion therapy has a low success rate. However there is no evidence that the rate is any worse than for other common therapies, such as for losing weight or stopping addictions.

The decision in favor of free speech is now the law of the land in the United States, but the battle is not over, because many professional societies still oppose the use of talk therapy or counseling to guide young people struggling with issues of sexual orientation or gender identity. You can expect professional counselors like Kaley Chiles to be harassed by some state licensing boards if they dare to fully exercise their free speech.

Colorado, which has become one of the most liberal states despite formerly being conservative, may not give up in its attempt to censor conversion therapy. Justice Kagan invited it and other opponents of conversion therapy to try again with a content-based restriction, rather than a viewpoint-based limitation, although it is far from clear what Justice Kagan has in mind.

A viewpoint-neutral limitation on counseling would require liberals to cut back on their grooming campaigns. Most conversion therapy bans, including Colorado’s, allow therapy to encourage transitioning to become transgendered.

Speech bans similar to Colorado’s are still the law in countries that don’t have a First Amendment, such as Canada. Originally drafted in the 1980s to ban counseling about sexual orientation, most of these laws were subsequently expanded to ban counseling about gender identity, too.

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

These columns are also posted on PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.

Billionaire Tax Act Rattles Golden State

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Billionaires have been fleeing California because of a ballot measure seeking to impose a one-time tax of 5% on their wealth. Promoted by unions, endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT), and doing well in gathering signatures to be on the November ballot, this citizen-initiated ballot measure has support by 50% of voters plus another 14% who are undecided but lean “yes,” according to an early poll.

This Billionaire Tax Act would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2026, and many billionaires are not waiting around for the election results. Mark Zuckerberg, one of the top five wealthiest persons in the world who founded Facebook which is headquartered in California, has reportedly already decided to move to Florida, where there is not even an income or estate tax.

Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, venture capitalist David Sacks, and Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick have also reportedly moved out of California. There are more than 200 billionaires in California, the most of any state, and their total wealth exceeds $2 trillion.

Wealth, including unrealized capital gains on stock ownership, has never been taxed before. But the California ballot measure would both revise its state constitution and enact a new law imposing this tax, which could have cost Zuckerberg more than $10 billion dollars had he remained a resident of California.

California has the largest homeless population of any state, totalling nearly 200,000 people, and 50% of our country’s unsheltered population lives in California. It is projected to have a budget deficit of $18 billion this year, and then have future annual deficits of $20 to $35 billion.

This red ink cannot flow forever, and states are not allowed to file for bankruptcy. Unlike the federal government, California cannot print its own money to pay off its debts.

Suddenly there is a sharp uptick of interest in super-luxury homes in Wyoming, reports the New York Post, with the explanation that more California billionaires are looking to flee to that mostly tax-free state. Several centibillionaires, including Elon Musk and Oracle’s Larry Ellison, previously left California; Musk moved to Texas and Ellison moved to a Hawaiian island that he purchased.

Roughly 20 states allow citizen-initiated ballot measures, as California does. Over the years other ballot measures, like raising the minimum wage, were enacted by landslide margins in California and Oregon and then spread to many other states in imitation.

One of the easiest states to place a new law on the ballot for majority vote is Colorado, where liberals have run up a $1.5 billion annual deficit that is forcing cuts in programs and which could impact Medicaid services for the poor. Half the states face budget shortfalls as federal funding for them dries up.

Democrat-controlled legislatures in blue states like New York and New Jersey, which lack a process for citizen-initiated ballot measures, can put wealth taxes up for a vote by the people. Wealthy individuals can also flee from these states to low-tax alternatives like Florida, Texas, and Wyoming.

Backers of the California billionaire’s tax predict that it will raise $100 billion, of which 90% would be allocated to public health services. The remaining 10% would go toward education and food assistance programs.

Public health services in California include coverage for costly transgender operations and treatments. The California Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal, requires coverage of this and prohibits any discrimination based on transgender issues.

Billionaires are donating money to try to defeat this ballot measure in California, and usually the side that spends the most is the side that prevails. Already $35 million has been pledged or donated by billionaires against this.

But the retroactive effect of this billionaire tax is designed to prevent anyone from escaping its bite by moving shortly before or after the election. Someone worth $10 billion would be taking a $500 million risk by staying in California while hoping to defeat this ballot measure by popular vote.

It appears that many Big Tech billionaires are not big fans of direct democracy after all. Common expressions like “the people have spoken” or “pro-democracy” are not how they really feel when it comes to holding onto their own wealth, which in most cases is from gains in the stock market during deficit-spending by the federal government.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who aspires to become the people’s president, is against this billionaire’s tax. It does not look like Bernie Sanders or most progressives will be endorsing Newsom in light of his position.

A permanent national income tax did not exist until the 16th Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1913. As with proposals for a wealth tax, the original federal income tax was imposed only on the richest Americans, but then inevitably expanded to tax most workers.

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 PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.

Most Significant American Women

Newsmax has posted a List of the Most Significant Women in U.S. History, including:

Phyllis Schlafly (Aug. 15, 1924 – Sept. 5, 2016):

Schlafly was a prominent conservative activist, attorney, author, and political activist. She became one of the most influential figures in modern U.S. conservatism, especially for her successful grassroots campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.

Schlafly argued it would eliminate protections for women (like military draft exemptions, alimony preferences, and Social Security benefits for dependent wives) and force unwanted changes. The ERA fell short of the required state ratifications by 1982, largely due to her efforts.

Schlafly founded the Eagle Forum in 1972, a conservative organization focused on "pro-family" issues. She opposed feminism, abortion, gay rights, and comprehensive sex education, arguing for traditional gender roles and "family values."

Progress on Returning Refugees

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

A bright spot in immigration policy, the issue on which President Trump polls the best, is the progress being made toward removing unwanted refugees from our country. On Monday Trump won the second of two court victories in March in favor of his policy to roll back Democrat practices to import massive numbers of refugees from the third world.

Ten days after taking office, President Trump ended the misuse of the refugee program by issuing Executive Order No. 14163, “Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions Program.” Biden had brought in more than 100,000 so-called refugees in fiscal year 2024, which was the highest level in 30 years.

Trump has properly sought to revoke the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) of whole communities of Haitians and Syrians who were brought into our country under the fiction that they were being politically persecuted back home. Haitians famously settled mostly in Springfield and Columbus, Ohio, totaling about 350,000 people nationwide, and Trump won the election by campaigning on sending them and other mislabeled refugees back home.

Haiti is a poor country victimized by crime, but has strict gun control that impedes the ability of law-abiding residents to defend themselves, and no death penalty to deter murder. Visitors who have valid U.S. gun permits are not allowed to carry their arms in self-defense in Haiti.

As to Syria, the Biden Administration and liberals supported the toppling of the Syrian regime in December 2024 while Biden was still president. The theory that allowed thousands of Syrians to remain in our country as refugees from the former Assad regime no longer applies, and it’s time for them to go home.

Yet lower federal courts in liberal New York, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., have stymied the Trump Administration’s revocation of the “temporary” status that Biden conferred, in order to prevent Trump from sending refugees back home. Trump’s phenomenal Solicitor General, John Sauer, applied for emergency relief with the U.S. Supreme Court to stay two of these lower court decisions against Trump, and the Ninth Circuit ruled directly for Trump in the third case.

On Monday, the Supreme Court mostly granted Trump’s requested relief, by scheduling oral argument on this issue by late April and thereby signaling that a full decision will be rendered by the end of June. While the Court did not authorize the immediate removal of these refugees, it appears that their return will become possible by summer.

Earlier this month, in Pacito v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit held in favor of Trump’s Executive Order that halted the flow of so-called refugees into our country. That court recognized the nearly unlimited authority granted by Congress to the President to halt this misguided program.

More good news came from the First Circuit concerning the deportation of illegal aliens. Two of the three judges on the panel, including a Republican and a Democrat-appointed judge, ruled that Trump may be allowed to deport an illegal alien to a third country if his homeland refuses to accept him.

As a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explained in response, “the Biden Administration allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our country, and the Trump Administration has the authority to remove these criminal illegal aliens and clean up this national security nightmare.”

The DHS spokesman said that if “activist judges had their way, aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers, would walk free on American streets.”

Last year Trump prevailed on this issue in the U.S. Supreme Court, but then the district judge said the facts had changed and continued to block Trump’s deportations to third countries. The district judge wanted a process by which the illegal alien would have a “meaningful opportunity” to object to being deported to another country after his homeland rejects his return.

But the ongoing campaign of deporting illegals has slowed, and there are reports that someone in the White House has told Republicans not to use the phrase “mass deportation.” Other than a few reposts on his X account, White House Border Czar Tom Homan has been quiet for several weeks now.

The self-deportation campaign, by which DHS was paying illegal aliens $2,600 each to voluntarily leave through the use of a government phone app, depends on involuntary deportations to be effective. A total of 2.2 million people had self-deported through January of this year, and Democrats were furious about an ad campaign encouraging more illegal aliens to self-deport.

Democrats view illegal aliens as their future voters, as many Somalis have become in Minnesota after obtaining citizenship. Realistically, this is the last opportunity to deport illegals, while Republicans control all branches of the federal government and public opinion strongly favors border control.

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 PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.

SAVE Act Lifted by Paxton-Cornyn Race

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

The tight GOP primary for U.S. Senate in Texas has suddenly cast the SAVE Act into the spotlight, and Trump vows not to sign any other legislation into law until this passes. The SAVE Act is short for Save America Act, and its longer name before that was the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

The SAVE Act would require U.S. citizenship to register to vote, and presentation of photo ID in order to cast a ballot. The House narrowly passed the SAVE Act in early February: Republicans unanimously voted for it, plus one Democrat from Texas (Henry Cuellar).

Last Tuesday, Ken Paxton came within 2 percentage points of incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), despite how Cornyn’s candidacy was propped up with $70 million in spending. They proceed next to a runoff on May 26 where traditionally the more conservative candidate, who is Paxton, would prevail.

Senate Republicans, favoring their own, have been lobbying Trump to endorse Cornyn. Trump said that the candidate he declines to endorse should exit the race.

But Paxton then pulled a rabbit out of his hat last week by promising to withdraw only if the Senate Republicans pass the SAVE Act, which they can do by ending or modifying the traditional filibuster. Paxton was right in expecting Trump to make the SAVE Act more important than the Texas race.

Trump subsequently stated not only that he wants the SAVE Act enacted, but that he wants more provisions added to it. He wants the law to prohibit transgender surgeries on children, and to ban participation in women’s sports by men who say they are transgender women.

Trump also properly demands an end to mail-in ballots, with reasonable exceptions for illness, disability, service in the military, and travel. Mail-in balloting is particularly vulnerable to fraud, as found by the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, which was co-chaired by former Democrat President Jimmy Carter.

Republican congressmen rarely lose in their own primary, and senators even less so. The only Republican incumbent congressman defeated last week in his own primary was Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), who had falsely accused Trump of contributing to the death of a Capitol Police officer on January 6, 2021.

A combat veteran who lost an eye serving our country, Crenshaw had posed as an independent-minded Republican like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) a generation ago. Crenshaw even appeared once on Saturday Night Live, and was considered by many to be unbeatable.

Yet the more conservative state legislator Steve Toth defeated Crenshaw last Tuesday by a stunning 15-point upset, in what he said was a battle for the future of the Republican Party. President Trump stayed out of the race and did not endorse either candidate.

Trump racked up a perfect 124-0 record last week when he did endorse, of which he reminded House members at their meeting in Doral, Florida. Trump does not want to endorse a candidate who is likely to be defeated, or who is not strongly MAGA.

Cornyn’s lackluster performance after spending more than $100 per vote – and more than ten times what Paxton spent – may be weighing on Trump’s decision. A selling point for choosing Cornyn over Paxton is that Cornyn would supposedly fare better against the Democrat nominee this fall, but recent polling is not showing Cornyn with any significant advantage.

Indeed, a Newsweek poll released on Tuesday showed Paxton leading Cornyn by 44-43% in the runoff, even if Trump endorses Cornyn. A Texas Politics Project poll last month showed that Paxton has a stronger net favorability among GOP-registered voters than Cornyn has.

For an incumbent to fare so poorly in his own primary is reminiscent of President Lyndon B. Johnson barely winning the first 1968 Democrat presidential primary in New Hampshire, and then pulling out of the race as a result. Given that the immense power of incumbency and an enormous monetary advantage were unable to make Cornyn a clear winner in his own primary, his candidacy has weaknesses.

Frustration with Congress is growing. Senate Republicans have refused to move on the SAVE Act because of the filibuster rule that requires 60 votes in order to end debate and enact it.

The U.S. Senate has been called the world’s most exclusive club, and collegiality among the 100 senators is legendary as they allow a single member to block nominations, and merely 41 senators can prevent a vote on legislation. Senators also favor their own as nominees to other offices.

Senate Republicans persuaded Trump to appoint fellow Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) to become the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in replacement of Kristi Noem. Days have gone by without any comment by conservative Tom Homan, who is in charge of deportations, on the selection of Mullin as his new colleague.

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 PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.

Shooting, Stabbing, and Wrong-Way Trucking

The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly

Within 24 hours of U.S. military action against Iran, a 53-year-old Muslim from Senegal allegedly shot up a bar early Sunday morning in Austin, Texas. Three were killed and more than a dozen were wounded, some critically.

Nearly two-thirds of public shootings are perpetrated by gunmen under the age of 40, so the age and timing of this massacre suggest an uncommon motive. It seems likely that this massacre was in response to developments in the Middle East, but the FBI says that it is embarking on an extensive investigation and refuses to release any information about the shooter’s motive.

The suspected assailant, Ndiaga Diagne, never entered the bar, but instead shot into it from outside. Students from the nearby University of Texas, which is one of the largest colleges in our country, had filled the bar to enjoy some weekend socializing in Austin’s entertainment district.

President Bill Clinton admitted this suspect into our country as a tourist on a B-2 visa in 2000, and then President Obama naturalized him as a citizen despite how he had multiple arrests. The reasons for those arrests remain sealed, but local authorities vow to release details about them later this week.

Ndiaga Diagne continued shooting into the bar until he was gunned down and killed by police, within one minute of their being called. The bloodshed would have been far worse in the absence of the remarkably quick and decisive action taken by the police.

Meanwhile, the State Department urged Americans to immediately leave Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, UAE, the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, and even Israel. But Obama and Biden had a virtually open-border policy for the U.S. for twelve years, allowing many enemies to enter freely and remain without being deported.

This horrifying shooting in Austin transpired during the final weekend before election day in the Texas primary on Tuesday, with the potential to rattle hotly contested races. Republican candidates were quick to condemn the prior immigration policies of Democrat presidents that have led to this.

Casualties continue to climb from other violent attacks on defenseless American citizens by foreigners here from hostile nations. Abdul Jalloh, a 32-year-old native of Sierra Leone, viciously stabbed Stephanie Minter, 41, to death in her neck as she stood at a bus stop at 7pm in Fairfax County, Virginia, on February 23, 2026.

Jalloh illegally entered the United States in 2012, and had an immigration detainer and a final order of removal pending against him. Because of judicial interference with deportations to Sierra Leona, Jalloh was scheduled to be lawfully deported to another third-world country.

Jalloh had previously been arrested more than 30 times. The murder charge should finally keep him off the streets, but to be sure ICE has called “on Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger and Virginia’s sanctuary politicians to commit to not releasing this murderer and violent career criminal from their jail without notifying ICE.”

Jalloh’s arrest record included being charged with “rape, malicious wounding, assault, drug possession, identity theft, trespassing, larceny, firing a weapon, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and pickpocketing,” reported the New York Post.

Yet despite all this crime, Democrat-controlled Fairfax County failed to detain Jalloh to protect the public. Like other sanctuary jurisdictions, wealthy Fairfax refuses to notify ICE before it releases violent illegal aliens in custody, in order to deliberately prevent ICE from deporting them.

The obituary for the victim Stephanie Minter said that “Stephanie will be sorely and dearly missed, with the world missing out on that beam of light we came to know so well.” She is survived by her son and her mother.

Meanwhile, an 18-wheel tractor-trailer was spotted driving the wrong way on a highway near Troy, Missouri. An alarmed observer, who had to swerve to narrowly avert a head-on collision, then filmed this and contacted police, who arrived and asked the driver some basic questions about English as it appears on road signs.

The wrong-way driver was unable to demonstrate English proficiency to the Missouri officer. Wrong-way driving is inevitable by someone who cannot understand our highway road signs. This driver was Abdiasis Ibrahim Ali from Minnesota, who is thought to be from Somalia.

When Minnesota issues a commercial driver’s license that authorizes the driving of big trucks without understanding English, it jeopardizes the safety of everyone nationwide. Fortunately, the Missouri police did not allow this driver to continue behind the wheel of this truck, but he was not arrested either.

Illinois, another state controlled by Democrats, has illegally issued one out of every five of its commercial driver’s licenses, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. A bill to punish truckers who cannot understand basic road signs, HB 2741, is moving through the Missouri legislature.

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 PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.