Template:Mainpageleft
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
The Darkness of the Women’s March
by John and Andy Schlafly
January 24, 2017
President Trump’s inaugural address was well received by the people who voted for him, but the media reacted with predictable hostility as the plain-spoken non-politician repeated the themes he used so successfully during the campaign. Newspapers called the speech dark, a word that was repeated by almost every reporter.
Trump was certainly blunt about the challenges facing our country, but his address was sweetness and light compared to the truly dark rhetoric of those who demonstrated in Washington the following day. It was billed as the “Women’s March” on Washington, but it featured every kooky cause you ever heard of (and several you probably haven’t).
Speakers at the “Women’s March” were consumed with the grievances of those who think they are oppressed by institutional prejudice. They were obsessed with the rights of illegal immigrants, Black Lives Matter, Muslims, refugees, and unusual sexual preferences.
Abortion was repeatedly celebrated at the march, which was co-sponsored by Planned Parenthood. Most speakers used the euphemism “reproductive rights,” although one speaker, Kierra Johnson, said “I am unapologetically abortion positive.”
A speaker named America Ferrera announced, “As a first-generation American born to Honduran immigrants, it has been a heart wrenching time to be a woman in this country. Our rights have been under attack. Our freedom is on the chopping block for the next four years.” Doesn’t Ms. Ferrera realize how fortunate she is to be a woman born in the United States, instead of Honduras?
Muriel Bowser, the self-proclaimed “chick mayor” of Washington, D.C., “soon to be the 51st state” (not!), said: “Mayors have to stand up for immigration rights, for reproductive rights, for LGBTQ rights. We have to stand up to fight climate change from the mayor’s office.”
The next speaker, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, seemed out of place as he told the mostly female audience to “call Congress on Monday and tell your Senators we do not accept Betsy DeVos as our Secretary of Education.” Conservative women were not welcome at the Women’s March.
Actress Ashley Judd kept repeating “I’m a nasty woman” among other vulgar chants. “I feel Hitler in these streets,” she continued, as she raged against “racism, homophobia, trans-phobia, misogyny, and white privilege.”
Zahra Billoo, speaking on behalf of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said: “I am an American Muslim woman, a daughter of immigrants, a person of color, a community organizer, and a civil rights lawyer. I am proud to be among Donald Trump’s worst nightmares.”
She went on: “Our liberation is interconnected. When Muslims are harassed by the FBI, when our LGBTQ friends are attacked in hate crimes, when our black brothers and sisters are gunned down by police officers, when what is left of native land continues to be stolen, and when undocumented individuals among us are targeted, we all hurt. But we are also fired up.”
The next speaker was Janet Mock, who proclaimed: “I stand here as someone who has written herself onto this stage to unapologetically proclaim that I am a trans woman-writer-activist-revolutionary of color.” Janet Mock, it turns out, used to be Charles Mock before he had surgery in Thailand to mutilate his male anatomy.
By her own account, Janet Mock’s Siamese surgery was financed with money that Charles had earned as a teenage prostitute, or as Janet now says, a “sex worker.” Do American women really have something to learn from that bizarre experience?
“Our approach to freedom must be intersectional,” Mock continued. “My liberation is directly linked to the liberation of the undocumented trans Latina yearning for refuge, the disabled student seeking unequivocal access, the sex worker fighting to make her living safely.”
Mock was referring to the trendy doctrine of intersectional feminism, which defines the feminist movement within a general theory that all minority groups are victims of oppression by white men. That explains why 82-year-old Gloria Steinem was almost the only non-minority on the program.
Signs proclaimed “refugees welcome” and many speakers referred to them. Why refugees at a women’s march? These things don’t happen by accident: a tax-funded refugee contractor helped sponsor the march.
“If you are coming to the March, join our HIAS delegation and speak out in support of refugees. HIAS will provide signs and stickers,” according to the website of an organization that receives more than half of its income from U.S. taxpayers.
Other tax-funded agencies were there, too. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards organized a mass call-in to members of Congress to keep the funds flowing to her organization from which she draws a salary of well over $500,000 a year.
One demonstrator, who apparently didn’t get the memo about intersectional grievances, carried a homemade sign that read: “Women are foolish to think they are equal to men. They are far superior.”
Yes, women are superior to men in some ways, because only they can bring us the future by bearing children. But to make that future a brighter one requires defense of motherhood, something that a real women’s march (the March for Life) does this Friday.
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
The Hazing of the President
by John and Andy Schlafly
January 17, 2017
A new president is supposed to enjoy a “honeymoon” of good will and support from the press and public after he assumes the office once held by George Washington. But Donald Trump and his Cabinet nominees are receiving what can only be described as a hazing without precedent in recent American history.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), a member of Congress for more than 30 years, has received inordinate attention for his irresponsible declaration that “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.” We’re told he’s a “civil rights icon,” but in his 30 years in Congress John Lewis cast more than 100 votes against legislation to protect the civil rights of unborn children.
Lewis is one of more than 38 Democratic Congressmen who announced their intention to boycott the presidential inauguration this year. Their boycott has been joined by an assortment of celebrities from Hollywood and the music industry, such as Elton John and Celine Dion, who declined invitations to perform at inaugural-related events.
One of the boycotters is the Italian opera singer Andrea Bocelli, who decided not to perform at Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony after “Boycott Bocelli” appeared up on social media and the blind tenor decided he was “getting too much heat.” Trump, who once hosted an evening with Bocelli at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, said, “It’s sad people on the left kept him from performing on a historic day.”
Another singing star, Jennifer Holliday, reneged on her commitment to perform, saying: “I sincerely apologize for my lapse of judgment and for causing such dismay and heartbreak to my fans.” She and her family reported receiving anonymous death threats from fans feigning outrage that she would use her talent to honor our new president.
Another no-show is the singer Beyoncé Knowles, who was caught lip-syncing “The Star Spangled Banner” to pre-recorded accompaniment at the last presidential inauguration in 2013. Beyoncé’s faked performance was a closely guarded secret until someone noticed that the superb musicians in the U.S. Marine Band were merely pretending to play their instruments while the band’s director, Col. Michael Colburn, was energetically pretending to conduct them.
An anti-Trump boycott was declared against the L.L. Bean catalog store merely because Linda Bean, a granddaughter of the founder and one of 50 family members who co-own the company, had supported Trump. Linda Bean courageously protested the “bullying” campaign against her which would injure the company’s 9,000 employees.
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
Obamacare Repeal Is on the Way
by John and Andy Schlafly
January 10, 2017
As soon as the newly elected 115th Congress was gaveled to order last week, both houses got to work on the long-promised effort to “repeal and replace” the failed legislation known as Obamacare. The Senate, with its more cumbersome rules, began 50 hours of debate on a budget resolution that will eventually repeal much of the law by reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority of 51 Senators.
In the House, “replace” was launched with a bill endorsed by the 170-member Republican Study Committee, which is by far the largest caucus in the chamber. In introducing the bill, RSC chairman Mark Walker and lead sponsor Dr. Phil Roe stressed their intention to protect the small number of Americans who currently benefit from Obamacare, while improving the system for the much larger number who have been harmed.
Only about 16 million Americans (5% of our population) directly benefit from Obamacare. That number includes 12 million covered by Medicaid expansion plus 11 million who bought insurance on the exchanges, minus 7 million of those who previously had insurance.
Another estimate by the American Action Forum puts the number of Obamacare beneficiaries at only 13-14 million people, which is just 4% of the population. On the other hand, about 8 million Americans have been hit with fines for refusing to buy an inferior product. click here to read this full column
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
Stay Engaged: The Battle Resumes on Jan. 20
by John and Andy Schlafly
January 3, 2017
As soon as the election results sank in, sleepy federal bureaucrats woke up and shifted into high gear, furiously finalizing regulations that could be issued before President Obama leaves office. According to The New York Times, President Obama “is using every power at his disposal to cement his legacy and establish his priorities as the law of the land,” and the new rules are “intended to set up as many policy and ideological roadblocks as possible before Mr. Trump takes his oath of office on Jan. 20.”
Some of these last-minute regulations can be revoked by President Trump on his first day in office. Others can be overturned by Congress under the Congressional Review Act, a process that requires only 51 Senate votes if the Senate acts within 60 legislative days after the rules were published.
Washington’s permanent governing class is also preparing to fight the new president in every possible way. Ground zero of the opposition is the Center for American Progress (CAP), which employs hundreds of staffers and enjoys a budget of $50 million. ... click here to read this full column
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
Trump, the Great Communicator on Twitter
by John and Andy Schlafly
December 27, 2016
How did it happen that a man we were told could not possibly be nominated, let alone elected, is about to take the oath of office as the 45th president of the United States?
Part of the reason is that Donald Trump spoke to a set of hot-button issues (immigration and trade) that no other Republican was willing to touch, and those issues resonated with thousands of Americans who had previously voted for Obama. But even with the right issues and a brilliant slogan, “Make America Great Again,” Donald Trump still had to bypass the mainstream media in order to speak directly to the American people, as Ronald Reagan did a generation earlier.
For the benefit of Americans too young to remember, Reagan was called the “Great Communicator” because he effectively used television to connect directly with voters. Reagan frequently won people over with a folksy story or a perfectly timed joke, like the way he deflected a hostile question about his age during the final presidential debate by leaving everyone, even his opponent, in congenial uproarious laughter.
Having grown up in the construction industry, Trump uses a blunt and caustic style that is the direct opposite of Reagan’s affable avuncularity. But Trump has mastered the art of the tweet, sending out very short messages on Twitter, which provides an effective way to connect directly with the public. ... click here to read this full column
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
How Obama Stole Christmas
by John and Andy Schlafly
December 20, 2016
The Trump transition team is working on its first package of executive actions, including steps to rescind or revoke numerous improper executive actions by President Obama. Here are two federal regulations and further actions that Trump should take care of in his first day on the job as president.
The liberal “war on Christmas” is a recurring feature of the holiday season, but this year a federal regulation is being blamed for continuing that unhappy trend. At a senior living center called Mercy Village in Joplin, Missouri, residents were told they are forbidden to put traditional Christmas decorations in any of the common areas.
Mercy Village is owned by Denver-based Mercy Housing Inc., which receives federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Mercy’s management claimed that it was merely enforcing a HUD regulation that prohibits “discrimination” by housing providers on the basis of religion.
...
Another regulation due for prompt revocation by the new administration is a last-minute rule to prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood. This new rule became final on December 19 following an unusually short 30-day comment period, and is set to take effect on January 18, just two days before the President Trump will be inaugurated.
...
Perhaps the most influential action that the incoming President Trump could take on his first day of office would be simply to withdraw the appeal by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) of a splendid decision that declared illegal the taxpayer subsidies of Obamacare on the health insurance exchanges. If Trump merely withdraws the appeal of U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, which is as easy as filing a one-page document with the court, the subsidies would cease and the Obamacare health exchanges would mercifully collapse.
...
Amid the holiday merry-making and revelry, which as Shakespeare observed 400 years ago “is a custom more honor’d in the breach than the observance,” we should remember the whole point of Christmas is the birth of a child. click here to read this full column
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
Could Hillary Hijack the Electoral College?
December 13, 2016
by John and Andy Schlafly
Remember when the liberals demanded that Donald Trump swear to accept the outcome of the presidential election? That was two months ago, when they were sure Trump would lose in a landslide.
Now many of the same people are chanting that Trump is "not my president." In the days following the November election, thousands of anarchists participated in often violent protests in places like Oakland, California and Portland, Oregon, setting fire to police cars, smashing plate glass windows, and waving Mexican flags to express their contempt for the will of the American people.
Remember when the liberals complained that the Electoral College is undemocratic and should be abolished? That was one month ago, after Trump won all the battleground states and extended his sweep to four states that Republicans haven't carried since Ronald Reagan's time.
Now many of these same people are demanding that presidential electors assert more power than our Constitution gives them. They want the Electoral College to "deliberate" over who should be the next president. ... click here to read the rest of this column
