Template:Mainpageleft
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
States Are Rejecting a ‘Horrible Idea’
by John and Andy Schlafly
February 28, 2017
Most state legislatures are now in regular session for a limited number of days, and there’s no shortage of important work to be done at the state level. Yet many state legislatures are wasting precious time on a scheme to change the U.S. Constitution by calling for a national convention.
Although it is theoretically allowed by Article V of our Constitution, a convention for proposing constitutional amendments has never been held, and there is no precedent to guide how it might work. That hasn’t stopped a small group of wealthy donors from spending an estimated ten million dollars on a path that would throw our Nation into a constitutional crisis.
Justice Antonin Scalia called it a “horrible idea” during the year before his untimely death. “This is not a good century to write a constitution,” Scalia warned in 2015, after spending 30 years defending our original Constitution on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Of the first eight state legislatures to consider the idea this year, all eight have rejected it. These states are Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
But the convention remains very much alive in Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott has made it an emergency item in the current legislative session. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who controls the agenda in the state senate, is also demanding its passage.
In Texas, where most elected officials are Republicans, the state Republican Party is on record favoring a national convention to amend the U.S. Constitution. That’s directly contrary to the Republican National Platform, after the national platform committee rejected a similar proposal by a nearly unanimous vote last summer in Cleveland.
Arizona would be the ninth state to reject the convention this year, if the state senate stands by its vote of 13-17 last Wednesday, February 22, to reject the Convention of States bill. But that legislation, HCR2010, continues to be pushed hard behind the scenes, and it could be revived due to a motion for reconsideration.
The campaign for a convention masquerades under the misleading slogan Convention of States, which falsely implies that states can exert some measure of control over the agenda, rules, or apportionment of a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution. In fact, all such powers are reserved to Congress or to the convention itself.
Rex Lee, the legendary Solicitor General under President Ronald Reagan, wrote that there’s no way to limit the scope of a constitutional convention to the single issue or issues stipulated by those who advocate it. Anyone who guarantees such a limited convention, Rex Lee added, “is either deluded or deluding.”
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger also warned against the false hope that an Article V convention can be limited. “The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda,” Burger wrote. “After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”
In Utah, a Republican state senator who voted against the convention observed: “Even if we change the wording, unless we get people back there who are really committed to constitutional principles, we’ll have the same problem no matter what we do.” A Democratic state senator who also voted against the Convention of States added, “When you begin replacing Madison and Jefferson and Hamilton ... you’re going to need a lot of help.”
As Phyllis Schlafly once remarked, “Alas, I don’t see any George Washingtons, James Madisons, Ben Franklins, or Alexander Hamiltons around who could do as good a job as the Founding Fathers — and I’m worried about the men who think they can.” She is credited with defeating the push for a constitutional convention in the 1980s, and she considered those efforts to be as important as defeating the Equal Rights Amendment a decade earlier.
The Constitution says that only Congress may “call” a constitutional convention, so it would not be a “convention of states” but rather would be convened (called) under the direction of power-brokers in Washington, D.C. Congress or the Supreme Court would require the convention to be apportioned by population, which means big liberal states like California and New York would have greater power than most conservative states.
The Constitution itself has never been the problem, and changing it is not the solution. A constitutional convention would attempt to repeal or dilute the Second Amendment right to bear arms, eliminate the Electoral College, require tax-funded abortion, eliminate restrictions on immigration, and dilute the definition of citizenship.
The original Constitutional Convention of 1787 had three essential conditions: complete secrecy from the media, participants who fought in the American Revolution against tyranny, and George Washington presiding. None of those necessary conditions exist today.
John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) whose 27th book, The Conservative Case for Trump, was published posthumously on September 6.
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
New Deportation Policies Advance Trump’s Agenda
by John Schlafly and Andy Schlafly
February 21, 2017
John F. Kelly, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, has launched Trump’s immigration agenda with a pair of memos officially released on Tuesday. These documents demonstrate how serious President Trump is in halting illegal immigration.
Contrary to the liberal hysteria sparked by these memos, they outline in measured tone the sensible steps to be taken to deport illegal aliens who are dangerous to our citizenry. The era of “big immigration” is officially over.
A six-page memo entitled “Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest” is followed by its thirteen-page counterpart, “Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies.” Signed by Secretary Kelly, these formal documents lay the blueprint for rolling back the harmful immigration policies of the Obama Administration and firmly establishing much-needed national security for Americans.
The number of illegals deported by the Obama Administration in 2015 was the lowest amount in a decade, as merely 333,000 criminals were sent back home. That was down more than 20% from the number of deportations a few years earlier.
It was for political reasons that Obama cut back on deportations, in order to appease the liberal base who view illegals as future Democratic voters. Trump’s new guidelines do not change the law, but merely enforce immigration statutes that Obama refused to.
Secretary Kelly expands deportation to include illegal aliens who have been charged with the commission of a crime regardless of whether they have been convicted. If someone is in this country illegally, then that by itself is contrary to our laws, and our overburdened criminal justice system should not have to obtain a conviction against him before he is sent back to where he came from.
Often persons charged with crimes are out committing more crimes before they are convicted, as convictions can take many months or years to obtain. Also, taxpayers should not have to fund criminal defense attorneys to represent illegal aliens in our court system.
Sometimes wrongful acts are committed by illegal aliens that do not result in criminal charges, such as obtaining money by fraudulent means. These illegals should also be deported, and Trump’s new policy allows for that. ... click here to read this full column
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
Judges Join the ‘Resistance’
by John and Andy Schlafly
February 14, 2017
Judge Leonie Brinkema of Alexandria, Virginia has become the latest federal judge to join the “resistance” to Donald Trump. She joins Judge James Robart of Seattle, whose political decisionruling against Trump was upheld by three judges of the Ninth Circuit.
Resistance has become the rallying cry for those who failed to defeat Trump at the ballot box last year. The well-funded Center for American Progress, which employs people connected with Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, said it hoped to be “the central hub of the Trump resistance.”
Resistance to Trump began on November 9, the day after the election, when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threatened to “see him in court” where it promised to unleash its “full firepower” to stop Trump. Resistance is the theme of the anarchists who sparked violent protests against Trump, including smashed windows and fires, from Berkeley, California to Washington, D.C.
Like Judge Robart before her, Judge Brinkema did not bother to cite any relevant law that supports her opinion against Trump's executive order being carried out. Instead, her opinion complained that campaign speeches by Trump and one of his surrogates, Rudolph Giuliani, revealed the President’s “religious prejudice” against Muslims.
Both judges falsely claimed there’s no “evidence” that suspending travel from 7 Muslim countries would protect Americans from terrorism, and Judge Robart even said that no visitor or refugee from any of the 7 countries had ever been arrested for terrorism. In fact, 72 individuals from those 7 countries have been convicted of terror-related crimes since September 11, 2001. ... click here to read this full column
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
Trump versus the Judge
by John Schlafly and Andy Schlafly
February 7, 2017
Donald Trump won the presidency fair and square, but there’s a well-funded movement to resist his victory and defy the new president’s authority over the executive branch of our government. Now one federal judge, who sits nearly 3,000 miles away in the “other” Washington, has raised the stakes by ordering federal bureaucrats to disobey a lawful order by President Trump.
Judge James L. Robart’s reckless ruling shocked legal scholars because in so many previous decisions, courts have recognized the president’s power to keep aliens out of the United States. If taken literally, the judge’s ruling gives everyone in the world the right to sue in our courts for the right to enter and remain in our country.
“Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril,” Trump tweeted from Mar-a-Lago. “If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”
A few minutes later, he tweeted again: “I have instructed Homeland Security to check people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. The courts are making the job very difficult!”
It should should be obvious that we need to pause the admission of refugees and others from known terror havens, and Donald Trump was elected on a promise to institute a temporary ban followed by “extreme vetting” of future visitors. The American people are entitled to get what we voted for.
Orlando, San Bernardino, and Chattanooga are just a few of our cities scarred by atrocities committed by refugees or aliens from known hotbeds of terrorism, or by their spouses or children who grew up among us. The bombers of the Boston Marathon were sons of refugees, and the recent attack at Ohio State University was committed by an 18-year-old refugee from Somalia.
“What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?” read another Trump tweet. “When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security - big trouble!” ... click here to read this full column
THE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY REPORT
Trump Ejects Obama Holdover
by John and Andy Schlafly
January 31, 2017
Last Friday was Donald Trump’s seventh full day as President, but there was no time to rest. At 4:42 p.m., just as many federal bureaucrats were starting the weekend, Trump signed executive orders that carry out his pledge to temporarily restrict travel from Muslim terrorist nations, including Syria and Somalia, until we come up with a better way to identify those who would do us harm.
Under the new policy, the privilege of visiting the United States would be suspended for 90 days for citizens of 7 of the most dangerous Muslim nations. Refugee admissions would be suspended for 120 days, and Syrian refugees would be suspended indefinitely.
“We’ve taken in tens of thousands of people,” Trump said. “We know nothing about them. How can you vet somebody when you don’t know anything about them and they have no papers?”
“We have enough problems,” Trump continued. “I am going to be the president of a safe country.”
Over the weekend, thousands of apparently organized protesters disrupted airports and delayed travelers around the country, while ACLU lawyers rushed papers before Obama-appointed judges. More Americans were inconvenienced by the protesters than the handful of foreign visitors who were briefly detained by U.S. customs and immigration officials.
On Sunday Chuck Schumer, the new Senate minority leader, cried crocodile tears as he denounced “this evil order.” As President Trump commented to laughter from the media, “There’s a 5 percent chance they’re real. I think they were fake tears.” ... click here to read this full column
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.” ... click here to read this full column
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. ... click here to read this full column
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
