The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Phyllis Schlafly: Godmother of America First
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Anti-patriot hatred never rests. Hollywood has launched a new character assassination vehicle targeting the late great Phyllis Schlafly. “Mrs. America” debuts on FX on Hulu this week with liberal actress Cate Blanchett starring as the traditionalist Catholic conservative activist who defeated the so-called Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and went on to helm the influential Eagle Forum until her death at 92 in 2016.

Blanchett, who also served as executive producer on the project, denies any bias against Schlafly and points to the entire movie staff’s refusal to speak with any of her family members as proof of its neutrality. But blocking input from those who knew the phenomenal matriarch, lawyer and author of more than 20 books conveniently allowed the Tinseltown fable-tellers to fabricate calumnious scenes out of thin air — including a fantastical depiction of Schlafly’s devoted husband, Fred, forcing the female conservative icon to have sex against her will.

With the couple both deceased and family members unable to defend their marriage of 44 years, nobody and nothing stood in the way of Blanchett and Co. disseminating a cunning lie crafted to cast conservative women as abused captives with no independent agency behind closed doors.

Anne Schlafly Cori, one of Schlafly’s six children and chair of the Eagle Forum, vigorously refuted Blanchett’s depiction of her mother in trailers released ahead of this Wednesday’s premiere. “Her acting is cold, cruel, and calculating,” she told Vanity Fair. “Phyllis Schlafly was warm and gracious and her beliefs were sincere. Women idolized Phyllis Schlafly.”

I can testify to this firsthand. As a young conservative writer in the early 1990s, the Phyllis Schalfly Report greatly influenced my views on education, feminism, multiculturalism and immigration. (For my first newspaper column photo at the Los Angeles Daily News, I even emulated her trademark bun.) I admired Schlafly’s intellect, vigilance, style, grace, prolific output and commitment to family. In my travels as a journalist, I met legions of women inspired by Schlafly to run for school board and local and statewide offices on behalf of their families, faith and nation.

Schlafly was as down-to-earth in person as her column voice and TV debates — and contrary to a Wall Street Journal movie reviewer’s attack on her “resentment” and “rage,” she was the quintessential happy warrior with a twinkle in her eyes. Far from the “lone wolf” portrayal of Schlafly in “Mrs. America,” Schlafly was constantly surrounded by old and new proteges and mentees. After publication of my first book, “Invasion,” in 2002, I was honored to receive an “Eagle Award” from Schlafly and the Eagle Forum for “articulate leadership in bringing the truth to the American people.” A plaque signed by Schlafly hangs in my home office. I am just one of thousands of conservative activists, volunteers, elected officials and media personalities who have received the honor since 1972.

The “Mrs. America” that nationalist conservatives celebrate was ahead of the curve on the issues that defined the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, whom she endorsed in March 2016. Long before “drain the swamp” became a MAGA meme, Schlafly had called out the “secret kingmakers” of the Republican establishment in her seminal book, “A Choice Not an Echo,” way back in 1964. Those East Coast power brokers and financiers propped up liberal GOP ciphers, she wrote, to “preserve their America Last foreign policy” and “foreign giveaways.” Today, the new generation of donor-class elites work in backrooms to serve the same “Open Borders Inc.” agenda — and many are embedded in the Trump White House undermining it from within while stabbing American students, workers and taxpayers in the back.

If Pat Buchanan is the godfather of “America First,” Phyllis Schlafly is its godmother. For decades, she relentlessly lambasted globalism, unfair trade deals and border anarchy — earning derision from both the establishment left and right in Washington (along with the smear merchants at the Southern Poverty Law Center) as being “racist,” anti-Semitic” and “bigoted.” Highlighting one of the Eagle Forum’s most important reports in 2014 on “How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party,” Schlafly called out the cheap foreign labor lobby suppressing American workers’ wages.

Importing 1 million new foreigners every year whose socialist and left-leaning voting patterns are stubbornly unmalleable, on top of the 20 million illegal immigrants constantly clamoring for amnesty, is a recipe for GOP suicide and American collapse. “Outreach” is futile, Schlafly warned, without “reducing the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year. If legal immigration is not reduced, it will be nearly impossible for conservatives to be successful on the issues we care about.”
ORDER IT NOW

As ever, Mrs. America’s fierce clarity is more relevant than ever as big business, big tech, big ag and big academia oppose the will of the people for an immigration moratorium in the age of the ChiCom virus. Hollywood has done the American First movement an invaluable favor by bringing renewed attention to the wisdom and patriotism of Phyllis Schlafly. It’s up to the rest of us to reclaim her true legacy — and fulfill it.

Michelle Malkin’s email address is [email protected]

Copyright 2020 Creators.com.

 
Hide 53 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Bingo, there’s another one.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column? If Mrs. Malkin has a case to make about viral provenance, then she should write it up and help inform the discussion, or at least source her bases.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @TheDude
    Sure Charlie Brown, I'll 'splain it....
    ...because, Mrs. America was a staunch advocate of immigration control; and, given the prevalence of infectious diseases, such as the Chicom virus, immigration control can help mitigate it's spread.
    That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

    Oh, and MM is DA BOMB.
    , @Curmudgeon

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column?
     
    Generally speaking, Pinoys don't like Chinese, or Tisoys that are Chinese.
    , @Bragadocious
    Oh you poor dear...do you need a safe space? Maybe some hot chocolate and pangolin tarte?
    , @Blinky Bill
    Michelle Malkin work is about as relevant as KONY 2012. People should read Ann Coulter instead at least she's a real American. Blonde too !!
    , @Tor597
    Michelle has a complex. Apparently she was picked on as a kid, so she compensates by trying to out American everyone else.

    15,000 + articles no one reads, this is basically Malkins personal therapy blog.

    I have no idea why Unz put her on the website. She is as conventional as they come. She only gets censored because people get tired of her or she gets caught trying to be edgy.
    , @Realist

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.
     
    Yes, the Deep State is a two sided coin...the left...Russia, Russia, Russia and the right China, China, China. Both are an existential threat to US world hegemony...so demonization of both is a win/win.
    , @browsepal
    Because it IS the ChiCom virus. Dumb fact-adverse proggie.
    , @getreal
    Wake up, pal:
    They are communists.
    They care nothing about human life.
    They oppress their own, Uighurs, Tibetans, and Christians.
    They hid the outbreak of the virus, cacncelling travel between Wuhan and other
    Chinee regions -- but had no problem letting intl travel continue betwee hubei and the rest of the world.
    And the Wuhan Flu did originate in their bioweapons lab.
  2. Yes, the left is full of shit…so why would any intelligent person go to their movies?

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon

    Yes, the left is full of shit
     
    What passes for the left, today, is full of shit.
    Were Cesar Chavez and his members full of shit, when they were catching and beating the crap out of illegal aliens before turning them over for deportation?
    Was the old AFL full of shit when it opposed immigration? Even after merger with the CIO, the organization strongly opposed illegal immigration.

    What passes for the left today, would have had the crap beaten out of them by the old trade unionists.
  3. points to the entire movie staff’s refusal to speak with any of her family members

    This is quite a contrast between the Hollywood treatment of the families of those chosen for sacralization.

  4. Well her legacy lives on no matter how much they smear her. Today if you attempt to pass the ERA amendment, everyone is aware of the potential consequences down the road. Sadly. many of those consequences she spoke about have already been enacted via the left’s agenda with the transgenders and gender neutralized feminists.

    But Schlafly fought like hell to try and stop it…

  5. I don’t know anything about Phyllis Schlafly, except that in the 80s, in the liberal circles I was in (as unaware of liberal bias like as a fish is of water), I heard her name occasionally as a stand-in for a quintessentially evil and laughable person. It was a name that would be like the punchline of a joke involving the most unenlightened, most contemptible right-wing person imaginable. Something like a KKK member or Adolf Hitler, only female, and midwestern, and therefore worthy of extra mockery.

    I’m happy to see someone defend her.

    • Agree: John Achterhof
    • Replies: @mark green
    I, too, am happy to see someone defend Ms. Schlafly. And thank you, Ms. Malkin.

    Evidence indicates that Phyllis Schlafly was a warm and wonderful woman. Unfortunately, she gets the kind of Hollywood takedown that is now reserved for traditional American heroes, from Christopher Columbus and Charles Lindbergh.

    Jewish 'heros' on the other hand (Harvey Milk, Elie Wiesel, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, etc) invariably get fawning and flattering treatment from Hollywood.

    Ms. Schlafly was an attorney, a writer, and a homemaker. That's commendable. Her son, Roger, is an accomplished author and physicist. Roger taught at the Univ. of Chicago. Here's a review of his controversial book, 'How Einstein Ruined Physics', which I reviewed for the Occidental Observer.

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/03/24/review-of-roger-schlaflys-how-einstein-ruined-physics/

  6. @anonymous
    Bingo, there’s another one.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column? If Mrs. Malkin has a case to make about viral provenance, then she should write it up and help inform the discussion, or at least source her bases.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    Sure Charlie Brown, I’ll ‘splain it….
    …because, Mrs. America was a staunch advocate of immigration control; and, given the prevalence of infectious diseases, such as the Chicom virus, immigration control can help mitigate it’s spread.
    That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

    Oh, and MM is DA BOMB.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Please don’t dissemble.

    Again, why do so many of the Right people go out of their way to scapegoat China? It’s just like playing the Putin card to fire up the gullible American sheep who think themselves “Progressive.”

    Divide & Conquer politics serve an Establishment that only cares about the American people to the extent necessary to keep enough around for voters, tax aphids, and cannon fodder. We see it domestically in squabbling over transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms. And this dempanic is being used to generate antipathy for an obstacle in the path of Washington, distracting people from their 96-0 Senate reaming to prop up the financialized economy.

    What has DA BOMB written about any of that?

  7. At the time I was struck by the fact that candidate Trump deep into his presidential campaign took the time to attend Phyllis’s funeral Mass.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    And so you voted for him?
  8. I wasn’t old enough at the time to understand completely what the ERA was about, other than an attempted culmination of a long feminist agenda to completely destroy traditional American society. Americans were smart enough still back in the 1970s to not fall for this one, or at least have enough courage to not mind being called names. Phyllis Schlafly was a shining example to decent Americans.

    The feminists lost that battle, but they won the war long ago. That doesn’t mean we can’t start another. At least don’t support the agenda by seeing this movie full of lies. I’ll give Steve Sailer a break on this, as he LUVS his Hollywood, but also he may see it to review it so we don’t have to see it. That’s the way we all handle it with the New York Times.

    R.I.P. Mrs. Schlafly.

    • Replies: @Franz

    The feminists lost that battle, but they won the war long ago.
     
    It's a matter of terrain. "Feminists" are actually man-wannabees and media, academy, and plutocrats agreed with them. Every person a paycheck, preferably paperless.

    In her 1964 opening shot, A Choice Not An Echo, Schlafly actually produced the first widely distributed and widely read reference to the Bilderbergers (although she misspelled it DeBilderberg, but slick for '64 anyway.) Her reference to "the Kingmakers" in that same work refers to the annointing of candidates of either party by a small clique of insiders is an early hint of what's now widely called the Deep State. She was way ahead of her time.

    A Choice Not An Echo is a distant but complementary kin to Tom Paine's revolutionary Common Sense. Self-pubished to bypass the gatekeepers, I still have an old 1964 copy, and it looks like it went through many hands before it got down to me. As it should be.

    But the underground status of much of her writings back then shows the problem, too: Working class gals, among lots of others, hated feminists in the 70s. Exactly like Phyllis in her first decade, they had no platform, program or major party muscle. No matter how good she might have been, Schlafly was largely obscure in her own nation. The gatekeepers saw to that.

    RIP good lady Phyllis. And nuts to those who slander the dead.
  9. @anonymous
    Bingo, there’s another one.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column? If Mrs. Malkin has a case to make about viral provenance, then she should write it up and help inform the discussion, or at least source her bases.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column?

    Generally speaking, Pinoys don’t like Chinese, or Tisoys that are Chinese.

  10. Mrs. Schlaffly (pbuh) was a great advocate for traditional wives and mothers.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman, Hail
    • Replies: @Agonistes
    Being a political activist is not in the remit of traditional wives and mothers; they leave that to the men.
  11. @Realist
    Yes, the left is full of shit...so why would any intelligent person go to their movies?

    Yes, the left is full of shit

    What passes for the left, today, is full of shit.
    Were Cesar Chavez and his members full of shit, when they were catching and beating the crap out of illegal aliens before turning them over for deportation?
    Was the old AFL full of shit when it opposed immigration? Even after merger with the CIO, the organization strongly opposed illegal immigration.

    What passes for the left today, would have had the crap beaten out of them by the old trade unionists.

    • Agree: animalogic, ivan
    • Replies: @Realist

    What passes for the left today, would have had the crap beaten out of them by the old trade unionists.
     
    You are probably correct.
  12. ***
    The vile Far Left / New CPUSA! Clown Posse just can’t help from trashing this good woman and her life spent actually advancing Women’s Rights and defending Our Country. If it weren’t for being low class–they wouldn’t have any class at all!
    ***
    Rocketman
    ***

    • Replies: @Joy
    Yes- she was a true feminist!
  13. @anonymous
    Bingo, there’s another one.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column? If Mrs. Malkin has a case to make about viral provenance, then she should write it up and help inform the discussion, or at least source her bases.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    Oh you poor dear…do you need a safe space? Maybe some hot chocolate and pangolin tarte?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    You’re the answer to my question.
  14. @anonymous
    Bingo, there’s another one.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column? If Mrs. Malkin has a case to make about viral provenance, then she should write it up and help inform the discussion, or at least source her bases.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    Michelle Malkin work is about as relevant as KONY 2012. People should read Ann Coulter instead at least she’s a real American. Blonde too !!

    • Agree: Tor597
    • Replies: @anon
    Your attitude makes enemies of all those people in the world that aren't white but might be on the side of whites because we all have a common(((enemy)). Even Hitler respected the Japanese and worked with them because he saw that they had similar systems tailored for different peoples. It's called respect at a distance.
  15. Great insights. You were both thinking outside the bun!

  16. Hail says: • Website

    A brief investigation into Phyllis’ life and ancestry. Possibly of interest to some, and for reference:

    PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
    – Born Phyllis McAlpin Stewart in 1924 in St. Louis, and raised there;
    1944: BA, Washington University (St. Louis); also earned a JD there in 1978;
    1945: MA, Radcliffe College;
    1946: Starts as a researcher at AEI in Washington DC and helps run a political campaign, but soon her active involvement in politics goes on hold for family life;
    Late 1940s: Returns to St. Louis and begins working for a bank there; she meets and marries (in 1949) John Fred Schlafly Jr. (1909–1993), “a member of a wealthy St. Louis family” (himself of partial mid-19th-century Swiss ancestry, which is the origin of the surname; this surname is today most frequent, in the form Schläfli, in the canton of Solothurn, which is historically moderately more Catholic than the Swiss norm; John Schlafly was, like Phyllis, a Catholic);
    1950 to 1964: Phyllis gives birth to six children and spends the 1950s and 1960s mainly focused on raising them;
    1960s and beyond: Plays a key role in the Rockefeller movement in 1964 and in keeping conservative pressure on Richard Nixon throughout the 1960s; but really rises to leadership and ‘stardom’ starting in 1972 (the year her youngest child turned 8, and oldest turned 22), at which time she begins her campaign to combat extreme Feminism, which she does in the 1970s with success. (Also note that she returned to school to get a JD by the mid-1970s, after her youngest was raised to about age 12). She remains active in politics thereafter as a conservative (but really a kind of nationalist), throughout her 50s, 60s, and past the death of her husband (1993) into her 70s and 80s, a long and admirable career;
    early 2016: Phyllis Schlafly endorses MAGA and the Donald Trump candidacy, effectively her final act in US politics (six months before her death) after an impressive seventy years, of which forty-five were something akin to full-time, following the raising of her family in the 1950s–60s.

    Comment: Any honest look at her bio and life-trajectory shows that this…

    [The new movie is] a cunning lie crafted to cast conservative women as abused captives with no independent agency behind closed doors.

    …is just a typical hit-job by Hollywood. Not that anyone should be surprised.

    ___________________

    Ancestry of Phyllis Schlafly

    Phyllis’ great-grandparents’ surnames [and places of origin] are:

    Stewart [Scotland];
    – ______ [Scotland];
    McGuire [Pennsylvania; Maryland ancestry]
    Christy [Pennsylvania; Maryland ancestry; partial Irish ancestry]
    Dodge [Illinois near St. Louis; recent-ancestry in NY and further in New England];
    Sherwood [Missouri; recent-ancestry in NY and SC];
    Layton [Missouri; distant Maryland ancestry];
    Pratte [Missouri].

    Further investigation, observations, and comments on each of these ancestral lines, and what they might tell us about Phyllis and where she was “coming from,” so to speak

    (TLDR: No recent-immigrant origin of any kind; ancestry mainly colonial-stock; ca. 65% Protestant ancestry overall; her Catholic connection is primarily through colonial Maryland, via several lines on both sides, along recent-maternal lines):

    [MORE]

    – Phyllis’ paternal ancestor, a Mr. Stewart, and his wife, arrived in the US in 1851 from Scotland. Their son, Phyllis’ grandfather, turned two that year and so had no knowledge of anywhere but the US.

    – The McGuire branch is of colonial stock and traces to colonial-era Maryland.

    – The Christy branch paternally is tied to Pennsylvania (where an ancestor’s name, Francis Xavier Christy [1794–1876], suggests a Catholic origin), but half of this branch traces to County Antrim, Ireland, via Maryland.

    – The greater portion of the Dodge branch is associated with the colony/state of New York back to the 18th century, and along some lines into the 17th century; it being New York, at least one Dutch name (Vanderbilt) does make an appearance. The Dodge patrilineal line itself traces to a ca.1670 arrival from England, and a few lines on this branch appear to date to the Puritan Great Migration era (before the mid-1640s), but there is also an association with the Rhode Island non-Puritans.

    – The Sherwood branch is ultimately of half New England and half colonial South Carolina origin.

    – The Layton branch is also colonial, with no apparent foreign-born for several generations on all sides.

    – The Pratte line appears to be partially US-Colonial-Protestant and partially French- and Quebec-Pioneer in the pre-US Missouri territory. A wedding is recorded between a Joseph Pratte (who was of Quebec ancestry) and Marie Francoise Valle in 1796 at “Ste Genevieve Catholic Church,” Missouri. Several ancestors of theirs had an association with that place for decades earlier, before any acquisition of that land for an independent “United States of America” was ever dreamed of.

    ______________

    Comments and evaluation

    Phyllis appears to have little if any definite Irish-Catholic ancestry (possibly 1/16th via the maternal side of Phyllis’ ancestral Christy branch, but they are more likely Protestants given their 1790s arrival and their Ulster origins, i.e., the best bet by a good margin is that they are we call Scotch-Irish), and interestingly s heh has no “immigrant-Catholic” ancestry of any kind.

    Her paternal grandfather was born to Scottish Presbyterian parents (says her wiki entry) but is buried with his wife in a Catholic cemetery in Richmond, Virginia. A working-theory would be that he converted, probably under the influence of his wife (who was born a McGuire). This McGuire line goes back to colonial Maryland, to at least the early 18th century. Maryland is known for having had the most Catholics of any of the colonies, so that may be a clue. The Christy branch also has people in in associated with Taneytown, Maryland.

    Phyllis’ mother’s-side ancestry (Dodge, Sherwood, Layton, and Pratte branches) was probably more than half Protestant by religious-ancestry, of the usual sort among colonial-stock Americans. One family-genealogy site identifies a group of Catholic Laytons in the same area of Missouri in the mid-19th century, including the sister of one of Phyllis’ Layton ancestors. Digging further back, we find this Layton branch also has quite a few people associated with colonial Maryland (the patrilineal ancestor, a John Layton, was apparently an English Catholic who arrived from Yorkshire in the 1750s, settled for the time in Maryland, married a Maryland-born girl of partial Maryland-colonial and partial New England ancestry). The Laytons pushed west into Kentucky in the Daniel Boone era (late 18th century) eventually winding up in Missouri by the 1820s, another multi-generational frontier family story. This means Phyllis had colonial-Maryland ancestry on two,extremely unrelated sides of her family, via her father’s-mother and via her mother’s-mother.

    A best-guess I would propose is that Phyllis Schlafly was, by religious-ancestry, ca. 35% Catholic and 65% Protestant (best guesses: 25% Scottish-Presbyterian, maybe 10% New England Puritan, 25% non-Puritan Anglo-Protestant, 5% Other Protestant), for a best-guess of the Protestant side being at least half Calvinist. Her total religious-ancestry was therefore something like equal parts Calvinist, non-Calvinist Protestant, and Catholic, though Phyllis was it seems a lifelong Catholic herself. The likely Catholic ancestral lines that primarily informed her religious identity go back to colonial-era Maryland and, in some lines, seemingly even back to 17th century Maryland. Phyllis had no recent-Catholic-immigrant group-identity on any branch of her ancestry.

    One conclusion of this brief look into Phyllis Schlafly’s ancestry is that she had no choice but to be an American Patriot/Nationalist. She was from Middle America as was most of her family back on all sides. She had no Ellis Island connection at all; her Catholic connection brought with it no particular immigrant-group-identity such as was the case with so many in the northeast, etc.

    Another finding that might have slipped by any who have read this far but which I’ll highlight: Her Catholic identity was ‘maternal,’ ancestrally speaking, coming through both of her grandfathers’ wives. From what I can tell, both her grandfathers had no Catholic ancestry, or, if any, very distant and minor. The wives both had substantial (colonial-)Catholic ancestry and it was their religious-identity that won out in both cases, with the unions in question that produced Phyllis’ parents both dating to the last quarter of the 19th century.

    The wiki entry for Phyllis Schlafly has these words:

    [Phyllis] linked Catholicism to Americanism and often exhorted Catholics to join the anti-communist crusade.[70]

    It’s not hard to see why she thought so, given that her own Catholic ancestry was (apparently) entirely colonial-era in origin and had no recent immigrant connection at all.

    The great Steve Sailer identifies “Ellis Island Nostalgia” as a primary barrier to sensible immigration restrictionism in our time. Phyllis Schlafly, for her part, did not have that particular blind-spot.

    (Sources: Primarily entries at the genealogy resources Geni, Wikitree, and FamilySearch.)

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    So she's OK because she's not one of those "ethnic" Catholics? (Which 90% of us are.) Catholic political conservatism in the US really got its start with Irish-German Catholic opposition to American entry into WW1, and Wilson's Versailles Peace Treaty, including the disastrous League of Nations, forerunner of the evil UN.
    , @Rich
    Of course as a genealogy researcher, I'm sure you realize that most, if not all of her Protestant ancestors from the British Isles, would have, prior to Fat Henry, been Roman Catholics. Many would have converted to Protestantism under threat of death, or severe poverty. So, I guess we can be pretty sure that if we go far enough back, she was descended from Catholics on both sides.
  17. @Hail
    A brief investigation into Phyllis' life and ancestry. Possibly of interest to some, and for reference:

    PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
    - Born Phyllis McAlpin Stewart in 1924 in St. Louis, and raised there;
    - 1944: BA, Washington University (St. Louis); also earned a JD there in 1978;
    - 1945: MA, Radcliffe College;
    - 1946: Starts as a researcher at AEI in Washington DC and helps run a political campaign, but soon her active involvement in politics goes on hold for family life;
    - Late 1940s: Returns to St. Louis and begins working for a bank there; she meets and marries (in 1949) John Fred Schlafly Jr. (1909–1993), "a member of a wealthy St. Louis family" (himself of partial mid-19th-century Swiss ancestry, which is the origin of the surname; this surname is today most frequent, in the form Schläfli, in the canton of Solothurn, which is historically moderately more Catholic than the Swiss norm; John Schlafly was, like Phyllis, a Catholic);
    - 1950 to 1964: Phyllis gives birth to six children and spends the 1950s and 1960s mainly focused on raising them;
    - 1960s and beyond: Plays a key role in the Rockefeller movement in 1964 and in keeping conservative pressure on Richard Nixon throughout the 1960s; but really rises to leadership and 'stardom' starting in 1972 (the year her youngest child turned 8, and oldest turned 22), at which time she begins her campaign to combat extreme Feminism, which she does in the 1970s with success. (Also note that she returned to school to get a JD by the mid-1970s, after her youngest was raised to about age 12). She remains active in politics thereafter as a conservative (but really a kind of nationalist), throughout her 50s, 60s, and past the death of her husband (1993) into her 70s and 80s, a long and admirable career;
    - early 2016: Phyllis Schlafly endorses MAGA and the Donald Trump candidacy, effectively her final act in US politics (six months before her death) after an impressive seventy years, of which forty-five were something akin to full-time, following the raising of her family in the 1950s–60s.

    Comment: Any honest look at her bio and life-trajectory shows that this...


    [The new movie is] a cunning lie crafted to cast conservative women as abused captives with no independent agency behind closed doors.
     
    ...is just a typical hit-job by Hollywood. Not that anyone should be surprised.

    ___________________

    Ancestry of Phyllis Schlafly

    Phyllis' great-grandparents' surnames [and places of origin] are:

    - Stewart [Scotland];
    - ______ [Scotland];
    - McGuire [Pennsylvania; Maryland ancestry]
    - Christy [Pennsylvania; Maryland ancestry; partial Irish ancestry]
    - Dodge [Illinois near St. Louis; recent-ancestry in NY and further in New England];
    - Sherwood [Missouri; recent-ancestry in NY and SC];
    - Layton [Missouri; distant Maryland ancestry];
    - Pratte [Missouri].

    Further investigation, observations, and comments on each of these ancestral lines, and what they might tell us about Phyllis and where she was "coming from," so to speak

    (TLDR: No recent-immigrant origin of any kind; ancestry mainly colonial-stock; ca. 65% Protestant ancestry overall; her Catholic connection is primarily through colonial Maryland, via several lines on both sides, along recent-maternal lines):

    - Phyllis' paternal ancestor, a Mr. Stewart, and his wife, arrived in the US in 1851 from Scotland. Their son, Phyllis' grandfather, turned two that year and so had no knowledge of anywhere but the US.

    - The McGuire branch is of colonial stock and traces to colonial-era Maryland.

    - The Christy branch paternally is tied to Pennsylvania (where an ancestor's name, Francis Xavier Christy [1794–1876], suggests a Catholic origin), but half of this branch traces to County Antrim, Ireland, via Maryland.

    - The greater portion of the Dodge branch is associated with the colony/state of New York back to the 18th century, and along some lines into the 17th century; it being New York, at least one Dutch name (Vanderbilt) does make an appearance. The Dodge patrilineal line itself traces to a ca.1670 arrival from England, and a few lines on this branch appear to date to the Puritan Great Migration era (before the mid-1640s), but there is also an association with the Rhode Island non-Puritans.

    - The Sherwood branch is ultimately of half New England and half colonial South Carolina origin.

    - The Layton branch is also colonial, with no apparent foreign-born for several generations on all sides.

    - The Pratte line appears to be partially US-Colonial-Protestant and partially French- and Quebec-Pioneer in the pre-US Missouri territory. A wedding is recorded between a Joseph Pratte (who was of Quebec ancestry) and Marie Francoise Valle in 1796 at "Ste Genevieve Catholic Church," Missouri. Several ancestors of theirs had an association with that place for decades earlier, before any acquisition of that land for an independent "United States of America" was ever dreamed of.

    ______________

    Comments and evaluation

    Phyllis appears to have little if any definite Irish-Catholic ancestry (possibly 1/16th via the maternal side of Phyllis' ancestral Christy branch, but they are more likely Protestants given their 1790s arrival and their Ulster origins, i.e., the best bet by a good margin is that they are we call Scotch-Irish), and interestingly s heh has no "immigrant-Catholic" ancestry of any kind.

    Her paternal grandfather was born to Scottish Presbyterian parents (says her wiki entry) but is buried with his wife in a Catholic cemetery in Richmond, Virginia. A working-theory would be that he converted, probably under the influence of his wife (who was born a McGuire). This McGuire line goes back to colonial Maryland, to at least the early 18th century. Maryland is known for having had the most Catholics of any of the colonies, so that may be a clue. The Christy branch also has people in in associated with Taneytown, Maryland.

    Phyllis' mother's-side ancestry (Dodge, Sherwood, Layton, and Pratte branches) was probably more than half Protestant by religious-ancestry, of the usual sort among colonial-stock Americans. One family-genealogy site identifies a group of Catholic Laytons in the same area of Missouri in the mid-19th century, including the sister of one of Phyllis' Layton ancestors. Digging further back, we find this Layton branch also has quite a few people associated with colonial Maryland (the patrilineal ancestor, a John Layton, was apparently an English Catholic who arrived from Yorkshire in the 1750s, settled for the time in Maryland, married a Maryland-born girl of partial Maryland-colonial and partial New England ancestry). The Laytons pushed west into Kentucky in the Daniel Boone era (late 18th century) eventually winding up in Missouri by the 1820s, another multi-generational frontier family story. This means Phyllis had colonial-Maryland ancestry on two,extremely unrelated sides of her family, via her father's-mother and via her mother's-mother.

    A best-guess I would propose is that Phyllis Schlafly was, by religious-ancestry, ca. 35% Catholic and 65% Protestant (best guesses: 25% Scottish-Presbyterian, maybe 10% New England Puritan, 25% non-Puritan Anglo-Protestant, 5% Other Protestant), for a best-guess of the Protestant side being at least half Calvinist. Her total religious-ancestry was therefore something like equal parts Calvinist, non-Calvinist Protestant, and Catholic, though Phyllis was it seems a lifelong Catholic herself. The likely Catholic ancestral lines that primarily informed her religious identity go back to colonial-era Maryland and, in some lines, seemingly even back to 17th century Maryland. Phyllis had no recent-Catholic-immigrant group-identity on any branch of her ancestry.

    One conclusion of this brief look into Phyllis Schlafly's ancestry is that she had no choice but to be an American Patriot/Nationalist. She was from Middle America as was most of her family back on all sides. She had no Ellis Island connection at all; her Catholic connection brought with it no particular immigrant-group-identity such as was the case with so many in the northeast, etc.

    Another finding that might have slipped by any who have read this far but which I'll highlight: Her Catholic identity was 'maternal,' ancestrally speaking, coming through both of her grandfathers' wives. From what I can tell, both her grandfathers had no Catholic ancestry, or, if any, very distant and minor. The wives both had substantial (colonial-)Catholic ancestry and it was their religious-identity that won out in both cases, with the unions in question that produced Phyllis' parents both dating to the last quarter of the 19th century.

    The wiki entry for Phyllis Schlafly has these words:


    [Phyllis] linked Catholicism to Americanism and often exhorted Catholics to join the anti-communist crusade.[70]
     
    It's not hard to see why she thought so, given that her own Catholic ancestry was (apparently) entirely colonial-era in origin and had no recent immigrant connection at all.

    The great Steve Sailer identifies "Ellis Island Nostalgia" as a primary barrier to sensible immigration restrictionism in our time. Phyllis Schlafly, for her part, did not have that particular blind-spot.

    (Sources: Primarily entries at the genealogy resources Geni, Wikitree, and FamilySearch.)

    So she’s OK because she’s not one of those “ethnic” Catholics? (Which 90% of us are.) Catholic political conservatism in the US really got its start with Irish-German Catholic opposition to American entry into WW1, and Wilson’s Versailles Peace Treaty, including the disastrous League of Nations, forerunner of the evil UN.

  18. “As ever, Mrs. America’s fierce clarity is more relevant than ever as big business, big tech, big ag and big academia oppose the will of the people”…and big military, too. Mrs. America offered some typically common sense advice on a heated question in one of her later columns, stating:
    “Much of the demand for women in combat comes from female officers who are eager for medals and promotions. Enlisted women are acutely aware of the heavy lifting that must be done by the combat infantry.The Army’s own opinion surveys prior to 2001 consistently reported that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women oppose ‘being assigned to combat units on the same basis as men’ … Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society. Feminists are determined to impose what Gloria Steinem called ‘liberation biology’ that pretends all male-female differences are culturally imposed by a discriminatory patriarchy… Women, on the average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, are about six inches shorter, and survive basic training only by the subterfuge of being graded on effort rather than on performance. These facts, self-evident to anyone who watches professional or Olympic sports competitions, are only some of the many sex differences confirmed by scholarly studies. Denial of physical differences is an illusion that kills.”
    Wars, of course, can kill many; not just female combat troops but women & children civilians. And Mrs. Schlafly was no fan of neo-con wars of choice. It didn’t matter if it was under a Republican or Democrat C-in-C. She was staunchly opposed to both Iraq Wars & to the less publicized but equally insupportable Balkans War in ’99, all based on blatant lies that she was quick to expose. She had more reasons than one to not want to see women -or men -in much combat; other than just the phony feminist line. In so many ways, Mrs. Schlafly saw through the fog of war as penetratingly as she did the fog of feminism.
    Phyllis Schlafly, a true patriot & good mother of America. She is sincerely missed.

    • Replies: @animalogic
    "Mrs. Schlafly was no fan of neo-con wars of choice. It didn’t matter if it was under a Republican or Democrat C-in-C. She was staunchly opposed to both Iraq Wars & to the less publicized but equally insupportable Balkans War in ’99, all based on blatant lies that she was quick to expose."
    If for no other reason (& there seem to be many -- ie anti immigration) shes won me over.
  19. @Achmed E. Newman
    I wasn't old enough at the time to understand completely what the ERA was about, other than an attempted culmination of a long feminist agenda to completely destroy traditional American society. Americans were smart enough still back in the 1970s to not fall for this one, or at least have enough courage to not mind being called names. Phyllis Schlafly was a shining example to decent Americans.

    The feminists lost that battle, but they won the war long ago. That doesn't mean we can't start another. At least don't support the agenda by seeing this movie full of lies. I'll give Steve Sailer a break on this, as he LUVS his Hollywood, but also he may see it to review it so we don't have to see it. That's the way we all handle it with the New York Times.

    R.I.P. Mrs. Schlafly.

    The feminists lost that battle, but they won the war long ago.

    It’s a matter of terrain. “Feminists” are actually man-wannabees and media, academy, and plutocrats agreed with them. Every person a paycheck, preferably paperless.

    In her 1964 opening shot, A Choice Not An Echo, Schlafly actually produced the first widely distributed and widely read reference to the Bilderbergers (although she misspelled it DeBilderberg, but slick for ’64 anyway.) Her reference to “the Kingmakers” in that same work refers to the annointing of candidates of either party by a small clique of insiders is an early hint of what’s now widely called the Deep State. She was way ahead of her time.

    A Choice Not An Echo is a distant but complementary kin to Tom Paine’s revolutionary Common Sense. Self-pubished to bypass the gatekeepers, I still have an old 1964 copy, and it looks like it went through many hands before it got down to me. As it should be.

    But the underground status of much of her writings back then shows the problem, too: Working class gals, among lots of others, hated feminists in the 70s. Exactly like Phyllis in her first decade, they had no platform, program or major party muscle. No matter how good she might have been, Schlafly was largely obscure in her own nation. The gatekeepers saw to that.

    RIP good lady Phyllis. And nuts to those who slander the dead.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thank you for all that background information, Franz. The only thing I disagree with you on is the part about Mrs, Schlafly being obscure* in America. I have heard of her in my early days when she was bigger on the anti-feminist scene. I remember her pictures in magazines, and her name (as Mrs. Malkin mentions here) being disparaged by anyone involved in the feminist movement.

    I have also heard of A Choice, not an Echo too, back in the day, when I was not that too awful hip on politics, or at least the wonky stuff, as in who's who. I know I can check myself, but correct me if that book was not written in support of Barry Goldwater. Is that right, or does it not really have anything to do with his 1964 campaign for President?

    BTW, speaking ill of the dead is one thing I don't mind, but slandering with lies is another.


    .

    * Although I will say that I just found out that this device's spell-check doesn't know her, haha!
  20. @anonymous
    Bingo, there’s another one.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column? If Mrs. Malkin has a case to make about viral provenance, then she should write it up and help inform the discussion, or at least source her bases.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    Michelle has a complex. Apparently she was picked on as a kid, so she compensates by trying to out American everyone else.

    15,000 + articles no one reads, this is basically Malkins personal therapy blog.

    I have no idea why Unz put her on the website. She is as conventional as they come. She only gets censored because people get tired of her or she gets caught trying to be edgy.

    • Troll: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    Malkin's been doing heavy digging on the immigration issue for a long time, more than you I'm sure, and way before it was considered a sexy issue.
  21. @Curmudgeon

    Yes, the left is full of shit
     
    What passes for the left, today, is full of shit.
    Were Cesar Chavez and his members full of shit, when they were catching and beating the crap out of illegal aliens before turning them over for deportation?
    Was the old AFL full of shit when it opposed immigration? Even after merger with the CIO, the organization strongly opposed illegal immigration.

    What passes for the left today, would have had the crap beaten out of them by the old trade unionists.

    What passes for the left today, would have had the crap beaten out of them by the old trade unionists.

    You are probably correct.

  22. @anonymous
    Bingo, there’s another one.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column? If Mrs. Malkin has a case to make about viral provenance, then she should write it up and help inform the discussion, or at least source her bases.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    Yes, the Deep State is a two sided coin…the left…Russia, Russia, Russia and the right China, China, China. Both are an existential threat to US world hegemony…so demonization of both is a win/win.

  23. @Bragadocious
    Oh you poor dear...do you need a safe space? Maybe some hot chocolate and pangolin tarte?

    You’re the answer to my question.

  24. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @TheDude
    Sure Charlie Brown, I'll 'splain it....
    ...because, Mrs. America was a staunch advocate of immigration control; and, given the prevalence of infectious diseases, such as the Chicom virus, immigration control can help mitigate it's spread.
    That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

    Oh, and MM is DA BOMB.

    Please don’t dissemble.

    Again, why do so many of the Right people go out of their way to scapegoat China? It’s just like playing the Putin card to fire up the gullible American sheep who think themselves “Progressive.”

    Divide & Conquer politics serve an Establishment that only cares about the American people to the extent necessary to keep enough around for voters, tax aphids, and cannon fodder. We see it domestically in squabbling over transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms. And this dempanic is being used to generate antipathy for an obstacle in the path of Washington, distracting people from their 96-0 Senate reaming to prop up the financialized economy.

    What has DA BOMB written about any of that?

    • Replies: @Realist
    It is noted that Fox News and Business have put on a full court press to demonize China...citing government sources (just like the left did with Russia).
    War materiel is the lifeblood of the wealthy and powerful (Deep State) and the War Department provides the transfusion. Russia and China are an existential threat to world wide, US hegemony.
    , @animalogic
    Spot on ! ( & "squabbling over transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms" LOL).
  25. @Hail
    A brief investigation into Phyllis' life and ancestry. Possibly of interest to some, and for reference:

    PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
    - Born Phyllis McAlpin Stewart in 1924 in St. Louis, and raised there;
    - 1944: BA, Washington University (St. Louis); also earned a JD there in 1978;
    - 1945: MA, Radcliffe College;
    - 1946: Starts as a researcher at AEI in Washington DC and helps run a political campaign, but soon her active involvement in politics goes on hold for family life;
    - Late 1940s: Returns to St. Louis and begins working for a bank there; she meets and marries (in 1949) John Fred Schlafly Jr. (1909–1993), "a member of a wealthy St. Louis family" (himself of partial mid-19th-century Swiss ancestry, which is the origin of the surname; this surname is today most frequent, in the form Schläfli, in the canton of Solothurn, which is historically moderately more Catholic than the Swiss norm; John Schlafly was, like Phyllis, a Catholic);
    - 1950 to 1964: Phyllis gives birth to six children and spends the 1950s and 1960s mainly focused on raising them;
    - 1960s and beyond: Plays a key role in the Rockefeller movement in 1964 and in keeping conservative pressure on Richard Nixon throughout the 1960s; but really rises to leadership and 'stardom' starting in 1972 (the year her youngest child turned 8, and oldest turned 22), at which time she begins her campaign to combat extreme Feminism, which she does in the 1970s with success. (Also note that she returned to school to get a JD by the mid-1970s, after her youngest was raised to about age 12). She remains active in politics thereafter as a conservative (but really a kind of nationalist), throughout her 50s, 60s, and past the death of her husband (1993) into her 70s and 80s, a long and admirable career;
    - early 2016: Phyllis Schlafly endorses MAGA and the Donald Trump candidacy, effectively her final act in US politics (six months before her death) after an impressive seventy years, of which forty-five were something akin to full-time, following the raising of her family in the 1950s–60s.

    Comment: Any honest look at her bio and life-trajectory shows that this...


    [The new movie is] a cunning lie crafted to cast conservative women as abused captives with no independent agency behind closed doors.
     
    ...is just a typical hit-job by Hollywood. Not that anyone should be surprised.

    ___________________

    Ancestry of Phyllis Schlafly

    Phyllis' great-grandparents' surnames [and places of origin] are:

    - Stewart [Scotland];
    - ______ [Scotland];
    - McGuire [Pennsylvania; Maryland ancestry]
    - Christy [Pennsylvania; Maryland ancestry; partial Irish ancestry]
    - Dodge [Illinois near St. Louis; recent-ancestry in NY and further in New England];
    - Sherwood [Missouri; recent-ancestry in NY and SC];
    - Layton [Missouri; distant Maryland ancestry];
    - Pratte [Missouri].

    Further investigation, observations, and comments on each of these ancestral lines, and what they might tell us about Phyllis and where she was "coming from," so to speak

    (TLDR: No recent-immigrant origin of any kind; ancestry mainly colonial-stock; ca. 65% Protestant ancestry overall; her Catholic connection is primarily through colonial Maryland, via several lines on both sides, along recent-maternal lines):

    - Phyllis' paternal ancestor, a Mr. Stewart, and his wife, arrived in the US in 1851 from Scotland. Their son, Phyllis' grandfather, turned two that year and so had no knowledge of anywhere but the US.

    - The McGuire branch is of colonial stock and traces to colonial-era Maryland.

    - The Christy branch paternally is tied to Pennsylvania (where an ancestor's name, Francis Xavier Christy [1794–1876], suggests a Catholic origin), but half of this branch traces to County Antrim, Ireland, via Maryland.

    - The greater portion of the Dodge branch is associated with the colony/state of New York back to the 18th century, and along some lines into the 17th century; it being New York, at least one Dutch name (Vanderbilt) does make an appearance. The Dodge patrilineal line itself traces to a ca.1670 arrival from England, and a few lines on this branch appear to date to the Puritan Great Migration era (before the mid-1640s), but there is also an association with the Rhode Island non-Puritans.

    - The Sherwood branch is ultimately of half New England and half colonial South Carolina origin.

    - The Layton branch is also colonial, with no apparent foreign-born for several generations on all sides.

    - The Pratte line appears to be partially US-Colonial-Protestant and partially French- and Quebec-Pioneer in the pre-US Missouri territory. A wedding is recorded between a Joseph Pratte (who was of Quebec ancestry) and Marie Francoise Valle in 1796 at "Ste Genevieve Catholic Church," Missouri. Several ancestors of theirs had an association with that place for decades earlier, before any acquisition of that land for an independent "United States of America" was ever dreamed of.

    ______________

    Comments and evaluation

    Phyllis appears to have little if any definite Irish-Catholic ancestry (possibly 1/16th via the maternal side of Phyllis' ancestral Christy branch, but they are more likely Protestants given their 1790s arrival and their Ulster origins, i.e., the best bet by a good margin is that they are we call Scotch-Irish), and interestingly s heh has no "immigrant-Catholic" ancestry of any kind.

    Her paternal grandfather was born to Scottish Presbyterian parents (says her wiki entry) but is buried with his wife in a Catholic cemetery in Richmond, Virginia. A working-theory would be that he converted, probably under the influence of his wife (who was born a McGuire). This McGuire line goes back to colonial Maryland, to at least the early 18th century. Maryland is known for having had the most Catholics of any of the colonies, so that may be a clue. The Christy branch also has people in in associated with Taneytown, Maryland.

    Phyllis' mother's-side ancestry (Dodge, Sherwood, Layton, and Pratte branches) was probably more than half Protestant by religious-ancestry, of the usual sort among colonial-stock Americans. One family-genealogy site identifies a group of Catholic Laytons in the same area of Missouri in the mid-19th century, including the sister of one of Phyllis' Layton ancestors. Digging further back, we find this Layton branch also has quite a few people associated with colonial Maryland (the patrilineal ancestor, a John Layton, was apparently an English Catholic who arrived from Yorkshire in the 1750s, settled for the time in Maryland, married a Maryland-born girl of partial Maryland-colonial and partial New England ancestry). The Laytons pushed west into Kentucky in the Daniel Boone era (late 18th century) eventually winding up in Missouri by the 1820s, another multi-generational frontier family story. This means Phyllis had colonial-Maryland ancestry on two,extremely unrelated sides of her family, via her father's-mother and via her mother's-mother.

    A best-guess I would propose is that Phyllis Schlafly was, by religious-ancestry, ca. 35% Catholic and 65% Protestant (best guesses: 25% Scottish-Presbyterian, maybe 10% New England Puritan, 25% non-Puritan Anglo-Protestant, 5% Other Protestant), for a best-guess of the Protestant side being at least half Calvinist. Her total religious-ancestry was therefore something like equal parts Calvinist, non-Calvinist Protestant, and Catholic, though Phyllis was it seems a lifelong Catholic herself. The likely Catholic ancestral lines that primarily informed her religious identity go back to colonial-era Maryland and, in some lines, seemingly even back to 17th century Maryland. Phyllis had no recent-Catholic-immigrant group-identity on any branch of her ancestry.

    One conclusion of this brief look into Phyllis Schlafly's ancestry is that she had no choice but to be an American Patriot/Nationalist. She was from Middle America as was most of her family back on all sides. She had no Ellis Island connection at all; her Catholic connection brought with it no particular immigrant-group-identity such as was the case with so many in the northeast, etc.

    Another finding that might have slipped by any who have read this far but which I'll highlight: Her Catholic identity was 'maternal,' ancestrally speaking, coming through both of her grandfathers' wives. From what I can tell, both her grandfathers had no Catholic ancestry, or, if any, very distant and minor. The wives both had substantial (colonial-)Catholic ancestry and it was their religious-identity that won out in both cases, with the unions in question that produced Phyllis' parents both dating to the last quarter of the 19th century.

    The wiki entry for Phyllis Schlafly has these words:


    [Phyllis] linked Catholicism to Americanism and often exhorted Catholics to join the anti-communist crusade.[70]
     
    It's not hard to see why she thought so, given that her own Catholic ancestry was (apparently) entirely colonial-era in origin and had no recent immigrant connection at all.

    The great Steve Sailer identifies "Ellis Island Nostalgia" as a primary barrier to sensible immigration restrictionism in our time. Phyllis Schlafly, for her part, did not have that particular blind-spot.

    (Sources: Primarily entries at the genealogy resources Geni, Wikitree, and FamilySearch.)

    Of course as a genealogy researcher, I’m sure you realize that most, if not all of her Protestant ancestors from the British Isles, would have, prior to Fat Henry, been Roman Catholics. Many would have converted to Protestantism under threat of death, or severe poverty. So, I guess we can be pretty sure that if we go far enough back, she was descended from Catholics on both sides.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  26. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Hayes
    At the time I was struck by the fact that candidate Trump deep into his presidential campaign took the time to attend Phyllis's funeral Mass.

    And so you voted for him?

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Why not! As good a reason as any! And there were many other equally if not better "good reasons".
  27. At Blinky Bill: Just don’t EVER criticize negros (((or those other people))) around Lady Coulter; the ’64 civil rights act was the greatest event EVER! The immigration debacle is the fault of Irish Catholic politicians, and ONLY Irish Catholic politicians!

    • Agree: Fuerchtegott
  28. @Tor597
    Michelle has a complex. Apparently she was picked on as a kid, so she compensates by trying to out American everyone else.

    15,000 + articles no one reads, this is basically Malkins personal therapy blog.

    I have no idea why Unz put her on the website. She is as conventional as they come. She only gets censored because people get tired of her or she gets caught trying to be edgy.

    Malkin’s been doing heavy digging on the immigration issue for a long time, more than you I’m sure, and way before it was considered a sexy issue.

    • Replies: @Tor597
    Let me know when she figures out it is neoliberalism at the core of illegal immigration. Until then she is just waisting everyone's time.
  29. @anonymous
    And so you voted for him?

    Why not! As good a reason as any! And there were many other equally if not better “good reasons”.

  30. @Franz

    The feminists lost that battle, but they won the war long ago.
     
    It's a matter of terrain. "Feminists" are actually man-wannabees and media, academy, and plutocrats agreed with them. Every person a paycheck, preferably paperless.

    In her 1964 opening shot, A Choice Not An Echo, Schlafly actually produced the first widely distributed and widely read reference to the Bilderbergers (although she misspelled it DeBilderberg, but slick for '64 anyway.) Her reference to "the Kingmakers" in that same work refers to the annointing of candidates of either party by a small clique of insiders is an early hint of what's now widely called the Deep State. She was way ahead of her time.

    A Choice Not An Echo is a distant but complementary kin to Tom Paine's revolutionary Common Sense. Self-pubished to bypass the gatekeepers, I still have an old 1964 copy, and it looks like it went through many hands before it got down to me. As it should be.

    But the underground status of much of her writings back then shows the problem, too: Working class gals, among lots of others, hated feminists in the 70s. Exactly like Phyllis in her first decade, they had no platform, program or major party muscle. No matter how good she might have been, Schlafly was largely obscure in her own nation. The gatekeepers saw to that.

    RIP good lady Phyllis. And nuts to those who slander the dead.

    Thank you for all that background information, Franz. The only thing I disagree with you on is the part about Mrs, Schlafly being obscure* in America. I have heard of her in my early days when she was bigger on the anti-feminist scene. I remember her pictures in magazines, and her name (as Mrs. Malkin mentions here) being disparaged by anyone involved in the feminist movement.

    I have also heard of A Choice, not an Echo too, back in the day, when I was not that too awful hip on politics, or at least the wonky stuff, as in who’s who. I know I can check myself, but correct me if that book was not written in support of Barry Goldwater. Is that right, or does it not really have anything to do with his 1964 campaign for President?

    BTW, speaking ill of the dead is one thing I don’t mind, but slandering with lies is another.

    .

    * Although I will say that I just found out that this device’s spell-check doesn’t know her, haha!

    • Replies: @Franz
    By obscure I suppose I really mean what I considered the meat & potatoes section of her career: The runup to her "Anti-Fem" days when she co-wrote pamphlets with Admiral Chester Ward, all from a hardcore national defense point of view. She got some limelight after she debated Betty Frieden, etc., but some of us remember her for the other thing, and feminists never knew that side of Phyllis.

    "The Goldwater rebellion" was pushed along by her little book, though Barry never acknowledged that Schlafly probably won him the nomination. It was not explicitly a campaign tract.

    That, in my mind, was what made "Choice" so clever because she gets into what seems like an abstract discussion "how we pick presidential candidates" but everyone knew it was about Barry. The stink of 1960 was still in everyone's nose. Both hard core rightists and old new dealers called it "the rich kid vs the trial lawyer." Neither Jack or Dick represented any normal voter, and A Choice Not An Echo laid it out plain.

    My guess is the prestige press hated her for blowing the whistle on their contribution to American apathy. From this new movie it looks like they're still carrying a mountain sized grudge.
  31. @anonymous
    Please don’t dissemble.

    Again, why do so many of the Right people go out of their way to scapegoat China? It’s just like playing the Putin card to fire up the gullible American sheep who think themselves “Progressive.”

    Divide & Conquer politics serve an Establishment that only cares about the American people to the extent necessary to keep enough around for voters, tax aphids, and cannon fodder. We see it domestically in squabbling over transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms. And this dempanic is being used to generate antipathy for an obstacle in the path of Washington, distracting people from their 96-0 Senate reaming to prop up the financialized economy.

    What has DA BOMB written about any of that?

    It is noted that Fox News and Business have put on a full court press to demonize China…citing government sources (just like the left did with Russia).
    War materiel is the lifeblood of the wealthy and powerful (Deep State) and the War Department provides the transfusion. Russia and China are an existential threat to world wide, US hegemony.

  32. Great article, again, by Michelle. I’m was glad to see Phyllis at a Trump rally before her passing. She was quite a dame.

  33. @anonymous
    Bingo, there’s another one.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column? If Mrs. Malkin has a case to make about viral provenance, then she should write it up and help inform the discussion, or at least source her bases.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    Because it IS the ChiCom virus. Dumb fact-adverse proggie.

    • Replies: @Realist

    Because it IS the ChiCom virus. Dumb fact-adverse proggie.
     
    You're new around these here parts, aren't you boy.
  34. anon[191] • Disclaimer says:
    @Blinky Bill
    Michelle Malkin work is about as relevant as KONY 2012. People should read Ann Coulter instead at least she's a real American. Blonde too !!

    Your attitude makes enemies of all those people in the world that aren’t white but might be on the side of whites because we all have a common(((enemy)). Even Hitler respected the Japanese and worked with them because he saw that they had similar systems tailored for different peoples. It’s called respect at a distance.

    • Replies: @Agonistes
    You know her husband Jesse Malkin is Jewish, right?
    , @Dissident

    Your attitude makes enemies of all those people in the world that aren’t white but might be on the side of whites because we all have a common(((enemy)).
     
    And just what does your attitude-- i.e. categorically declaring Jews as the enemy--accomplish?

    Some of the things:
    - It alienates and makes enemies out of many people-- Jews as well as non-Jews, whites as well as non-whites-- who otherwise would be sympathetic to and even supportive of the plight of (non-Jewish, and especially non-cosmopolitan) whites, social conservatives, traditionalists, and of any number of the positions and causes that are championed by/ serve said demographics.

    - It strengthens, encourages, and emboldens the ADL/$PLC & Co. grievance-grifters; legitimizes their narrative; bolsters their influence. First Amendment freedoms diminish as restrictions and crackdowns on speech increase and become ever-more draconian.

    Yes, Jews (overwhelmingly secular ones) are disproportionately (but by no means exclusively) represented among those who promote some of the most pernicious trends and policies in society. (Such as sexual degeneracy; demonization of non-cosmopolitan Whites; mass immigration; tolerance for and even acceptance of non-White crime; etc.) But said trends and policies (a) are also promoted by plenty of non-Jews; (b) are not supported by all or even necessarily most Jews (How politically and ideologically active, let alone savvy, are most people within any ethnic, religious, racial, or national group?); (c) are not accordant with (authentic) /Judaism/.

    Few people who are normal, healthy and successful in life-- even those who may have no special love for Jews-- want anything to do with self-indulgent, typically self-destructive, monomaniacal harping on them.

  35. @browsepal
    Because it IS the ChiCom virus. Dumb fact-adverse proggie.

    Because it IS the ChiCom virus. Dumb fact-adverse proggie.

    You’re new around these here parts, aren’t you boy.

  36. If one is doing a biopic – it should be incumbent upon the producers, director, and actors (at a minimum) to meet with family and/or those who knew the individual. While it is understood that there is always some artistic license taken to advance a story line, accuracy in the story-telling should still be a primary goal.

    In this case, I would agree with Michelle that this allows the movie to go in any direction the producers want – regardless of facts. If Ms. Blanchett wanted to do a negative portrayal from the left viewpoint; a documentary focusing on what she didn’t like would have been a better choice.

  37. @Achmed E. Newman
    Thank you for all that background information, Franz. The only thing I disagree with you on is the part about Mrs, Schlafly being obscure* in America. I have heard of her in my early days when she was bigger on the anti-feminist scene. I remember her pictures in magazines, and her name (as Mrs. Malkin mentions here) being disparaged by anyone involved in the feminist movement.

    I have also heard of A Choice, not an Echo too, back in the day, when I was not that too awful hip on politics, or at least the wonky stuff, as in who's who. I know I can check myself, but correct me if that book was not written in support of Barry Goldwater. Is that right, or does it not really have anything to do with his 1964 campaign for President?

    BTW, speaking ill of the dead is one thing I don't mind, but slandering with lies is another.


    .

    * Although I will say that I just found out that this device's spell-check doesn't know her, haha!

    By obscure I suppose I really mean what I considered the meat & potatoes section of her career: The runup to her “Anti-Fem” days when she co-wrote pamphlets with Admiral Chester Ward, all from a hardcore national defense point of view. She got some limelight after she debated Betty Frieden, etc., but some of us remember her for the other thing, and feminists never knew that side of Phyllis.

    “The Goldwater rebellion” was pushed along by her little book, though Barry never acknowledged that Schlafly probably won him the nomination. It was not explicitly a campaign tract.

    That, in my mind, was what made “Choice” so clever because she gets into what seems like an abstract discussion “how we pick presidential candidates” but everyone knew it was about Barry. The stink of 1960 was still in everyone’s nose. Both hard core rightists and old new dealers called it “the rich kid vs the trial lawyer.” Neither Jack or Dick represented any normal voter, and A Choice Not An Echo laid it out plain.

    My guess is the prestige press hated her for blowing the whistle on their contribution to American apathy. From this new movie it looks like they’re still carrying a mountain sized grudge.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thank you again, Franz. I'm about done reading Pat Buchanan's The Greatest Comeback about Nixon's 1960s campaign (mostly on '67-'68). It makes Nixon look like a decent man, but there's no doubt even from a guy who worked with him closely for years that we was no man of principles. He just wanted to win, after being thought of as a loser for so long. What a tool!
  38. Sadly, she sucked up to the Jews and Zionists, the very people who were most hellbent on destroying the white race and American Conservatism.

    The greatest weakness of American Conservatism was that it praised and defended most the very force that was most invested in its destruction.

  39. @Franz
    By obscure I suppose I really mean what I considered the meat & potatoes section of her career: The runup to her "Anti-Fem" days when she co-wrote pamphlets with Admiral Chester Ward, all from a hardcore national defense point of view. She got some limelight after she debated Betty Frieden, etc., but some of us remember her for the other thing, and feminists never knew that side of Phyllis.

    "The Goldwater rebellion" was pushed along by her little book, though Barry never acknowledged that Schlafly probably won him the nomination. It was not explicitly a campaign tract.

    That, in my mind, was what made "Choice" so clever because she gets into what seems like an abstract discussion "how we pick presidential candidates" but everyone knew it was about Barry. The stink of 1960 was still in everyone's nose. Both hard core rightists and old new dealers called it "the rich kid vs the trial lawyer." Neither Jack or Dick represented any normal voter, and A Choice Not An Echo laid it out plain.

    My guess is the prestige press hated her for blowing the whistle on their contribution to American apathy. From this new movie it looks like they're still carrying a mountain sized grudge.

    Thank you again, Franz. I’m about done reading Pat Buchanan’s The Greatest Comeback about Nixon’s 1960s campaign (mostly on ’67-’68). It makes Nixon look like a decent man, but there’s no doubt even from a guy who worked with him closely for years that we was no man of principles. He just wanted to win, after being thought of as a loser for so long. What a tool!

  40. “The “Mrs. America” that nationalist conservatives celebrate was ahead of the curve on the issues that defined the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, whom she endorsed in March 2016.’

    You were wrong until you uttered this . She supported the campaign because as most conservatives realized, he was the only voice echoing conservative views.

    That is something far different. And anyone who claims that Mrs Schaffley would support same sex marriage, legalization of marijuana and other assorted drifts supported by this executive is whistling something not even akin to Dixie.

    What is unfortunate about the current admin. is that it is so undefined that he has not descriptors of it own on ethos, or policy. That is why people such as this author having to constantly bring to the fore other executives to she some kind of coherent image.

    I can support this executive as had Mrs Schaffley without trying to link her knitted, well constructed and supported positions through more than forty years of hard intellectual labour. One of the few similarities is that one did not need a degree to grasp the what Mrs Schaffley was saying. \

    Time and circumstance has proven her correct.

  41. @Bragadocious
    Malkin's been doing heavy digging on the immigration issue for a long time, more than you I'm sure, and way before it was considered a sexy issue.

    Let me know when she figures out it is neoliberalism at the core of illegal immigration. Until then she is just waisting everyone’s time.

  42. @Rosie
    Mrs. Schlaffly (pbuh) was a great advocate for traditional wives and mothers.

    Being a political activist is not in the remit of traditional wives and mothers; they leave that to the men.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Being a political activist is not in the remit of traditional wives and mothers; they leave that to the men.
     
    I disagree completely. One of the perks of having a society where one income is sufficient to support a family is precisely that women are free to engage in political activism. Men are often too busy earning a living to hold the government accountable for anything except every couple of years at the ballot box, and it's becoming increasingly clear that is a pointless exercise in futility.
  43. @anon
    Your attitude makes enemies of all those people in the world that aren't white but might be on the side of whites because we all have a common(((enemy)). Even Hitler respected the Japanese and worked with them because he saw that they had similar systems tailored for different peoples. It's called respect at a distance.

    You know her husband Jesse Malkin is Jewish, right?

    • Replies: @Pat Kittle

    You know her husband Jesse Malkin is Jewish, right?
     
    That in & of itself is definitely a yellow flag, but not a red flag.

    After all, the owner of this website is Jewish too.

  44. @swamped
    "As ever, Mrs. America’s fierce clarity is more relevant than ever as big business, big tech, big ag and big academia oppose the will of the people"...and big military, too. Mrs. America offered some typically common sense advice on a heated question in one of her later columns, stating:
    "Much of the demand for women in combat comes from female officers who are eager for medals and promotions. Enlisted women are acutely aware of the heavy lifting that must be done by the combat infantry.The Army's own opinion surveys prior to 2001 consistently reported that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women oppose 'being assigned to combat units on the same basis as men' ... Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society. Feminists are determined to impose what Gloria Steinem called 'liberation biology' that pretends all male-female differences are culturally imposed by a discriminatory patriarchy... Women, on the average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, are about six inches shorter, and survive basic training only by the subterfuge of being graded on effort rather than on performance. These facts, self-evident to anyone who watches professional or Olympic sports competitions, are only some of the many sex differences confirmed by scholarly studies. Denial of physical differences is an illusion that kills."
    Wars, of course, can kill many; not just female combat troops but women & children civilians. And Mrs. Schlafly was no fan of neo-con wars of choice. It didn't matter if it was under a Republican or Democrat C-in-C. She was staunchly opposed to both Iraq Wars & to the less publicized but equally insupportable Balkans War in '99, all based on blatant lies that she was quick to expose. She had more reasons than one to not want to see women -or men -in much combat; other than just the phony feminist line. In so many ways, Mrs. Schlafly saw through the fog of war as penetratingly as she did the fog of feminism.
    Phyllis Schlafly, a true patriot & good mother of America. She is sincerely missed.

    “Mrs. Schlafly was no fan of neo-con wars of choice. It didn’t matter if it was under a Republican or Democrat C-in-C. She was staunchly opposed to both Iraq Wars & to the less publicized but equally insupportable Balkans War in ’99, all based on blatant lies that she was quick to expose.”
    If for no other reason (& there seem to be many — ie anti immigration) shes won me over.

  45. @anonymous
    Please don’t dissemble.

    Again, why do so many of the Right people go out of their way to scapegoat China? It’s just like playing the Putin card to fire up the gullible American sheep who think themselves “Progressive.”

    Divide & Conquer politics serve an Establishment that only cares about the American people to the extent necessary to keep enough around for voters, tax aphids, and cannon fodder. We see it domestically in squabbling over transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms. And this dempanic is being used to generate antipathy for an obstacle in the path of Washington, distracting people from their 96-0 Senate reaming to prop up the financialized economy.

    What has DA BOMB written about any of that?

    Spot on ! ( & “squabbling over transgender statues and Confederate bathrooms” LOL).

  46. @Rocketman
    ***
    The vile Far Left / New CPUSA! Clown Posse just can't help from trashing this good woman and her life spent actually advancing Women's Rights and defending Our Country. If it weren't for being low class--they wouldn't have any class at all!
    ***
    Rocketman
    ***

    Yes- she was a true feminist!

  47. @Agonistes
    Being a political activist is not in the remit of traditional wives and mothers; they leave that to the men.

    Being a political activist is not in the remit of traditional wives and mothers; they leave that to the men.

    I disagree completely. One of the perks of having a society where one income is sufficient to support a family is precisely that women are free to engage in political activism. Men are often too busy earning a living to hold the government accountable for anything except every couple of years at the ballot box, and it’s becoming increasingly clear that is a pointless exercise in futility.

  48. @European-American
    I don’t know anything about Phyllis Schlafly, except that in the 80s, in the liberal circles I was in (as unaware of liberal bias like as a fish is of water), I heard her name occasionally as a stand-in for a quintessentially evil and laughable person. It was a name that would be like the punchline of a joke involving the most unenlightened, most contemptible right-wing person imaginable. Something like a KKK member or Adolf Hitler, only female, and midwestern, and therefore worthy of extra mockery.

    I’m happy to see someone defend her.

    I, too, am happy to see someone defend Ms. Schlafly. And thank you, Ms. Malkin.

    Evidence indicates that Phyllis Schlafly was a warm and wonderful woman. Unfortunately, she gets the kind of Hollywood takedown that is now reserved for traditional American heroes, from Christopher Columbus and Charles Lindbergh.

    Jewish ‘heros’ on the other hand (Harvey Milk, Elie Wiesel, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, etc) invariably get fawning and flattering treatment from Hollywood.

    Ms. Schlafly was an attorney, a writer, and a homemaker. That’s commendable. Her son, Roger, is an accomplished author and physicist. Roger taught at the Univ. of Chicago. Here’s a review of his controversial book, ‘How Einstein Ruined Physics’, which I reviewed for the Occidental Observer.

    https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/03/24/review-of-roger-schlaflys-how-einstein-ruined-physics/

  49. I am not qualified to pass judgment on the work of Phyllis Schlafly’s son Roger:

    “How Einstein Ruined Physics: Motion, Symmetry, and Revolution in Science”
    (by Roger Schlafly)
    — (https://www.amazon.com/How-Einstein-Ruined-Physics-Revolution-ebook/dp/B004ZSC3QM/ref=sr_1_1)

  50. @Agonistes
    You know her husband Jesse Malkin is Jewish, right?

    You know her husband Jesse Malkin is Jewish, right?

    That in & of itself is definitely a yellow flag, but not a red flag.

    After all, the owner of this website is Jewish too.

  51. @anon
    Your attitude makes enemies of all those people in the world that aren't white but might be on the side of whites because we all have a common(((enemy)). Even Hitler respected the Japanese and worked with them because he saw that they had similar systems tailored for different peoples. It's called respect at a distance.

    Your attitude makes enemies of all those people in the world that aren’t white but might be on the side of whites because we all have a common(((enemy)).

    And just what does your attitude— i.e. categorically declaring Jews as the enemy–accomplish?

    Some of the things:
    – It alienates and makes enemies out of many people– Jews as well as non-Jews, whites as well as non-whites– who otherwise would be sympathetic to and even supportive of the plight of (non-Jewish, and especially non-cosmopolitan) whites, social conservatives, traditionalists, and of any number of the positions and causes that are championed by/ serve said demographics.

    [MORE]

    – It strengthens, encourages, and emboldens the ADL/$PLC & Co. grievance-grifters; legitimizes their narrative; bolsters their influence. First Amendment freedoms diminish as restrictions and crackdowns on speech increase and become ever-more draconian.

    Yes, Jews (overwhelmingly secular ones) are disproportionately (but by no means exclusively) represented among those who promote some of the most pernicious trends and policies in society. (Such as sexual degeneracy; demonization of non-cosmopolitan Whites; mass immigration; tolerance for and even acceptance of non-White crime; etc.) But said trends and policies (a) are also promoted by plenty of non-Jews; (b) are not supported by all or even necessarily most Jews (How politically and ideologically active, let alone savvy, are most people within any ethnic, religious, racial, or national group?); (c) are not accordant with (authentic) /Judaism/.

    Few people who are normal, healthy and successful in life– even those who may have no special love for Jews– want anything to do with self-indulgent, typically self-destructive, monomaniacal harping on them.

  52. @anonymous
    Bingo, there’s another one.

    Can someone explain why “ChiCom virus” was worked into the end of this unrelated column? If Mrs. Malkin has a case to make about viral provenance, then she should write it up and help inform the discussion, or at least source her bases.

    The cheap little smears of China, largely from the self-professed Right (see also, Derbyshire, Kersey, Mercer), sound like the unsubstantiated “Russian hacking” mania that’s been strongest among the Left. All serving the Establishment by deflecting blame onto foreign scapegoats.

    Wake up, pal:
    They are communists.
    They care nothing about human life.
    They oppress their own, Uighurs, Tibetans, and Christians.
    They hid the outbreak of the virus, cacncelling travel between Wuhan and other
    Chinee regions — but had no problem letting intl travel continue betwee hubei and the rest of the world.
    And the Wuhan Flu did originate in their bioweapons lab.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Michelle Malkin Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2