Share This Article with a Friend!

Schlafly and Cruz Battle Surrender Monkey McConnell on Planned Parenthood

All we limited government constitutional conservatives want (really) is for Republican "leaders" to fulfill the constitutional role the Framers envisioned for Congress to act as a check on an overambitious and overweening President through the power of the purse. Phyllis Schlafly spoke for that simple demand in a recent column – Senator Ted Cruz gets it, so do Representatives Jim Bridenstine, Louie Gohmert, Mark Meadows and a few others. Why is it so hard for the sophisticated insiders of the Republican establishment to understand this?


Our longtime friend Phyllis Schlafly, the First Lady of the Conservative Movement, has issued an inspiring challenge to Capitol Hill Republicans to step-up and fulfill their constitutional duty to exercise the power of the purse and use it to defund baby body parts trafficker Planned Parenthood.

(You can read Mrs. Schlafly’s column through this link)

The moral case for defunding Planned Parenthood is overwhelming, and Mrs. Schalfly states it succinctly, but to us the most interesting part of her column was her stinging rebuke of the current Republican “leadership” on Capitol Hill and the lies by which they maintain their increasingly tenuous grip on power.

Our system is built on checks and balances, said Phyllis Schlafly, yet Congress is standing by while the president and the Supreme Court are encroaching on Congress' powers. Congress should use its spending power to push back against overreaching by the other branches.

Mrs. Schlafly also reminded readers that most Republicans ran on a promise to return our government to the Constitution. Our founding document clearly vests in Congress the power of the purse by providing that "the Congress shall have power to ... provide for the ... general welfare of the United States" and that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

But the key point in the article from our perspective was her indictment of the Republican Party’s Capitol Hill “leadership” and their tactics on Planned Parenthood and many other issues where they would have to actually fight Obama and the Democrats.

“The House voted overwhelmingly last week to suspend funding for one year while the video evidence against Planned Parenthood is properly investigated, along with passing another bill to require medical care for infants born alive during an abortion. Both bills are also supported by a majority of senators. So why aren't they being attached to a bill that funds the government for the next fiscal year starting October 1?” asked Mrs. Schlafly.

“Nothing shows the failure of leadership better than the apparent decision by Republican leaders in Congress to allow those bills to die… After making a pro-life gesture, or what's known as a "show vote," the Republican leaders have apparently decided to allow federal money to continue flowing to Planned Parenthood in the next fiscal year,” she concluded.

What’s the evidence that this is a well-thought-out plan by the Republican’s Capitol Hill “leadership”?

Phyllis Schlafly points to comments newly elected Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., who upset then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the primary last year, made last week on C-SPAN stating that House and Senate leaders decided months ago to abandon "regular order" for funding the government.

Rep. Brat contended they've planned all along to push through a government-wide continuing resolution (CR) at the end of this month, to be followed by an omnibus spending bill just before Christmas.

In other words, concluded Phyllis Schlafly, we're about to see a repeat of what happened last December when House Speaker Boehner and Senate Leader McConnell, working behind closed doors, cobbled together the 1,600-page, $1.1 trillion "cromnibus" spending bill and forced it through the lame-duck Congress on a narrow bipartisan vote. Nancy Pelosi delivered enough Democratic votes to compensate for the 67 conservative Republicans who voted against that monstrosity, which even included the money to implement Obama's executive amnesty of five million illegal aliens.  

And in the first evidence that our conservative friends Phyllis Schlafly and Rep. Dave Brat were correct, right on cue on Tuesday Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell began the process of moving a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the government.

In announcing the CR McConnell said in a statement the CR would keep the government funded through the fall while adhering to the bipartisan spending levels already agreed to by both parties, and for one year it would defund Planned Parenthood and protect women's health by funding community health clinics with $235 million instead.

This, like the House votes on the two pro-life bills this week, is only for show.

As Senator Ted Cruz pointed out back on September 3, McConnell has already preemptively surrendered on defunding Planned Parenthood.

But said Cruz, it takes just 41 votes in the U.S. Senate to block any bill that funds Planned Parenthood, and the American people elected 54 Republicans to the U.S. Senate.

So Republicans have the votes to block Planned Parenthood from using federal funds to destroy even one more innocent life. Instead, Mitch McConnell has already surrendered to President Obama.

And not only did McConnell preemptively surrender long before the vote, he's using the lame excuse, "that's another issue that awaits a new president..."

Memo to Mitch McConnell: Grassroots limited government constitutional conservatives really don’t want much from the GOP’s Capitol Hill establishment.

All we want (really) is for Republican leaders to fulfill the constitutional role the Framers envisioned for Congress – especially the House – to act as a check on an overambitious and overweening President through the power of the purse.

Phyllis Schlafly spoke for that simple demand in her column for Townhall – Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee get it, so does Senator Rand Paul. So do Representatives Jim Bridenstine, Louie Gohmert, Mark Meadows and a few others.

After that the list of those who do, especially among Senate Republicans, starts to get pretty thin.

As big as abortion is as a policy debate, the internal Republican debate over cutting funds for Planned Parenthood is even more consequential from a constitutional perspective.

It goes to the very heart of our constitutional system of government and what the role of Congress is in it.

Why is it so hard for the sophisticated insiders of the Republican establishment to understand this?

As things stand now, the Capitol Hill Republican “leadership” is saying that Congress is a mere rubber stamp for the fiscal demands of President Obama – if he and Harry Reid want it, then Republicans must fund it.

Ted Cruz is right: There’s nothing in the Constitution that requires Republicans to fund programs with which they disagree.

Indeed, the Constitution contemplates that in a system of “checks and balances” Congress will act as a check on an overweening and ambitious President by reining-in spending and encroachments on individual liberty.

That means Capitol Hill Republicans must stand firm against any CR that has Planned Parenthood funding in it.

If they don’t , then what is established is the principle that the liberals in Congress and the Executive are, in essence, entitled to whatever money is necessary to keep programs Congress created in the past going, whether the people now want them or not. And that is, for all intents and purposes, the end of constitutional government in America.

Share this
schlafly-cruz-mcconnell.jpg20.99 KB

Cruz would fight better from the Senate

Your column is excellent.

But only reinforces my frustration with Ted Cruz's wild goose chase of a run for president.

He was elected to put the Senate on "Cruz control" - but has abandoned that worthy and achievable goal in a misguided run for president.

1. How, pray tell, does he hope to get anything done, even if he should win the presidency, with McConnell still firmly entrenched in the Senate? (Because of the equally misguided runs for president of Cruz, Paul, and Rubio, the GOP may even lose the Senate. But the principle still holds if McConnell is still in charge of the Republicans in the Senate.)

2. Who else is more qualified, educated, positioned, and able to mount a serious challenge to McConnell, if not Cruz?

3. If Cruz is the Constitutionalist he claims to be, then why doesn't he use all his fundraising resources and talents to take over the co-equal-in-power role of Senate Majority Leader instead of running for President? Aren't they equal in power in a properly Constitutionally functioning federal government? The same question could be asked of Rand Paul. (Rubio is not a constitutionalist in any way, shape, or form so it's a moot point with him.)

4. Cruz as Senate Majority Leader would be a huge help to a conservative Republican president. OTOH, it's seriously doubtful that Cruz can win the presidency - he was the first in the race, has been in the race since March, and still barely breaks into double digits in polls.

5. Again, I believe Cruz could best serve his country by dropping out of the presidential race and announcing a serious challenge to be Senate Majority Leader. I don't know the legalities and logistics involved of changing a campaign regarding funds raised -- but I would wager that almost all of the folks who are contributing to his presidential run would GLADLY say "keep the money and use it to get rid of McConnell!"