Today, September 24, 2005, my wife of 41 years was honored as "Homemaker of the Year" at Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum meeting in St. Louis.

Joined by her three daughters, Amanda, Jennifer, and Alexandra, Peggy spoke eloquently and ably represented the Phillips family.

Here is a summary bio:

Peggy Phillips is the third of four daughters born to Dr. and Mrs. Walter O. Blanchard of Newton and Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Dr. Blanchard, born to a low-income family in Somerville, Massachusetts, was awarded full scholarships to Harvard College and Harvard Medical School from each of which he graduated magna cum laude.

Peggy’s Dad was an active foe of socialized medicine and conveyed to Peggy a passionate streak of political and moral conservatism.

Dr. Blanchard was nationally recognized for his leadership in efforts to assist the handicapped and as founder of an organization to help persons afflicted with epilepsy.

While in private practice, where he served patients at his home office, and as a teacher at Harvard Medical School, Chief of Medicine at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and finally as Chief of Medicine at the Raytheon Corporation, Dr. Blanchard was universally respected for his integrity and his indifference to material benefits.

While a student at Newton College of the Sacred Heart, Peggy organized and led a very active Young Republican Club.

In her senior year, while attending a speech by Congressman Walter Judd at a statewide meeting of the Massachusetts Caucus of Young Republican Clubs, Peggy met Howard Phillips, a Harvard Junior, who sought her support for his candidacy to become Massachusetts College YR Chairman.

When Peggy delivered to Howard the unanimous support of her Newton College delegation, she was elected to be his Co-Chairman, and, over the next few years, Howard and Peggy worked together organizing 39 college YR clubs, building what many believed to be the strongest political organization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with more than 300 volunteers who turned out regularly on weekends to help score uphill victories for GOP candidates in districts many of which were overwhelmingly Democratic.

Peggy and Howard also worked together in battling the Left-wing United States National Student Association and helping build New England chapters of Young Americans for Freedom.

They were married in 1964, shortly after Howard, at age 23, was elected Chairman of the Boston Republican Party.

Their first child, Douglas, was born in 1965. A graduate of the College of William and Mary in Virginia and George Mason Law School, where he studied Constitutional law, Doug and his wife, Beall, who led the pro-life group at Doug’s college, now live in San Antonio, Texas with their seven children. They work together on a variety of projects, including Doug’s company, Vision Forum, and his charitable organization, Vision Forum Ministries. Doug is heavily involved with the home school movement, the Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy, the Institute for Creation Research, the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival, the annual Faith and Freedom Tour, and much more.

In 1966, after moving to the Washington, D.C. area, where Howard was a top assistant to GOP National Chairman Ray Bliss and helped staff the National Republican Coordinating Committee, Peggy gave birth to Amanda, who lives with her husband, Brian, and their four children in Purcellville, Virginia in a home which Brian personally designed and constructed. Brian and Amanda met at Grove City College where they were classmates.

In 1968, while Howard was managing the successful U.S. Senate campaign of Pennsylvania Congressman Dick Schweiker, their son, Brad, was born. Brad and his wife, Angel, and their four children now live in Rappahannock County, Virginia, to which Brad and his entire family have recently returned from a two-month mission to Africa.

As Founder and President of the Persecution Project Foundation, Brad has helped Christians in southern Sudan with radios, schools, hospitals, orphanages, and strategic support for the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), led by his close friend, Dr. John Garang, who was assassinated just a few days after having been installed as Vice President of the Sudan and shortly after meeting with Brad and his family at SPLA headquarters in southern Sudan.

Brad’s organization has delivered many tons of food and medical supplies to the Christian victims of the Marxist-Islamist Sudanese government based in Khartoum.

In 1974, just after Howard was finishing his service as Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, where he strove to close down Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society", and just weeks before the launch of The Conservative Caucus, Peggy gave birth to Jennifer, now a graduate of Hillsdale College, who lives and works in New York City while pursuing an acting career for which she prepared in college and at various venues in the Washington, D.C. area, including the Washington Shakespeare Company.

In 1978, while Howard was leading the national campaign against the surrender of the U.S. Zone and Canal at Panama, Peggy gave birth to Alexandra, who has graduated from the Eastman School of Music in New York and is currently pursuing a Master’s Degree at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. Alexandra has already distinguished herself as a soprano with the Baltimore Opera Company, the Knoxville Opera, and the Shaker Mountain Opera Company in the Berkshires. Alexandra has even had the opportunity to sing the national anthem at a major league baseball game.

Both Alexandra and Jenny are fans of Gilbert and Sullivan and have acted in some of their operettas.

Peggy’s youngest son, Samuel Joshua Phillips, was born in 1986. He benefited from 12 years of home schooling, during which he organized the Patrick Henry Oratorical Society, acted in the film, "Gods and Generals", and was named the Outstanding Athlete for leadership and sportsmanship in his hometown Babe Ruth League. Sam also worked with his Dad in organizing a geostrategic tour of the Far East in which he helped arrange events in Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, and Taiwan, featuring presentations by some 45 diplomats, military leaders, public officials, geo-strategists, and Christian activists.

Sam, who was elected Class President shortly after arriving at Christendom College, is now in his sophomore year, following an eventful summer which included ten days in Israel. He previously took part in a study tour in Italy.

During 41 years of marriage, Peggy has been a faithful wife, mother, and grandmother, providing encouragement and support to every member of her family.

Eleven members of the U.S. House of Representatives courageously voted against President Bush’s $52 billion plus supplementary appropriation to deal with the problems arising from Hurricane Katrina.

The eleven Constitutional heroes were: Joe Barton (Texas), Jeff Flake (Arizona), Virginia Foxx (North Carolina), Scott Garrett (New Jersey), John Hostettler (Indiana), Steve King (Iowa), C. L. Otter (Idaho), Ron Paul (Texas), James Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin), Thomas Tancredo (Colorado), and Lynn Westmoreland (Georgia).

I sent each of them the following letter:

Dear Congressman: On behalf of The Conservative Caucus, please accept my congratulations and appreciation for your courageous vote against the $52 billion New Orleans funding package proposed by President Bush. You did what was right, and that you did so reflects credit on your discernment and integrity.

JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR: "I never turned down a request. I think it’s right that if there had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I would have. But it was my view that lawyers don’t stand in the shoes of their clients and that good lawyers can give advice and argue any side of a case. And as I said, I was asked frequently to participate in that type of assistance for other partners at the firm. And I never turned anyone down."

My friend, Dr. Rick Scarborough, the Founder and President of Vision America, has been a leader in the fight against judicial tyranny and in support of the religious liberties guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

On March 27 and 28, 2006, Dr. Scarborough will be hosting a conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. The agenda is as listed below. Please note that this conference was scheduled for October 17-18, 2005, but has been rescheduled.

March 27, 2006
8:30 – Conference Opens, Introductory Remarks
9:00 – Panel: News Media
10:00 – Speaker: Sen. Brownback 
10:30 – Panel: Hollywood and Christians
11:30 – Panel: Public Education Panel
12:30 – Lunch, Speakers: Sen. Santorum, Alan Keyes 
2:00 – Panel: Academia
3:00 – Speaker: Congressman DeLay
3:30 – Panel: Judiciary
4:30 – Panel: Left-Wing Activist Organizations
6:30 – Banquet, Speakers: Rick Scarborough, Zell Miller

March 28, 2006
8:30 – Conference convenes
9:00 – Panel: Promoting Faith In A Hostile Culture
10:00 – Speaker: Sen. Coburn
10:30 – Speaker: Gary Bauer 
11:00 – Panel: Our Judeo-Christian Roots
12:00 – Lunch, Speaker: Sen. Cornyn
2:00 – Panel: Christian Political Activism
3:00 – Speaker: Dr. Jerry Falwell 
4:30 – Speaker: Gov. Huckabee TBA
5:00 – 6:00 – Closing Remarks, Conference Adjourns

For more information: www.visionamerica.us or 866-522-5582

These comments have been prepared prior to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings regarding President Bush’s appointment of John Glover Roberts, Jr. to William Rehnquist’s chair in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Because there is so much uncertainty about where Roberts will stand on many issues, it behooves us to await the conclusion of those hearings before making a final determination as to whether a conscientious Constitutional conservative should vote against Judge Roberts’ confirmation.

When Roberts was named to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor, the likelihood was that his service on the bench, compared to that of Mrs. O’Connor, would be a net plus.

However, it became a very different story when George Bush decided to make Roberts his replacement for Chief Justice Rehnquist.

There are at least two reasons why this is so:

1. Mr. Justice Rehnquist was a consistent articulate opponent of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Roe v. Wade.

2. Moreover, he was a consistent foe of pro-homosexual rulings by the court, in such cases as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, as well as in Bowers v. Hardwick, where his position was that of the Court majority.

There is reason to conclude that, to put it mildly, Roberts will be less dependable than was Rehnquist on the important issues of abortion and sodomy.

There are several reasons for conservatives, Christians, and Constitutionalists generally to be troubled by the voluntary assistance provided to the homosexual activists by Mr. Roberts. Among them are these:

1) Judge Roberts did not disclose his involvement when he responded to a specific question on the questionnaire he filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee;

2) Judge Roberts apparently had no moral objection to using his skills to advance the homosexual agenda;

3) It suggests an absence of an understanding by Mr. Roberts that homosexual conduct is sinful and ought to be discouraged;

4) It suggests that, as a Supreme Court Justice, Judge Roberts would divorce himself from common law principles and Biblical morality in determining his position in particular cases; and

5) It is another example of how Judge Roberts seems to go out of his way to pander to those on the Left who might otherwise oppose him."

"John Roberts pledged...to respect established rulings if confirmed to the Supreme Court, saying judges must recognize that their role is ‘not to solve society’s problems.’ …

"Roberts provided responses to a broad array of questions involving work history, political ties and views on judicial activism. His thoughts on that subject are considered critical to gauging his position on overturning the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion." Source: NewsMax.com, 8/3/05

*Edward Lazarus, a close friend of Judge John Roberts, expresses the view that "Roberts is not burdened by a Bork-like record of speaking out in his own voice….

"Roberts presents a sharp contrast to Bork in judicial philosophy. Roberts is already on record strongly disclaiming an allegiance to any particular theory of constitutional interpretation, such as original intent jurisprudence. Roberts says that he picks and chooses what interpretive tools to use (such as textual analysis, historical analysis, or reliance on precedent) depending on which tools seem best to fit a particular case. …"

"Putting politics aside, the current Court member Roberts most resembles is Stephen Breyer. Roberts is far more intellectual than Rehnquist, far more politic than Scalia, and – as noted above – far less extreme than Thomas." Source: Edward Lazarus, elazarus@findlaw.com, 8/5/05

*According to Human Events (8/15/05, p. 6), "On Feb. 16, 1982, as a special assistant to Atty. Gen. William French Smith, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts wrote a memo providing advice on how the attorney general could deal with criticism of the Reagan Justice Department from Human Events, National Review, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations in a speech he was scheduled to give to conservatives.

"One passage in Roberts’ memo discusses how the attorney general should handle conservative criticism of Sandra Day O’Connor, whom President Reagan had named to the Supreme Court the previous year. This passage cites five separate articles in Human Events about O’Connor and her less-than-conservative record. Three of these HE stories specifically cited a misleading internal Justice Department memo about O’Connor that had been written by then-Justice Department official Kenneth Starr. Roberts’ memo about how to finesse HE’s criticism was carbon-copied to Starr himself."

"In a July 18, 1981, story, which Roberts footnotes in his memo, Human Events had reported.[sic] ‘Even more serious, so far as conservatives are concerned was the July 7, 1981, memo for the attorney general from counselor Kenneth W. Starr. The memo states that Starr talked to O’Connor by phone on two occasions on July 6, and that she "provided the following information with respect to her public record on family-related issues." But if O’Connor provided the record, it was far from complete. For instance, the memo refers to [Arizona] House Bill 20, which virtually eliminated restrictions as to when a doctor could perform an abortion. "There is no record of how [state] Sen. O’Connor voted," says the Starr memo, "and she indicated that she has no recollection of how she voted." Yet, Dr. Carolyn Gerster, the leader of the right-to-life movement in Arizona, has since forwarded to the attorney general a copy of an April 30, 1970, article in the Arizona Republic which boldly states that O’Connor voted in favor of the legislation.

"The Justice Department memo also completely omits from the O’Connor record her April 23, 1974, vote in the [Arizona] Senate Judiciary Committee against a resolution urging Congress to support a human life amendment to the Constitution. Why, right to lifers are asking, wasn’t this important vote in the memo? Did Mrs. O’Connor’s memory fail her, or did the Justice Department fail to include it?’

"In responding to this and similar reports in HE, Roberts wrote: ‘A related criticism focuses on the screening and appointment of federal judges, highlighted by the O’Connor debate. The assertion is that appointees are not ideologically committed to the President’s policies, again with particular emphasis on the social agenda. …"

" ‘Here again I do not think we should respond with a "yes, they are" ’; rather we should shift the debate and briefly touch on our judicial restraint themes (for which this audience should give us some credit). It really should not matter what the personal ideology of our appointees may be, so long as they recognize that their ideology should have no role in the decisional process – i.e., so long as they believe in judicial restraint. This theme should be glossed somewhat, because of the platform, but we can make the point that much criticism of our appointees has been misdirected.’ [Emphasis in original.]

"The ‘platform’ to which Roberts refers is presumably the 1980 Republican Party platform, which called for the appointment of judges ‘who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.’ " Source: Human Events, 8/15/05, p. 6

Barring evidence to the contrary which might emerge from the confirmation hearings, it would seem that the confirmation of Judge Roberts to replace William Rehnquist would be a net loss for the "conservative" cause.

If I were a United States Senator, here follow some of the questions which I would direct to him:

1. To what degree would a Justice Roberts feel bound by precedent, even in cases which he acknowledges to have been wrongly decided, such as Roe v. Wade?

2. Is Judge Roberts prepared to set aside the "Lemon test" which requires that public acknowledgment of God have a secular purpose?

3. What view does Judge Roberts have concerning the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would Judge Roberts reference foreign law, foreign constitutions, foreign court rulings and "world opinion" in formulating his Supreme Court opinions?

5. How does Judge Roberts interpret the proper application of the "good Behaviour" clause in Article III of the Constitution?

6. Would Judge Roberts conclude as a Justice that, even though Article III Constitutionally authorizes restrictions on the Federal judiciary that it ought not be applied, for reasons of prudence?

7. Does Judge Roberts believe that Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided? What about Hardwick v. Bowers? What about Lawrence v. Texas?

8. Is it legitimate, in Judge Roberts’ view, for the Federal government to fund organizations which engage in policy advocacy?

9. When you are faced with the possibility of overturning a previous Supreme Court decision which you believe to have been wrongly decided, what factors would you take into account in deciding whether to overturn rather than adhering to stare decisis? How much emphasis would you give to the ability of people to react by changing future behavior if overturning would have no impact on their previous behavior?

10. What do you believe that the members of the Constitutional Convention and the state ratification conventions understood to be the definition of "interstate commerce"? On what do you base this definition?

11. Do you believe that the phrase, "the people", has the same meaning everywhere it appears in the Constitution? If not, what different meanings would you assign to the phrase?

12. Given that the Constitution assigns Congress the power to "declare war", what limits does that put on the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief?

13. When interpreting the Constitution, how much authority should the debates in the ratifying conventions and the Constitutional Convention have?

14. How did the authors of the First Amendment define "an establishment of religion"? Has that definition been changed by any subsequent amendments to the Constitution?

September 1 — This afternoon I participated in a two-hour Claremont Institute Workshop being held in the context of the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association at the Wardman Park Marriott Hotel in Washington, D.C. During the panel Michael Ledeen, who has an office adjacent of Mrs. Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute, said he opposes military action against Iran but believes that the United States should take active measures to support an internal democratic revolution against the incumbent Iranian regime. 

On a separate matter, I challenged the comments of one of the panelists who argued that the government of the United States is less subject to destabilization than any government in recorded history. I said that events in New Orleans should be a lesson to us all, in that a single nuclear warhead on a scud missile launched 100 miles offshore could, via electromagnetic pulse, make the entire country similar to post Katrina New Orleans, except for the problem of flooding. 

I said that destabilization could similarly be the consequence of a nuclear or chemical or biological attack on U.S. soil, or a nuclear strike against U.S. population of the sort which has been promised by leaders of the Communist Chinese People’s Liberation Army should the U.S. government intervene to preserve an independent democratic government on Taiwan in the face of an attack by Beijing.

During the late 1970’s, as Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, I organized and led a 50-state tour mobilizing opposition to the Jimmy Carter/Leonid Brezhnev SALT Treaty, which, in our view, posed a serious threat to the vital security interests of the United States. During that tour, I was privileged to be joined by about a dozen of America’s top retired military leaders, including Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, General Richard Stilwell, Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, Lt. General Gordon Sumner, Major General Stewart Meyer, Major General Milnor Roberts, Major General George Keegan, Major General John, K. Singlaub, Major General Vernon Lewis, Brig, General Robert Richardson, Colonel James Short, and anti-SALT Chairman Brig. General Al Knight.

One of my favorites was retired Chief of Naval Operations Elmo Zumwalt, a man of extraordinary character and courage who is perceived by many to be a liberal, but whose life story embodied patriotism, heroism, and personal sacrifice. I vividly recall some of the discussions I had with Admiral Zumwalt, from whom I learned much, and it was a particular pleasure for me to meet his magnificent wife, Mouza. Admiral Zumwalt met Mouza soon after entering Shanghai harbor in 1945. Mrs. Zumwalt died at 83 on August 25. Her husband died in 2000.

As reported in The Washington Post, Mrs. Zumwalt "lived in 40 homes, raised four children, ‘kept the books, and made life rich in tiny nooks’, her husband wrote…in a poem titled "Tribute to a Golden Partner".

You raised morale on many ships,
Solved many family problems on
        ocean trips.

Admiral Zumwalt’s book, a personally inscribed copy of which is a great treasure in the Phillips family is something which I regard as must reading.

Charles Orndorff, Administrative Vice Chairman of The Conservative Caucus and a distinguished Constitutional scholar in his own right, has proposed that Supreme Court nominee, John Glover Roberts, Jr., be asked the following questions during his confirmation hearings. These are in addition to the questions which I previously passed on to the Judiciary Committee.

1. When you are faced with the possibility of overturning a previous Supreme Court decision which you believe to have been wrongly decided, what factors would you take into account in deciding whether to overturn rather than adhering to stare decisis? How much emphasis would you give to the ability of people to react by changing future behavior if overturning would have no impact on their previous behavior?

2. What do you believe that the members of the Constitutional Convention and the state ratification conventions understood to be the definition of "interstate commerce"? On what do you base this definition?

3. Do you believe that the phrase, "the people", has the same meaning everywhere it appears in the Constitution? If not, what different meanings would you assign to the phrase?

4. Given that the Constitution assigns Congress the power to "declare war", what limits does that put on the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief?

5. When interpreting the Constitution, how much authority should the debates in the ratifying conventions and the Constitutional Convention have?

6. How did the authors of the First Amendment define "an establishment of religion"? Has that definition been changed by any subsequent amendments to the Constitution?