Who Is Jesus Christ?

With Easter being on Sunday, it is only natural that my VIP for the week should be Jesus Christ. Nearly two thousand years ago, He was resurrected. His spirit and His body came together never to be separated again. By overcoming death by resurrection, He made it possible for all mankind to also be resurrected and live forever. By His atoning sacrifice, He also made it possible for us to be forgiven of our sins and live with Heavenly Father for all eternity.

Tyler O’Neil, a senior editor at The Daily Signal, shared his thoughts about Jesus Christ and the Easter message. 

History is chock-full of pivotal moments, from Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon to Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler deciding to invade Russia, to George Washington turning down power. One moment eclipses them all—and most people at the time had no idea this moment would change the world forever.

Mankind has a virtually guaranteed 100% death rate, but one obscure carpenter-turned-rabbi defied the odds. He set off a chain reaction that didn’t just offer eternal salvation, but also inspired movements of compassion and invention that made life better for billions in the here and now.

I know I’m biased—I worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God and believe he will come again. But I also honestly think his Resurrection is the pivotal moment in human history, and not just because it offers eternal salvation to those of us who believe.

It’s hard for us to grasp just how painful most of human existence in the past truly was. Not only did people live for thousands of years without modern conveniences like refrigerators, microwaves, and washing machines, but high infant and child mortality was a fact of life—for the poorest of the poor as well as for the wealthiest and most powerful.

In Ancient Rome, when a plague began spreading, the wealthy quickly departed and the poor secluded themselves. Christianity spread, by contrast, in part because Christians started risking their lives to care for the sick; with a little help, many of the sick recovered.

Rodney Stark, a now-deceased social sciences professor at Baylor University and author of the book “The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success,” told PJ Media that without the Resurrection, “we would still be in a world of mystery and probably in a world of repressive empires.”

He argued that Christianity has been the driving force behind limited government, science, capitalism, the abolition of slavery, medicine, organized charities, and more—and Christianity would have been impossible without the Resurrection. In fact, the Gospels record that Jesus’ disciples scattered—and Peter even denied Jesus three times—but the Resurrection brought them together. According to church tradition, all but one of the apostles died painful deaths under torture, refusing to reject the faith.

There is more information in O’Neil’s article, which you can access here. Jesus Christ had greater influence on mankind than anyone else. His gospel teaches a better way to live. His atoning sacrifice makes it possible to live forever. 

How Should Americans Act During King Charles’ Visit to Washington?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is a visit from the King and Queen of Great Britain. Two hundred and fifty years declared independence from Great Britain. Now Congress has invited King Charles III to address a joint meeting. Members of Congress were not aware of the visit or did not care that the Monarch was coming. Pedro Rodriguez shared the following information in his article published at The Daily Signal. 

The king’s visit will be the first time a British royal addresses Congress since his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, delivered an address to Congress in 1991.

In response to Punchbowl News scooping the king’s speech, Re. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., told The Daily Signal that he had “no idea” Charles was scheduled to visit until The Daily Signal asked. “I didn’t even know he’s coming. I don’t know what he could talk about.”

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., told The Daily Signal he thought the visit was “interesting,” given how rarely British monarchs address Congress. The king “could talk about the relationship between England and America,” Van Drew said with an indifferent shrug. When asked by The Daily Signal whether the king should discuss other conflicts, like the wars in Iran and Ukraine, Van Drew said, “I think he should, I don’t know if he will or not, but I think he should.”

The sentiment is bipartisan. Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., told The Daily Signal that he “honestly doesn’t know” what the British monarch could possibly speak about during his joint address.

Another Republican member of the House told The Daily Signal they are not very invested in what the king will have to say.

“I’m just a commoner, I’m not royalty,” the Republican House member said. “That’s why I’m in the House and not the Senate.”

“I think there’s value and traditions and all those things, and I think that if we ignore those, it could be bad,” the member added.

Congress sent an official invitation on Wednesday for Charles to speak: “The United States Congress would be honored to host Your Majesty for this historic event, which will celebrate the shared heritage and enduring friendship between the United Kingdom and the United States.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X: “it is my distinct honor and great privilege to invite His Majesty King Charles III, The King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland, to address a Joint Meeting of Congress.”

King Charles and Queen Camilla will visit Washington, April 27-30, and will attend a state dinner at the White House while in Washington.

What Does Easter Mean to You?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to numerous scriptures – Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants – about the Easter story. The lesson is titled “He Will Swallow Up Death in Victory” and introduced by the following information. 

The life of Jesus Christ “is central to all human history” (“The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles,” Gospel Library). What does that mean? In part, it means that the Savior’s life influences the eternal destiny of everyone who has ever lived or ever will live. You might also say that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, on that first Easter Sunday, connects all of God’s people throughout history: those who were born before His Resurrection looked forward to it with faith (see Jacob 4:4), and those born after look back on it with faith. As we read Old Testament accounts and prophecies, we don’t ever see the name Jesus Christ, but we do see the evidence of the ancient believers’ faith in and longing for their Messiah and Redeemer. So we who are invited to remember Him can feel a connection with those who looked forward to Him. For truly Jesus Christ has borne “the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6; emphasis added), and “in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22; emphasis added).

The lesson included numerous principles, including (1) Prophets ancient and modern testify of the Savior’s atoning sacrifice. (2) Jesus Christ offers me peace and joy. (3) Because of His Atonement, Jesus Christ has the power to help me overcome sin, death, trials, and weaknesses.

(4) Jesus Christ paid the ultimate price for my salvation.

I feel prompted to discuss a compilation of ideas, something from each principle. There are many passages in the Old Testament that point to the Savior’s life, ministry, and atoning sacrifice. An example could be Zechariah 9:9, which many Bible students will recognize.

9 ¶ Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

This prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus Christ rode a young donkey, a colt, into Jerusalem, as recorded in Matthew 21:1-11.

1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

8 And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.

9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

10 And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

The second principle is about Jesus Christ offering each person peace and joy. Easter is a joyful time, because it’s a time to celebrate the Savior’s Atonement and Resurrection. It is a time of new life – trees, bushes, and grass turn green, flowers start to bloom, and new life is seen in the animal kingdom. Yet, there are many people who do not feel joyful for assorted reasons. We can help them to feel joy by sharing a favorite scripture. One scripture that is helpful to me is

Alma 22:11-22.

11 But Ammon said unto him: I do not boast in my own strength, nor in my own wisdom; but behold, my joy is full, yea, my heart is brim with joy, and I will rejoice in my God.

12 Yea, I know that I am nothing; as to my strength I am weak; therefore I will not boast of myself, but I will boast of my God, for in his strength I can do all things; yea, behold, many mighty miracles we have wrought in this land, for which we will praise his name forever.

13 Behold, how many thousands of our brethren has he loosed from the pains of hell; and they are brought to sing redeeming love, and this because of the power of his word which is in us, therefore have we not great reason to rejoice?

14 Yea, we have reason to praise him forever, for he is the Most High God, and has loosed our brethren from the chains of hell.

15 Yea, they were encircled about with everlasting darkness and destruction; but behold, he has brought them into his everlasting light, yea, into everlasting salvation; and they are encircled about with the matchless bounty of his love; yea, and we have been instruments in his hands of doing this great and marvelous work.

16 Therefore, let us glory, yea, we will glory in the Lord; yea, we will rejoice, for our joy is full; yea, we will praise our God forever. Behold, who can glory too much in the Lord? Yea, who can say too much of his great power, and of his mercy, and of his long-suffering towards the children of men? Behold, I say unto you, I cannot say the smallest part which I feel.

17 Who could have supposed that our God would have been so merciful as to have snatched us from our awful, sinful, and polluted state?

18 Behold, we went forth even in wrath, with mighty threatenings to destroy his church.

19 Oh then, why did he not consign us to an awful destruction, yea, why did he not let the sword of his justice fall upon us, and doom us to eternal despair?

20 Oh, my soul, almost as it were, fleeth at the thought. Behold, he did not exercise his justice upon us, but in his great mercy hath brought us over that everlasting gulf of death and misery, even to the salvation of our souls.

21 And now behold, my brethren, what natural man is there that knoweth these things? I say unto you, there is none that knoweth these things, save it be the penitent.

22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our brethren to repentance.

The third principle teaches that Jesus Christ can help us overcome the problems in our lives because of the power of His Atonement. There are numerous scriptures from which to choose, but I chose Moroni 10:32-33. These verses teach many blessings that can come to us through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

The last principle teaches that Jesus Christ paid the ultimate price for my salvation through his atoning sacrifice. He described his suffering to Joseph Smith as follows.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – President Dallin H. Oaks, President Henry B. Eyring, and President D. Todd Christofferson – released the following Easter message:

As Mary Magdalene and her companions mournfully approached the Garden Tomb, two angels appeared to them and shared the clarion call of all Christianity:

“Why seek ye the living among the dead?

“He is not here, but is risen” (Luke 24:5–6).

This Easter season we also joyfully testify of this same eternal truth — Jesus Christ is risen. He lives! The Savior of the world was crucified and, on the third day, rose from the dead, “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20). His Resurrection allows all to be resurrected, and through His grace, we can find peace “which passeth all understanding” (Philippians 4:7) and “be perfected in him” (Moroni 10:32).

We invite each of you during this Easter season to “seek this Jesus of whom the prophets and apostles have written” (Ether 12:41). As you do so, we testify that your Easter celebrations can strengthen your own faith and testimony that “death is conquered; man is free. Christ has won the victory” (“He Is Risen!,” Hymns, no. 199).

I am grateful for the Easter season because it reminds me that Jesus Christ paid the price for my sins and made it possible through His atoning sacrifice for me and all mankind to return to the presence of Heavenly Father. Heavenly Father sacrificed His Only Begotten Son and Jesus Christ sacrificed His life because They love me and They love you. I look forward to being back in Their presence and enjoying eternal life with Them.

  

Can the American Family Crisis Be Solved?

Communities, states, and nations are stronger when families are strong because the family unit is the core unit of society. According to a newsletter to Heritage Foundation members, the “family is the cornerstone of any successful country.”

The newsletter stated that “the American family is in crisis” and then gave several solid pieces of evidence for the statement: (1) “Marriage rates are near historic lows” with “One in three Americans … projected never to marry.” (2) “Birth rates continue to fall.” (3) America faces an epidemic of broken homes.”

America is in crisis. “If we don’t solve this crisis, we will face an unprecedented level of societal decline in America. We must act now.”

The Heritage Foundation is working to solve the crisis and “launched a groundbreaking new report, “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years.” The report is summarized as follows. 

To end America’s family crisis, policymakers and civic leaders should treat restoring the family home as a matter of justice, driven by two truths. The first is that all children have a right to the affection and protection of the man and woman who created them. The second is that the ideal environment in which to exercise this right is in a loving and stable home with their married biological parents. In contrast, the default in American culture today is to put the desires of adults over the needs of children. Children are too often called to sacrifice what is due to them – the presence of their mom and dad under the same roof for the entirety of their childhood.

The report posted three key takeaways from the material.

1. The family is the foundation of civilization, and marriage – the committed union of one man and one woman – is its cornerstone. It is the seedbed of self-government.

2. The question that will determine the course of America’s future is: What happens to a nation when its citizens largely stop having children and eschew marriage?

3. The only way for America to thrive in the future is to rebuild the family – which can only happen with a societal commitment to revive the institution of marriage.

According to the newsletter, “This report provides a full breakdown of the tragic state of the American family along with innovative policy solutions to encourage family formation.” The newsletter then offers the following three policy solutions.

1. Stop Punishing Married Families

Right now, America’s welfare programs heavily discourage marriage and traditional family formation. This must be reversed….

That is why Congress and the administration should eliminate all marriage penalties in welfare programs, impose work requirements, and end waste, fraud, and abuse that take resources away from hardworking American families.

2. Restore the American Dream

The President should issue a series of executive orders requiring every federal policy, regulation, or grant to explicitly measure how it helps or harms marriage and family, and block or support those actions accordingly.

Congress must also reform and cut large spending programs that feed off the work of Americans and drain them of the ability to save and build a future for their children.

3. Actively Support Marriage and Working Families

The federal government should also make up for the wholesale damage it has done to the family across generations. This includes deposits into new investment accounts for newborns redeemable when Americans get married.

Policymakers should also apply the current child adoption tax credit to married parents for each of their newborns. And they should make every credit, program, and tax benefit provided for paid childcare available for at-home parental child raising. Saving the American family will also require a society-wide cultural renewal….

When political think tanks and prophets are both sounding the same alarm, we can know that there is a fundamental problem. President Dallin H. Oaks – then-President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and now-President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – spoke about the importance of marriage and bearing children six months ago at the bi-annual general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church News summarized his remarks as follows, but his entire talk can be found here. 

The Church’s doctrine centers on the family. “Our relationship to God and the purpose of our mortal life are explained in terms of the family.” The gospel plan’s intended destiny is to exalt God’s children in eternal families.

Marriages and birthrates are declining. “It is vital that Latter-day Saints do not lose their understanding of the purpose of marriage and the value of children. That is the future for which we strive.”

Latter-day Saints have a God-given responsibility to teach their children to prepare for eternity. They can do this even through divorce, death and separation.

Parents, single or married, and others like grandparents who fill that role, are the master teachers for children.

Have love and patience for family members who do not embrace gospel values and expectations. Repentance and spiritual growth are still possible.

Families unite when they do meaningful things together, such as gardening, camping, sports activities, recreation, reunions, working in the yard and home, learning languages and more. Families flourish when they learn together and counsel together.

Blessings come to families as they pray and worship together, share family stories, create traditions and share sacred experiences.

            The sealing powers in the temple bring families together for eternity. 

Will the Supreme Court Change the Meaning of “Subject to the Jurisdiction”?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns birthright citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on a case challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. The court will most likely hand down their decision before the end of June. No one yet knows the decision, but the justices’ questions sound like the Trump administration will lose this case.

There are numerous articles about oral arguments today. One article was written by Lauren Irwin (reporting from outside the Supreme Court) and Emma Pitts (reporting from Salt Lake City) and published at the Deseret News. 

The Trump administration gave two main arguments for doing away with birthright citizenship or at least seeing substantial changes. The first argument is that “the citizenship clause in the 14^th Amendment has been misinterpreted for decades, asserting that just because a baby is born on U.S. soil should not automatically guarantee citizenship.

The administration’s second main argument was that “other countries do not allow birthright citizenship. Trump said that we are “the only country in the Word STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” There are plenty of countries that restrict birthright citizenship, but at least thirty-five countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer began his argument by quoting the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” He stated that the argued that “the federal government’s interpretation of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means lawful, permanent allegiance to the U.S.” Under this meaning, “children born to temporary visitors or immigrants living illegally on U.S. soil” would not be granted automatic U.S. citizenship.

Sauer and Chief Justice John Roberts did a little jousting. Sauer said, “We’re in a new world now … where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen” – something that the framers of the 14^th Amendment could not have imagined. Roberts responded, “It’s a new world, [but] It’s the same Constitution.”

Cecillia Wang, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued inside the court, while protesters rallied outside to oppose any changes to birthright citizenship.

Both sides cited a Supreme Court decision from 127 years ago, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a decision “in which the court confirmed and clarified the 14^th Amendment.” Wang accused Sauer of trying to overturn the Wong ruling. Sauer responded that he was not trying to overturn the decision but to “reinterpret it or narrow it down so that it does not control the outcome of the justices’ current decision.”

Questions from the justices over the government’s current interpretation of the Wong case showed skepticism of the administration’s argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch went as far as to say that Sauer shouldn’t be invoking it in his argument.

If Wong has been understood for over 100 years to mean broad birthright citizenship, then narrowing it now seems functionally equivalent to overturning it, the justices said. Sauer disagreed….

Justice Samuel Alito was arguably the most aggressive when questioning ACLU’s interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark case.

“We’ve heard a lot of talk about Wong Kim Ark, and you dismiss the use of the word domicile in it,” Alito said. “It appears in the opinion 20 different times – including in the question presented and in the actual legal holding – and the government doesn’t want it to be overruled because it relies on, willing to rely on that particular fact … isn’t it at least something to be concerned about?”

Wang acknowledged the word but said that domicile was just one of the facts of the case, not the legal rule. The actual rule, she said, states that citizenship does not depend on domicile at all.

Alito did not seem satisfied with her response. “I might agree with you if domicile had simply been sprinkled in the opinion,” he said.

The justices are expected to issue a decision on the case by June. It’s unclear how the justices will ultimately rule, but after arguments Wednesday, they appeared to show skepticism of the administration’s argument for changing the interpretation of the Constitution.

President Trump made history on Wednesday as he sat in the courtroom’s public gallery to listen to arguments in the case. Trump arrived with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and stayed in the courtroom for an hour before leaving.

 

Can We Win Iran War Militarily and Lose It Politically?

 Everyone has an opinion of what President Donald Trump should do in Iran – or what he should not have done. Everyone should understand the first important fact: Democrats and Leftists oppose everything that Donald Trump does, not because it is bad policy but because it is Trump doing it. Therefore, the opinions of Democrats and Leftists do not really count for anything.

In his article titled “Trump Has the Law and Military Strategy on His Side in US-Iran War” and published at The Daily Signal, Victor Davis Hanson gives his opinion on some of the issues of the war. 

Issue one: The Left believes that President Trump “does not have authorization from Congress” to go to war. However, that claim is not true.

… the 1973 War Powers Act says that a president must notify Congress of his intention. And [Secretary of State] Marco Rubio has done that. And then he has 60 to 90 days to conduct a war without notifying Congress. And we’re now in one month. 30 days.

Issue two: Barack Obama, a constitution lawyer, has criticized Trump’s attack on Iran. However, he must have conveniently forgotten bombing Libya in 2011.

Remember that the [Moammar] Gadhafi regime had given up all of its nuclear proliferation sites. We had Americans on the ground, stealthily, so that we were dismantling them.

I was there in Libya in 2007, and I saw the country, and it was under massive transformation as Libyans were starting to be accrued to the idea that their children, the next generation of dictators, were going to liberalize the country. And Libya was terrified of the United States after its threats to denuclearize countries that had started bomb programs. So, it had given up its elements of it.

But the point I’m making is Obama then went in, in 2011, when there was a civil war, along with some NATO countries. It was the idea of Samantha Power, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, all keen critics of the current war, who demanded that we bomb.

And we bombed not for 30 days, not for 60 days, not for 90 days. We bombed for seven months. And we didn’t have 10,000 sorties. We had 26,000 sorties, and no one said a word. No one said a word, because the media was left. And they supported whatever Obama did.

Same thing with the most disastrous misadventure we’ve had in recent military history in Afghanistan. When we left, skedaddled out of Afghanistan, we left contractors, loyal Afghans behind.

We took unaudited Afghans with us, with, you know, a bustle completely unaudited, and many of them have turned up to be criminals or dependent on welfare.

And then, in addition, we lost 13 Marines. We’ve lost that many in 30 days of war, but Joe Biden lost that in one day. And then we left, I don’t know how many, record estimates, statistics say $30 to $50 billion of military architecture and weapons. A billion-dollar embassy. $300 million refitted Air Force base at Bagram. No one said a word.

There was hardly any criticism. So, take that with a grain of salt. The war is legal, and the hysteria about it is media-driven, as a part of the Left’s ability to weaken the presidency.

Issue three: The reasons that President Trump went to war – the aims of the war.

… Donald Trump listed four or five aims. He did on March 1. He did on March 20. We know what they were. [No. 1], We wanted to end their nuclear program … Stop their ability to make a bomb. [Almost there.]

No. 2, we wanted to end their missile program, their ballistic missiles. And we’re making progress. And we wanted to stop the ability of them to recreate them. Their industry. Israel’s going after that.

And we can’t really stop the resupply, if the Russians are sending new missiles across the Caspian Sea, as some reports suggest, but we’re trying to do our best. So, the war is not lost at all. And the aims have been systematically achieved.

[No. 3] was stop the money going to Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas. And they are all desperate. That was very unpopular with the Iranian people to give precious billions of dollars, while they were near starvation, and arm Arab terrorists. They were not in favor of that.

[No. 4] was to stop the killing of Americans. Over the last 47 years, no terrorist entity or cadre has killed more Americans in barracks, embassies, during the Iraq and Afghan wars, with shaped charges, than Iran has. It tried to kill Donald Trump. It tried to kill John Bolton, had tried to kill Mike Pompeo, had tried to kill [former U.S. Special Representative for Iran] Brian Hook, tried to kill the Saudi ambassador. So, we’re gonna try to stop that.

[No. 5 was to protect the Gulf states. Iran attacked “Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabis, all of these countries that are the main exporters of oil and the competitors of Iran.” Also to stop Iran’s intimidation of the Gulf states.]

[No. 6] regime change was not explicitly listed. That would be the optimum result. You want the regime out. Because whatever damage you do, and it will [be] considerable, in three or four or five, 10 years, it will be resupplied by the Chinese and the Russians.

But that was not an explicit agenda item. Donald Trump said help is on the way. He mused about getting rid of these theocrats. We’ve decimated their military and theocratic chain of command. But we never explicitly said we’re going to Iran to get rid of the government….

Issue four: “The war is lost!”

… All we can do is compare history. And as I said earlier, if you look at the first Gulf War, 42 days of bombing and some four days of ground troops. And as far as the air power, we lost 63 aircraft. Sixty-three.

We’ve only lost one major plane. We lost 63 helicopters and aircraft and 20 airmen dead. And in the Serbian campaign, it went on for 72 days. We had all our NATO allies behind us. And Serbia was a paper tiger compared to Iran.

So, in comparison to these types of operations, it’s been very successful.

Hanson explained that there is a political side and a military side to every war, and they cannot be mixed. “Militarily, this is a clear victory, and it will have political dividends or ill effects depending in a cost-benefit analysis, what the American people adjudicate.”

In other words, when they look at this war and they say it was not an existential war immediately, but it was necessary to stop this Iranian threat, of 47 years. Was it conducted in a way that the pluses outweighed the minuses? And then they will make a political calculation.

If the war is still going on and they feel that it wasn’t, then they will pressure Donald Trump through their representatives and the media to stop it, even though militarily it’s successful. Militarily successful operations are not always politically successful. We’ve learned that in Vietnam, where we didn’t lose a single conventional battle. We didn’t lose a single conventional battle in Iraq or Afghanistan. And we lost the war politically. Politically.

We won amazing victories in 1952 and 1953 in Korea. And politically, it was a stalemate. So, let’s not confuse the two. You can have a militarily brilliant campaign, as we’re having, and you can lose this war politically.

We haven’t yet. But something to watch for.

Hanson knows history. He also knows that history can be repeated if something does not change. The Vietnam War was the war of my generation, and several friends fought in Vietnam. The Left, including the media, were not supportive. Jane Fonda went to Vietnam and did nothing for the prisoners of war. The prisoners never forgot what she did.

What I remember most is the daily reciting of the number of Americans killed in the war. Each day the media reported how many American military had died that day and then gave the total number: 2,500, 3,000, 30, 000, 45,000, etc. The number kept growing. The official total of U.S. military personnel who died in Vietnam is 58,220, but that number does not include those men who came home and killed themselves – such as one of my husband’s friends.

When the soldiers arrived in their first airport in the United States, they changed out of their uniforms into civilian clothing. Otherwise, people who were opposed to the war spit on them, threw things at them, called them murderers, and said and did other things to them. My friends said that it was terrible to come home to such treatment.

I also remember that the Vietnam War affected presidential politics. President Lyndon B. Johnson recognized that he would lose the election because of the politics of the war, so he did not run for reelection to his second full term in office.

Democrats and Leftists are determined to stop Donald Trump in any way that they can. This shows in how left-leaning media report on the Iran war. It also shows in how Democrats refuse to fund Homeland Security in a time of war. They act the same way that they did during the war in Vietnam. Hopefully, the Iran war will be won both militarily and politically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should Birthright Citizenship Change or Remain as It Is?

 Birthright citizenship has long been a topic discussed on this blog. It is a topic that will soon be heard at the U.S. Supreme Court because President Donald Trump, on the first day of his second term, signed an Executive Order ending the long-established interpretation of birthright citizenship. Lawsuits were immediately filed. They were consolidated, and the Supreme Court will hear the arguments tomorrow.

In her article filed at the Deseret News, Lauren Irwin, national politics reporter, discussed what Americans should know before the Supreme Court hears the arguments. 

Trump was seeking to reinterpret the constitutional language giving citizenship to almost every child who is born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ legal status. The president doesn’t want citizenship granted to children born to parents who are in the United States either illegally or temporarily.

The order sparked concern among expecting mothers, immigration advocates and constitutionalists. It was also unclear what the order could mean for those who had already been granted citizenship under the long-standing constitutional right.

The case before the Supreme Court was partially presented to the justices during last year’s term, but the high court ultimately ruled on the matter of nationwide injunctions, declining to take up the birthright issue itself. This week, the justices will hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that blocked his executive order….

Trump administration argument

Trump’s order challenged the interpretation of the 14^th Amendment, saying that babies born to parents unlawfully in the U.S. or in the country on a temporary visa cannot be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the country, or granted automatic citizenship.

The administration is likely going to lean on its argument that in the language of the amendment, it states that all people born in the U.S. are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The 14^th Amendment reads, in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The administration argues that the language was not meant to cover everyone born on U.S. soil and should apply only to those who pledge allegiance to the country, not those who want to come to the U.S. to give birth to their children and have a through-line to citizenship that way.

[This intent could be shown by the use of commas setting off “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The use of commas has determined previous court decisions.]

The 14^th Amendment was adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War.

In 1857, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution did not extend citizenship to enslaved Black people in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. In 1868, the 14^th Amendment was added to the Constitution, guaranteeing citizenship, due process and equal protection to those born in or naturalized in the country. In 1898, the Supreme Court confirmed and clarified the amendment in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case.

Wong Kim Ark was a child born in San Francisco to parents who were Chinese citizens at the time, before later becoming U.S. citizens. The boy was denied reentry to the U.S. after a trip abroad and the legal battle over his citizenship reached the Supreme Court. This was the first case on the status of children born to immigrants and created a precedent in the court’s interpretation of the 14^th Amendment going forward.

But the administration argues that Trump’s order “restores the original meaning” of the Citizenship Clause, and that the text was intended to provide citizenship to enslaved peoples and permanent residents.

The administration argues that the respondents in the current case who say that Wong Kim Ark’s case proves citizenship should be extended to all immigrant children miss that in 1898, at the time of the ruling, the boy’s parents were of “lawful ‘permanent domicil and residence’ here.” However, the ACLU and respondents say that the court’s decision in the case includes “all immigrants,” proving that “even temporary visitors” should be subject to the jurisdiction and the rights provided by the amendment.

Opposing Trump’s order

Several lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s order. The lawsuits were filed by expectant mothers, immigrant rights groups and several states. They were consolidated into one case for the Supreme Court to review.

The groups challenging Trump’s order, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, point to the historical precedent that courts, Congress and previous presidents have all understood and accepted regarding the language of the amendment. The ACLU says that birthright citizenship is “central to who we are as a country” and that “no president has the power to rewrite the Constitution.”

The respondents in their brief to the court, like the administration, are leaning heavily on the text of the amendment. They argue that “all persons born here” should apply to “all” and “not just some.” They noted that the Framers included the text to be “All persons born here” so it’s broadly interpreted to include many, not just a few.

[Framers is a term used to designate the people who wrote the Constitution in the late 1700s. The 14^th Amendment was written after the Civil War that ended in 1864.]

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues in the administration’s brief that birthright citizenship has been taken advantage of by women who come to the country to give birth solely so their children receive U.S. citizenship.

The respondents pushed back on this argument, saying that even if the pathway to citizenship was being abused through “birth tourism,” it was “marginal” and there were other ways to deal with the issue if it is a problem….

[These are some of the same people who claimed that the border was closed and that no election fraud took place.]

Respondents want to continue with the practice as it has been done, while the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to take a fresh look at the problem and not simply rely on text that is decades old.

The 14^th Amendment was meant to give citizenship to the babies of slaves. In the 1860s, people were not traveling like they are today. The amendment was not meant for rich people who can afford to live in a foreign land long enough to have a baby or for people desperate to have a child who is a citizen of the United States.

Although many experts believe that Trump’s executive order was unlawful, there are others who believe otherwise.

Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, said “birth tourism” is an example of “the absurdity” that birthright citizenship has brought to the U.S.

“The 14^th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreigners,” he said online. “Its current application is a gross exploitation that must end if American citizenship is to mean anything at all.”

A decision on the case is expected by the end of the current term, which ends in June.