Who Is Rudy Giuliani?

My VIP for this week is “America’s Mayor” Rudy Giuliani. The “81-year-old former New York City mayor is in critical condition in a Florida hospital,” according to Blaze News. 

Giuliani was the mayor who solved the crime problem in New York City and made the Big Apple safe to visit again. He was also the mayor on September 11, 2001, when terrorists struck the Twin Towers.

Giuliani’s spokesman Ted Goodman wrote on X, “Giuliani is currently in the hospital where he remains in critical but stable condition. Mayor Giuliani is a fighter who has faced every challenge in his life with unwavering strength, and he’s fighting with that same level of strength as we speak.” Goodman also asked for “prayers for America’s Mayor Rudy Giuliani.”

In his article published at The Daily Signal, Al Perrotta reported that Giuliani “is on the mend.” He wrote that “America’s Mayor” “is recovering from pneumonia” and “remains hospitalized in critical but stable condition.” 

Giuliani, 81, came to global prominence in 2001 as he led New York’s recovery from the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers, which his spokesperson said led to him developing restrictive airway disease.

“This condition adds complications to any respiratory illness, and the virus quickly overwhelmed his body, requiring mechanical ventilation to maintain adequate oxygen and stabilize his condition,” spokesperson Ted Goodman said in a post on X.

He added that Giuliani was now breathing on his own.

Perrotta also reported that the former mayor of New York City is now a resident of West Palm Beach, Florida, where he is hospitalized at Good Samaritan Medical Center.

What Speech Is Protected?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Recently, Jimmy Kimmel thought he was being funny by discussing how Melania Trump glowed like a soon-to-be widow. She confronted him and called for him to lose his job.

It was “reckless political speech,” according to Ben Shapiro in his article published at The Daily Signal. 

Americans love arguing about free speech. We invoke the First Amendment as a kind of political force field: You can say whatever you want, whenever you want, without consequence.

But the First Amendment only restricts government action. It does not guarantee you a career, a platform or immunity from backlash. The real question is not whether certain speech is legal but rather what kind of speech deserves social consequences – and what kind doesn’t.

And if we’re talking about reckless political speech, we should talk about Jimmy Kimmel. Years ago, he abandoned comedy in favor of applause lines, tearful monologues, and the occasional performance of empathy. He’s an unfunny late-night scold who treats half the country as a punchline.

As annoying as that is, being unfunny is not a crime. The bigger issue is when media figures cross the line from tastelessness into rhetoric that creates a permission structure for violence. To understand the difference, it helps to break political speech into three categories.

First: illegal speech.

Yes, illegal political speech exists in America. A classic example: “I want to kill the president.” That’s not merely commentary. It is an actionable, direct threat.

There is also incitement. Under the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg standard, speech qualifies as incitement only if it is intended to and likely to produce imminent lawless action.

“Someone should do something about the president” is protected, though irresponsible, speech. “Go kill the president” crosses into territory the law can punish. It’s speech but also an attempt to trigger violence.

Second: typical inflammatory rhetoric

American politics is filled with heated language. “Fight like hell.” “We’re going to war with the other party.” That sort of rhetoric can be ugly and excessive, but it is also normal.

We’ve seen how absurd it becomes when people try to treat that as literal incitement. After Gabby Giffords was short, some on the left blamed Sarah Palin because a campaign graphic had “targeted” certain districts.

That was ridiculous. Using combative imagery is not the same as directing violence.

Third: the permission structure for violence

A permission structure for violence is created when people repeatedly portray political opponents as monsters.

This is how you create the mental environment where unstable people conclude that violence is justified. If the president is a traitor, rapist, pedophile, and mastermind behind a corrupt system, then how else could he be stopped?

This kind of rhetoric leads directly to chaos.

It is also the kind of rhetoric Kimmel has trafficked in for years.

Recently, Kimmel tastelessly joked that Melania Trump had “the glow of an expectant widow.” It was disgusting, and she has every right to be furious. But it wasn’t a call to violence. It was a cheap, ugly joke suggesting she secretly wants her husband dead.

Kimmel later claimed he rejects violent rhetoric, then immediately pivoted to blaming Donald Trump for rhetoric that supposedly inspires violence. It was the standard modern play: Insult someone, then wrap yourself in moral superiority.

But when it comes to rhetoric that encourages violence, it isn’t the widow joke that should be the focus; it’s the conspiracism.

Kimmel has repeatedly called Trump a pedophile, suggested he is connected to Jeffrey Epstein and involved in a coverup, called him a rapist and accused him of protecting pedophiles, coming after voting rights, enriching billionaires while harming the poor, and manipulating the system to evade accountability.

That is not “normal political speech.” It is speech that turns a political opponent into a movie villain – a figure so corrupt and monstrous that extreme actions begin to feel righteous.

This kind of conspiratorial framing has a track record. It fuels ugly episodes of modern political violence: a steady stream of baseless accusations designed to convince audiences that the other side is not merely wrong but evil.

If someone eventually acts on that belief, we shouldn’t pretend it came out of nowhere.

So should Kimmel be fired?

Firing him for the Melania joke would be punishing the wrong offense. A tasteless, bad joke is not the central issue.

The central issue is rhetoric that treats political opponents as criminals without proof, assigns monstrous motives without evidence, and creates a cultural climate where violence feels justified.

If America wants to lower the temperature, scrutiny should be directed at conspiratorial storytelling that teaches people to hate.

 

What Does It Mean to Become Holy?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Exodus 35-40; Leviticus 1: 4: 16: 19 in a lesson titled “Holiness to the Lord.” The following information introduced the lesson.

Leaving Egypt—as important as that was—didn’t fully accomplish God’s purposes for the children of Israel. Even a comfortable life in the promised land wasn’t God’s ultimate goal for them. These were only steps toward what God really wanted for His people: “Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy” (Leviticus 19:2). How did God plan to make His people holy after they had lived in captivity for generations? He commanded them to create a place of holiness in the wilderness—a tabernacle. He gave them covenants and laws to guide their actions and change their hearts. And He commanded them to make animal sacrifices to teach them about atonement for their sins. All of this was meant to point their minds, hearts, and lives toward the Savior. He is the true path to holiness, for the Israelites and for us. We have all spent some time in the captivity of sin, and we are all invited to leave sin behind and follow Jesus Christ, who has promised, “I am able to make you holy” (Doctrine and Covenants 60:7).

The scripture block includes the following principles: (1) The Lord wants me to become holy (Exodus 35-40; Leviticus 19); (2) The Lord asks me to make my offerings with a willing heart (Exodus 35:4-35; 36:1-7); (3) Temple ordinances were given anciently (Exodus 40:12-14); (4) Because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, I can be forgiven (Leviticus 1:1-9; 4; 16). This essay will discuss Principle 2 making sacrifices willingly.

In the first year after leaving Egypt, the relationship of the children of Israel with Jehovah could be described as inconsistent. However, Exodus 35:4-35 and 36:1-7 show that the Israelites willingly donated personal materials to build the tabernacle. We will look at Exodus 35:4-10 to see the commandment of God and Exodus 36:1-7 to see the results.

4 And Moses spake unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the Lord commanded, saying,

5 Take ye from among you an offering unto the Lord: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the Lord; gold, and silver, and brass,

6 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair,

7 And rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and shittim wood,

8 And oil for the light, and spices for anointing oil, and for the sweet incense,

9 And onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod, and for the breastplate.

10 And every wise hearted among you shall come, and make all that the Lord hath commanded;

[Exodus 35:11-35 lists all the work that God commanded.]

 1 Then wrought Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whom                                            the Lord put wisdom and understanding to know how to work all manner of work for the                         service of the sanctuary, according to all that the Lord had commanded.

2 And Moses called Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whose heart the Lord had put wisdom, even every one whose heart stirred him up to come unto the work to do it:

3 And they received of Moses all the offering, which the children of Israel had brought for the work of the service of the sanctuary, to make it withal. And they brought yet unto him free offerings every morning.

4 And all the wise men, that wrought all the work of the sanctuary, came every man from his work which they made;

5 ¶ And they spake unto Moses, saying, The people bring much more than enough for the service of the work, which the Lord commanded to make.

6 And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing.

7 For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much.

The Israelites showed an acceptable way to respond to commandments from God. They willingly brought materials, so much that they were told to stop. What can we learn from the Israelites that could help us to better serve the Lord?

God may not ask us for precious metals, linens, or wood for a tabernacle, but He will ask us to make sacrifices. He asks young men to give two years of their lives and young women to give eighteen months of their lives to missionary service. He also asks couples to sacrifice time with their grandchildren to serve as senior missionaries, mission presidents, and temple presidents. What is the Lord asking you to sacrifice to help you to become holy?

 

What Questions Should Be Asked about a Child’s School Day?

Asking questions can strengthen families, and strong families strengthen their communities, states, and nations. A valuable time to ask excellent quality questions is when a child returns from school.

In her article, Amy Morin suggests that asking thoughtful questions can “spark meaningful conversations.” Morin is a psychotherapist, clinical social worker, instructor at Northeastern University, and author of several books. 

According to Morin, there are “seven questions that lead to productive conversations while also helping kids grow mentally stronger.”

1. ‘What was the best part of your day?’

This question encourages kids to scan their brains for positives. For children who dislike school or tend to focus on what went wrong, answering this question helps them build optimism and gratitude – which are both protective factors for mental health.

Frame the question with your own experience, saying, “The best part of my day was going for a walk during my lunch break. What about you?” Your child might share a highlight, like “I played kickball at recess.”

2. ‘What’s a mistake you learned from today?’

This one normalizes errors and celebrates healthy risk-taking. Talking openly about mistakes reduces shame and helps kids see them as opportunities for growth.

Ask with a tone of curiosity, not judgment: “Did anything happen today that you’d do differently next time?” This might prompt them to say, “I forgot my library book so I’m going to pack it tonight so I don’t forget.”

3. ‘Who were you proud of today?’

It works because it turns their attention to others and cultivates empathy. You will also gain insight into your child’s relationships and what they value.

Make the question more specific by asking, for example, “Did you see anyone try really hard at something today?” Your child may talk about a friend who was brave or might give themselves a pat on the back and say, “My friend forgot her snack so I shared mine.”

4. ‘What’s one thing that would have made today better?’

This question helps kids identify feelings like frustration and disappointment without dwelling on those experiences. It naturally opens the door to problem-solving and planning.

You can ask in a fun way, such as, “if you had a magic wand to change one thing about today, what would it be?” This can lead to creative ideas, like, “I wish there was more time for my art project so maybe I’ll bring it home to finish it.”

5. ‘Who did you help today?’

You can empower kids to engage in prosocial behavior with questions like this. When you ask regularly, kids begin to look for opportunities to be helpful and acts of kindness become second nature.

Ask about small acts of contribution: “How were you a helper today?” They might remember something simple, like, “I helped the teacher pass out papers.”

6. ‘What was the most interesting thing you learned today?’

It emphasizes curiosity over academic performance. Showing interest in the learning process itself fuels lifelong learning.

Encourage kids to talk about what they learned aside from just their subjects. They may share a fun fact, like, “I learned that my teacher knows how to play the violin.” Show interest and ask follow-up questions to keep the conversation going.

7. ‘What’s something new you’d like to try?’

This nudges kids to look outside their comfort zone and encourages them to be courageous. They don’t have to be good at something in order to try something new – it’s a learning experience. If your child hesitates to try new things, encourage an experiment by asking, “Is there a club or activity you’re curious about just trying once?” They may be more likely to explore if they know they don’t have to stick with it forever.

 

How Will US End the Iran War?

As we approach the end of 60 days of the war in Iran, we continue to hear from the Left that President Donald Trump has failed because the United States is losing the war. According to Victor Davis Hanson, this is “completely nonempirical” and “antithetical to the evidence.” 

Iran has big problems. It “is losing about $500 million in input per day” and “running out of storage space in a week or two for its daily output of oil.” At that “point they either have to stop pumping or they’re going to have – if they don’t stop pumping – their wells will collapse.” They will be forced to either “stop pumping” or “build, as fast as they can, storage facilities, which will be known to us and we can take out.”

Hanson believes that Iran is “at the brink economically” with “no military ability.” In fact, the “course of the war, how it ends, is entirely in the hands of the United States” depending on whether we “want an unconditional surrender and you want to pay an extra price – maybe another month or two – with economic strangulation” or we “want to use air power to take out bridges.” America can choose how to do it.

What I’m getting at is it’s not a military problem like Afghanistan and Helmand Province, or the Marines having to go into Fallujah in Iraq. It’s entirely a political problem. It’s not a military problem. The military problem has been solved. It’s just a question of how much political price does President Donald Trump – or risk, I should say – want to take to get an unconditional surrender and the removal of the regime.

He doesn’t need to do that. That was not one of his prewar agendas. The prewar agenda was to neutralize the nuclear proliferation of Iran, the missile and drone force, to attrite its military so it was not capable of conducting war, to stop the subsidies to its terrorist proxies, and to make sure it no longer attacked Americans and our allies as it has for 47 years. These have mostly been met – not quite, but mostly.

After explaining that the United States is winning the war in Iran and that Iran has nearly reached the end of its options, Hanson then proceeded to share the strategic ripple effects of the war.

·       United Arab Emirates announced that it would leave OPEC, formed in 1973 with the purpose of driving “up the price of oil” – “by not pumping what they could pump.” Oman and possibly Saudi Arabia may join UAE in leaving OPEC.

In OPEC, “each individual country has a quota” – maybe “70% to 80% of what they could pump if they were not in the cartel.” This is a disadvantage to them because “the United States is pumping right now – maximum.” Both Russia and Venezuela could “be pumping at maximum very soon.”

UAE could be pumping “2 million barrels” with Saudi Arabia pumping “another 20%.” Hanson says that the “long-range strategic value of the Straits of Hormuz are going to decline because all the Middle East countries will take “advantage of these high prices” and “swarm to get out.”

“But once they get out and pump more oil – and they’re immediately capable of pumping more oil – the price will drop, and the Straits of Hormuz will not be so important” – not good for Iran, whether or not they still have “oil wells in two or three weeks.”

·       “The other thing to remember is China” – which “hasn’t come out well.” All during the Biden administration, China “threatened to go into Taiwan.”

The military actions in Venezuela and Iran have shown that “the United States can pretty much do what it wants militarily, and China will be somewhat deterred.”

China’s control of Venezuela and Iran are no longer what they were. Therefore, the discounted oil is no longer available to them, and they are no longer selling arms to Iran to give to their proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis) nor spreading “their influence in Latin America” (think Panama Canal). With a broke Iran, the starving people will not stand for sending millions of dollars – “$50-$60 million a month” – of money and equipment for wars against Israel and the United States.

With the price of oil plunging, “Russia will be a big loser in this.”

The demonstration of air power by the United States was evident to Russia, China, and Iran – as well as the rest of the world. Russia is “running out of people and money” and may “try to get out of the war,” taking “as much territory as they can along the existing battlefield today – maybe call it a DMZ.”

Hanson also claimed that “Europe was a big, big, big loser.” The European nations were paying more of their share of NATO and even call Trump “Daddy.” “Trump assumed they were normal allies.” Even so, he did not want to share his plans for Iran with “the U.S. Left and the Congress, or the Europeans” because he thought they would end any surprise element.

But more importantly, he felt that the Spanish, the Italians, the British, the French – all of them – would just say, “No comment,” or “This is a United States effort. We support our NATO ally,” and then call him up and say “Donald, we’re not going to talk about it but use our airspace, use our NATO bases you pay for most of them. And this is what we’re gonna do but we’re gonna do it under the radar.”

No. Instead, they pandered to their Islamic constituencies, their left-wing constituencies. In Spain, even in Italy with Meloni, they said: No bombers in Sicily. No planes in Spain. Can’t fly over France. Can’t use Diego Garcia unless it’s for defensive purposes…. Europe came off really badly – really badly.

And then they made it worse when they said they were going to patrol the strait and then they realized the Strait might be kinetic, and they would have to use some force if we were to turn it over to them and they don’t have that force. So, it’s all talk, talk, talk, and it’s based on envy and anger at the United States.

And it’s a very dangerous game they’re playing because at some point the United States says: We love you. Europe’s a great place. You’ve got problems – just settle them yourself….

So, go ahead, do what you want, but count us out.

Hanson’s final point was the “American Left kept saying the war was lost – the war was lost – the war was lost. Donald Trump blew it.”

Don’t count him out. We have six months before the midterms. The price of oil could crash. A lot of the things Donald Trump put into practice – with the big, beautiful bill, deregulation, tax cuts, enormous amount of foreign investment – all of that has plenty of time to kick in in August or July and have a stronger economy than we do now, with cheap oil.

More importantly, he can say that in his regime, his realm, his tenure, he neutralized the threat from Venezuela. It’s not spreading communism throughout South America – Latin America, and he neutralized the Middle East in a way that all seven prior presidents had dreamed and had never done.

 

 

What Should America Do About Political Violence?

Everyone has their own opinion about the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump. Some individuals/sites claim that the assassination attempt was “staged.” Mehek Cooke, Senior National Security and Legal Analyst at The Daily Signal, said that the attempted assassination “should be treated as a clear, intentional act of political violence and a warning sign of a broader national security crisis.” 

In an appearance Monday on NewsNation’s “Katie Pavlich Tonight,” Cooke addressed the legal consequences facing the suspect, identified as Cole Tomas Allen, 31, who is now charged with multiple offenses, including attempting to assassinate the president – a crime that carries a potential life sentence. She said prosecutors will focus heavily on intent, which she argued is already evident in the case.

“This is almost like a mosaic,” Cooke said, explaining that investigators will examine travel records, weapons purchases, and the fact that the suspect discharged his weapon multiple times while attempting to enter the ballroom at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where Trump and administration officials were presiding. “This wasn’t an accident. This wasn’t a fluke. And then he left a manifesto. All of this ties into intent.”

Cooke said the case should be a “slam dunk” for prosecutors and argued that anyone who had advance knowledge of the attack should also face legal consequences. She expressed confidence in U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, saying the American people expect full accountability and transparency.

Beyond the courtroom, Cooke warned that the attack cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident. She said increasingly aggressive political rhetoric – now echoed not just by fringe figures but by prominent Democrat leaders – has created a dangerous environment.

“It doesn’t surprise me that you have podcasters and influencers doing the same,” Cooke said of the rhetoric, pointing to what she described as a strategy to exploit societal weakness.

Cooke specifically criticized Democrat leaders for doubling down on rhetoric portraying Trump as an existential threat, while simultaneously continuing normal political and media engagement around him.

“If he’s a Nazi, if he’s a fascist, if he’s all these terrible things, then why are these reporters showing up?” Cooke asked. “It just goes to show they are lying to the American people.”

She also emphasized that Trump faces heightened threats not only domestically but from foreign adversaries, including Iran, and said federal agencies must reassess security failures and follow through on promised reforms.

“We were promised that they would not happen again,” Cooke said. “The American people deserve to know that those changes are.”

Cooke concluded by urging Americans and conservative leaders to continue speaking clearly and forcefully. “We have a moral obligation, Katie, to continue to speak the truth,” she said.

 

 

What Is Causing Leftist Violence in America?

With the third assassination attempt of President Donald Trump, many Americans wonder why there is so much leftist political violence. In addition to Trump, other members of the Trump administration have also faced violent threats, and Charlie Kirk, a prominent Trump supporter, was assassinated last year. Even though the Right has its problems, the violence traces back to the ideological foundation of the Left, according to Tyler O’Neil at The Daily Signal.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas explained it well when he contrasted the vision of Progressivism with the principles of the Declaration of Independence earlier this month.

“Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement –with the possible  exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War – to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration,” Thomas said. “Progressives strove to undo the Declaration’s commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident.”

Under Progressivism, “liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government.”

Thomas noted that President Woodrow “Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it form Otto von ‘Bismarck’s Germany, whose state-centric society they admired.

Progressives like Wilson argued that America need to leave behind the principles of the founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated system of relatively unimpeded state power.”

This arguable opened Pandora’s box. Totalitarian governments in Germany, Russia, Cambodia, and China utilized state power to remake society, causing the deaths of millions. In the U.S., Wilson re-segregated the federal workforce and launched sterilization programs.

Immanentizing the Eschaton

Of course, the Left has rejected Wilson’s racist vision but preserved the overall worldview. The Marxist theory that capitalism constitutes a form of oppression expanded in the 1960s to a social vision, in which the “oppressed” classes – racial minorities, LGBTQ+ people, women, and others – must rise up and overthrow the current system.

The Left has weaponized a culture of grievance to paint its opponents as oppressors. The Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] – which just made news last week because the Justice Department accused it of lying to donors by secretly funding members of the KKK – maintains a “hate map” that plots mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits alongside Klan chapters. This map demonizes conservatives as agents of “the infrastructure upholding white supremacy.” Such a claim only makes sense if you follow critical race theory, which starts with the assumption that America is systemically racist and urges people to deconstruct our colorblind laws to find a hidden “white supremacy.”

This demonization is bad enough, but the Left also maintains that it is the government’s job to achieve near-perfect, effectively bringing the kingdom of God to earth. That’s why they misquote Martin Luther King Jr. on the ‘arc of the moral universe.”

King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” He grounded this statement in his faith in God, citing Isaiah 40.

Today, however, leftists say they need to “bend the arc.” President Joe Biden said his party had “a giant opportunity to bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice.”

President Barack Obama praised civil rights marchers as people who did “their part” to “bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently said that Americans have a “responsibility to “bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice.”

That’s not what King meant, however. King meant that, because God is the ultimate author of morality and the universe, his justice will ultimately prevail.

It is vain hubris to believe that we ourselves can alter the moral structure of the universe. That’s the grandiose language of a tyrant who considers himself “king of the universe,” unbound by “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

If you legitimately believe that the morality of the universe is up to you, and you legitimately believe that your political opponents are hateful on the level of the KKK, is it any wonder you might take the law into your own hands?