Who Is Marco Rubio?

My VIP for this week is Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his remarks during the 62^nd Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2026, in Munich, Germany. In his article published at The Daily Signal, Anthony Iafrate, associate editor for the Daily Caller News Foundation, called Rubio’s remarks and tone an “apparent olive branch to Europe.” European leaders gave Rubio a standing ovation. 

Iafrate reminded his readers that there are increased “tensions between the two powers” [US and Europe] since President Donald Trump sought to acquire Greenland, currently a territory of Denmark. Trump’s push for Greenland came after newly inaugurated Vice President JD Vance gave a more critical message at the national security conference in 2025. Rubio’s message was more palatable to the Europeans.

“For the United States and Europe, we belong together. America was founded 250 years ago, but the roots began here on this continent [Europe] log before,” Rubio said during his speech. “We are part of one civilization – Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.”

“And so this is why we Americans may sometimes come off as a little direct and urgent in our counsel. This is why President Trump demands seriousness and reciprocity from our friends here in Europe,” the secretary of state continued. “The reason why, my friends, is because we care deeply. We care deeply about your future and ours.”

“And if at time we disagree, our disagreements come from our profound sense of concern about a Europe with which we are connected – not just economically, not just militarily,” he added. “We are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally. We want Europe to be strong. We believe that Europe must survive, because the two great wars of the last century serve for us as history’s constant reminder that ultimately, our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours, because we know that the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own.”

Rubio went on to list various historical and cultural achievements of Europe, including the continent being the birthplace of classical liberalism, “the rule of law, the universities, and the scientific revolution,” as well as its profound contributions to classical art, literature, classical music, and rock music.

The secretary also stressed the need for both the U.S. and Europe to “gain control of our national borders,” calling mass migration “a crisis which is transforming and destabilizing societies all across the West.”

“Controlling who and how many people enter our countries, this is not an expression of xenophobia. It is not hate. It is a fundamental act of national sovereignty,” he said. “And the failure to do so is not just an abdication of one of our most basic duties owed to our people. It is an urgent threat to the fabric of our societies and the survival of our civilization itself.”

He also called to reform “global institutions,” such as the United Nations.

“[W]e do not want our allies to be weak, because that makes us weaker. We want allies who can defend themselves so that no adversary will ever be tempted to test our collective strength,” Rubio stated.

“This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it,” he emphasized.

 

How Can We Influence the Rising Generation to Love America?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the need for Americans to love America. The education system in America is responsible for the decline in love of nation, according to Reagan Campbell, an intern for The Daily Signal. 

Americans are losing love for their country. The education system is taking our young in a different direction by dismissing our nation’s past and introducing ideologies contradicting our founding principles. Much of our culture seems determined to treat America’s 250^th birthday with condemnation rather than celebration.

Yet in this age of pessimism toward our nation’s past, Matthew Spalding offered a new invitation: to fall in love with American again – by rediscovering the story and principles of the Declaration of Independence.

The Hillsdale College professor introduced his new book, “The Making of the American Mind: The Story of Our Declaration of Independence,” this week at the Washington, D.C., campus of Hillsdale College.

Spalding’s introductory speech highlighted the beauty of the declaration, its founding truths, the role of prudence, and the use of theology.

America is beautiful not only because of its land, but because of its story, he explained. “We have this wonderful document, like a symphony; has different tones, different speeds, moments. It all comes together.”

Spalding underscored that the declaration invokes prudence as a governing standard. He argued that this principle is the document’s hinge point, the mechanism that allows leaders to navigate between reality and abstract truth. He noted, “Politics requires us sometimes to make compromises. To do things that are imperfect, because we’re imperfect.”

Spalding emphasizes the fact that “God appears five times in the declaration … notice how those references to God become more personal and intimate as God proceeds? Such that by the end, this creator, God, now sees into our hearts.”

History, he shared, has pointed back to the references to God in the decades following the declaration. The uprising and resistance of America’s Founding Fathers against the British reminds us of our defensiveness and freedom we have in our Creator. Abraham Lincoln’s first speech in Chicago reminds the audience to remember our Creator.

Our country’s independence story is a testament about our patriotism. It is “what makes America exceptional.”

In answer to a question post-speech about how to convince middle school students to love America, Spalding said to capture the imagination – capture the excitement “about the American Revolution, which is a wonderful story,” the story about what happened. Spalding has “passion for teaching the next generation” with a goal to “help them fall in love with their country again.”

He added that understanding American history can help young people address the challenges they face. They “are looking for something that’s strong and sacrificial and manly. Our founding tells that story. And it’s that American spirit that then creates these great heroes and will hopefully inspire and create other great Americans in the future going forward.”

How Does an Individual Obtain Heaven?

My Come Follow Me Studies for this week took me to Genesis 6-11 and Moses 8 in a lesson titled “Noah Found Grace in the Eyes of the Lord.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Living in the latter days, we have special reason to pay attention to the story of the Flood. When Jesus Christ taught how we should watch for His Second Coming, He said, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it shall be also at the coming of the Son of Man” (Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:41). In addition, words that describe Noah’s day, like “corrupt” and “filled with violence,” could just as easily describe our time (Genesis 6:12-13; Moses 8:28). The story of the Tower of Babel also feels applicable to our day, with its description of pride followed by confusion and then division.

These ancient accounts are valuable not just because they show us that wickedness repeats itself throughout history. More important, they teach us what to do about it. Noah “found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Moses 8:27). And the families of Jared and his brother turned to the Lord and were protected from the confusion and division in Babel (see Ether 1:33-43). If we wonder how to keep ourselves and our families safe during corruption and violence, the stories in these chapters have much to teach us.

This lesson taught numerous principles, including (1) There is spiritual safety in following the Lord’s prophet, (2) The Flood was an act of God’s mercy (Genesis 6:5-13), (3) Tokens or symbols help me remember my covenants with the Lord (Genesis 9:8-17), and (4) Following Jesus Christ is the only way to Heavenly Father (Genesis 11:1-9).

There is much that I could write about each of the principles, but I feel prompted to discuss principle #4 about Christ being the only way back to Heavenly Father. Let’s first look at the scripture block for this principle (Genesis 11:1-9).

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

This scripture block tells us that the people all spoke one language and were of one speech. It also tells us that the people had apostatized from the gospel of Jesus Christ. The account of the people of Babel building a tower provides an interesting contrast to the account of Enoch and his people building Zion. Both groups of people were trying to reach heaven but in different ways.

One group thought that they could reach heaven by building a tall enough tower, while the other group sought to become pure and holy people.

Verse 4 tells us that the people wanted a name that would save them. There is only one name under heaven that will save us. That name is Jesus Christ. Salvation and exaltation come through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We activate the Atonement of Christ in our lives by making and keeping covenants with God, just as the people of Enoch did.

Here is a summary from the internet about the Tower of Bael from a Latter-day Saint point of view. 

In LDS teachings, the Tower of Babel was a historical event demonstrating human pride, the consequences of disobedience, and the Lord’s power to confound language and scatter people, with the Book of Mormon providing a second witness through the Jaredite account.

Historical and Scriptural Context

According to LDS scripture, the Tower of Babel was built in Shinar (Mesopotamia) by people who sought to make a name for themselves and avoid being scattered, using advanced technology like baked bricks and bitumen for mortar (Genesis 11:3-4). The builders’ intent was not merely architectural but spiritual – they attempted to construct a counterfeit temple to reach heaven without God’s authority, reflecting pride and rebellion (Helaman 6:28). The Lord confounded their language, causing miscommunication and scattering them across the earth (Genesis 1:9; Mosiah 28:17; Ether 1:33).

Connection to the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon presents the Tower of Babel as a literal historical event. The Jaredites, led by Jared and his brother, were preserved from the confounding of language because of their faith and prayers, allowing them to retain the Adamic language and migrate to the Americas (Ether 1:34-35). This account underscores the LDS belief that God intervenes to protect His covenant people and that temple authority and divine guidance are essential for true spiritual work.

Symbolic and Theological Lessons

LDS teachings emphasize that the Tower of Babel illustrates the dangers of human pride and reliance on worldly power instead of God. The story teaches that no human project, no matter how technologically advanced, can replace God’s authority or bring ultimate happiness (Proverbs 3:5; Jeremiah 17:5). The confounding of language also symbolizes the importance of communication and unity under God, showing that disobedience leads to division and scattering.

Language and the Adamic Tongue

LDS interpretations highlight that the Jaredite language was preserved as the Adamic language, considered perfect and divinely taught to Adam and Eve. The confounding at Babel did not alter the language of the faithful Jaredites, demonstrating God’s mercy and the principle that righteousness preserves knowledge and understanding (Ether 1:34-35).

Summary

For Latter-day Saints, the Tower of Babel is both a historical and spiritual lesson: it shows the consequences of pride, the necessity of divine authority for temple work, and the Lord’s power to guide and protect His people. The Book of Mormon corroborates the biblical the biblical account, providing additional insight into the preservation of the righteous and the Adamic language, reinforcing the LDS perspective on God’s ongoing involvement in human affairs.

 

 

 

 

 

How Can You Help Single Young Adults to Develop Dating Skills?

Strong families start with strong marriages, and strong marriages start with purposeful dating. However, dating itself is going through a drought period.

According to an opinion piece written by Alan Hawkins, Brian Willoughby, Jason Carroll,and Brad Wilcox and published in the Deseret News, there is a dating recession. 

There is good news about marriage that everyone can cheer: Marriages are becoming more stable today than they were four or five decades ago. Granted, much of this stability bonus is a result of who is marrying.

Couples with riskier profiles for marital breakup have become a decreasing proportion of all marrying couples, so couples who marry today are more likely to have a set of characteristics that lend themselves to more stable marriages. For instance, these marrying couples today are more likely to be better educated, more financially stable, more religious and less likely to marry as teens.

Regardless of its causes, greater marital stability is something to celebrate because of the known benefits that stable, healthy marriages give to children, adults and their communities. Hidden in this encouraging trend, however, is a paradox: Increasing marital stability exists alongside a strong trend of fewer adults getting married.

Rates of first marriages have fallen by more than 10% over the past two decades, continuing a steady descent since the 1970s. Demographers now estimate that as many as a third of young adults born in the early decades of the 21^st century may never marry.

It is hard to celebrate stronger marriages when fewer and fewer young people are entering into them. This is concerning news.

Numerous scholars are exploring why fewer young adults are marrying. Increased focus on post-secondary education and careers during young adulthood, along with a declining cultural emphasis on the need to be married, are commonly cited factors.

But one straightforward reason for the decline in marriage rates that has not received much attention is the dating system. If you listen to young adults, many of them will tell you that the dating system is badly broken. They are frustrated by the current dating landscape. They grumble about dating apps that present an abundance of options a mere swipe away, while also promoting an attitude of relational consumerism. And the repetitive cycle of matching, messaging and meeting that ends in disappointment is leading to significant dating fatigue and a growing cynicism about the whole process. Similarly, most young adults say they dislike the casual hook-up culture that pervades dating and its emphasis on uncommitted, one-off sexual activity over building meaningful relationships.

If the on ramps to our marital highways are bumpy, broken or blocked, it is no mystery why many young adults are struggling to reach their desired marriage destinations.

To use another analogy, the contemporary dating economy is struggling and perhaps in a recession.

The article continues by saying that there is “a healthy majority of young people today” – despite the problems with the dating system – “still desire a future that includes marriage.”

The authors analyzed “findings from our 2025 National Dating Landscape Survey, a nationally representative sample in the U.S. of 5,275 unmarried young adults in their prime dating years (ages 22-35).” Here is what they learned by focusing “mostly on the dating experiences of those single young adults who expect to marry someday (86%; N = 4,539)….”

·         Only about 1 in 3 young adults report actively dating – dating at least once a month.

·         Young adults lack confidence in their dating skills and their ability to initiate a promising romantic relationship.

·         Young adults desire a dating culture aimed at forming serious relationships.

·         Money worries, self-confidence and past bad dating experiences are big barriers in the modern dating landscape.

·         Dating resilience is low among young adults.

·         There is a dating-marriage-skills gap.

The authors continued to share the “primary, straightforward implication of the findings from our study”:

Accordingly, a primary, straightforward implication of the findings from our study is that young adults could use some basic help in building dating skills. Few are regularly dating. They report feeling unprepared and having a low sense of dating efficacy. They lack experience and social and emotional confidence, and they need to stretch their basic social skills. They struggle to know how to express their interest in a potential dating partner and to communicate effectively on a date. Also, they are discouraged by the cost of dating.

These are hardly insurmountable barriers. We have no doubt that motivated young adults can learn the dating skills they need to form healthy relationships that eventually lead to marriage.

This ideally starts with those closest to them. Parents, grandparents and close family members can take an active role in mentoring and helping young people develop the social skills, virtues and personal confidence to date. Collectively, we need to prioritize the social and relationship development of children, teens and young adults in much the same way we rigorously promote their academic or athletic development….

We are not suggesting that dating culture alone explains our current declines in marriage. Clearly, there are other influences involved, ranging from excessive screen time to the deforming effects of pervasive pornography, as well as changing attitudes toward religious practice and the much-discussed impact of political hostilities on young men and women…. 

Will the Senate Pass the SAVE America Act?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns election integrity. Republicans are attempting to make elections more secure, while Democrats fight against photo identification requirements to vote.

The SAVE America Act is one step closer to becoming law. The House of Representatives voted 218-213 to PASS the SAVE America Act on Wednesday. This “bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo identification to vote in federal elections.”

The original SAVE Act passed by a vote of 220-208 in April 2025. The SAVE America Act is a modified version of the SAVE Act to include new photo identification requirements.

Only one Democrat voted for the SAVE America Act – Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas. One Republican and one Democrat did not vote, and the remaining Democrats voted against requiring identification to vote.

George Caldwell shared the following details about the vote in his article published at The Daily Signal. 

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who introduced the bill in the House, said of the bill before its passage, “This is commonsense legislation. It will require citizenship to register to vote, and it will require voter ID at the polls. This is an issue that polls at something like 80%.”

The bill has faced generalized Democrat resistance, especially in the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has said it would impose “Jim Crow-style restrictions on voting.”

House Republican leaders backed the bill, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., signing on as co-sponsors. The bill had zero Democrat co-sponsors.

Multiple Democrats who backed the original SAVE Act did not support the SAVE America Act….

House Republicans have in recent days launched a pressure campaign on Senate Republicans to force what is known as a “talking filibuster” to help pass the bill, in order to overcome the chamber’s typical 60-vote threshold for ending debate on bills.

This would, in theory, entail Senate Republicans refusing to adjourn and enforcing a two-speech limit on Senate Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., citing the time-consuming nature of this approach, has not come out in support of it, but has indicated Senate Republicans will discuss its merits.

It would take a miracle for 60 senators to vote for the bill. In fact, there is some question if Republicans can get a simple majority, even with Vice President JD Vance being one of the votes. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican in name only (RINO), has already said that she will not vote for it. There are several other Republican senators who might also vote against it, such as Susan Collins (R-Maine ) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky).

Why Is Immigration Law Not a Suggestion?

Democrats and liberals have told us for decades that “the immigration system is broken” and that the laws are outdated. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals destroyed that narrative and “treated immigration law as law, not a suggestion.” Ammon Blair explained the situation in his article published at The Blaze. 

In Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, a divided panel did something radical by modern standards: It enforced immigration law as Congress wrote it. The result ranks as one of the most consequential immigration rulings in a generation – and a direct rebuke to the legal fiction that has shielded millions of illegal aliens from mandatory detention for decades.

What the court actually said

The case turned on a simple question with enormous consequences: Do illegal aliens who entered the United States unlawfully – often years ago, without inspection or lawful admission – get discretionary bond hearings while in removal proceedings?

The Fifth Circuit answered no.

Writing for the majority, Judge Edith H. Jones, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, held that any alien present in the United States who has not been lawfully admitted is, by statute, an “applicant for admission.” Congress supplied that definition in 1996.

Under the law, applicants for admission who cannot show they are “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted” shall be detained pending removal proceedings.

“Shall” means mandatory. It leaves no room for discretionary bond hearings. It applies regardless of how long the alien has remained unlawfully in the country.

Physical presence does not confer the legal status or constitutional entitlements that accompany lawful admission, much less citizenship….

No other federal appellate court has squarely held that mandatory detention applies not only to recent border crossers but also to long-term illegal aliens living in the interior who entered without inspection years – even decades – ago.

Long-delayed enforcement

Nothing in the Fifth Circuit’s decision turns on novel statutory interpretation. Congress enacted this framework in 1996 to eliminate incentives for evading inspection and remaining unlawfully in the United States.

What changed was not the law but the willingness to enforce it.

After the Board of Immigration Appeals acknowledged the plain meaning of the disputed section in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, DHS implemented a policy treating illegal entrants as Congress defined them: applicants for admission subject to mandatory detention.

The response was immediate and predictable. District courts across the country rushed to block the policy, issuing a wave of rulings restoring bond eligibility.

The Fifth Circuit is the first appellate court to say what should have been obvious all along: Courts do not get to rewrite immigration statutes because enforcement is politically uncomfortable.

Asylum is not a loophole

One of the most persistent myths in immigration discourse claims that filing for asylum legalizes illegal entry. It does not.

Congress made illegal entry a federal misdemeanor. The statute contains no asylum exception. Illegal entry remains a crime even for those who later request asylum.

Asylum also does not create a “right to remain.” It is discretionary relief from removal.

Federal law allows an alien to apply for asylum after illegal entry. That provision does not cure inadmissibility, erase criminal violations, or entitle the applicant to release from custody….

Aliens who enter without valid documents remain inadmissible and subject to detention or removal.

Mandatory detention applies to many asylum seekers. Under the statute:

·         Illegal entrants go into expedited removal unless they establish a credible fear.

·         When an alien claims credible fear, the alien remains detained pending final adjudication.

·         Release runs through limited DHS parole authority, not judicial bond hearings.

The Supreme Court confirmed this framework in Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018), holding that the statute mandates detention and does not allow courts to invent bond hearings where Congress declined to authorize them.

Law on the books vs. law in practice

The detention statute does not suffer from ambiguity. The conflict lies elsewhere.

Congress criminalized unlawful entry without exception. Congress also enacted the asylum provision through the Refugee Act of 1980, permitting any alien “physically present” in the United States or arriving at the border to apply for asylum regardless of manner of entry. That provision does not exempt such individuals from prosecution, detention, or removal. It does not repeal the detention mandate….

Over time, however, executive agencies – and sometimes courts – expanded a limited non-penalization principle into a broader immunity regime. Officials treated asylum eligibility as a basis to avoid detention, delay removal, and suspend enforcement mandates Congress never repealed….

Why this ruling matters

By enforcing the law as written, the Fifth Circuit restored a foundational principle of sovereignty: Illegal entry does not generate superior legal rights.

The dissent warns that enforcing the statute could produce large-scale detention. That warning is not a legal argument….

This ruling binds only Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi – for now. Other circuits have signaled resistance. A split is coming. Supreme Court review seems likely.

When that moment arrives, the court will face a question it has avoided for years: Does immigration law mean what it says – or only what politics permits?

The Fifth Circuit has answered. For the first time in decades, a federal court treated immigration law as law, not a suggestion. 

How Often Do You Show Your Identification?

The SAVE Act and the SAVE America Act require photo identification to vote in federal elections. Americans show identification at lots of separate locations and for various purposes. The last time that I showed my identification was to pick up a new prescription of pain pills. Showing identification to show who we are is an everyday experience; yet Democrats do not agree that identification should be shown to vote for their governmental representatives. A n article by the Blaze TV Staff discussed this strange phenomenon. 

In a recent poll from Pew Research Center, a whopping 76% of Democrats said they favored requiring photo ID to vote – a shocking departure from what Democrats like Chuck Schumer appear to believe.

“We’ve got to get this done and we’ve got to get it done very quickly. The SAVE Act is an abomination. It’s Jim Crow 2.0 across the country. We are going to do everything we can to stop it,” Schumer told reporters.

“How is it Jim Crow to ask for ID, a picture ID? That’s what the SAVE Act is. That you’d be required to have picture ID to go in and vote or to register to vote and then to vote. OK, that is not unreasonable,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains.

“You need a photo ID to get a driver’s license to drive a car, or to renew your driver’s license, or replace your lost license, get a learner’s permit. You need a photo ID to rend a car, to pick up a rental car, even if you prepaid it, to buy car insurance, to file auto insurance claims, to register your vehicle, transfer your vehicle’s title,” he continues.

But that’s not all, as Glenn also points out that you need a photo ID to get a parking permit, use car sharing apps, buy an airline ticket in person, board a commercial flight, and enter the TSA pre-check.

“Is it Jim Crow to ask for photo ID as they scan your eye? Is it racist to ask for photo ID when you check a bag at the airport or when you rent a U-Haul truck or a moving truck, buy a bus or a train ticket in person? Is that really ‘no blacks’?” Glenn asks.

“No blacks can ever go on the bus or the train or an airplane. Really? Really? No, it’s just too hard for them to get a photo ID,” he says, joking, “What a racist.”

Beck continued with his list of reasons why one would need a photo ID: open a bank account, withdraw large amount of cash, cash a check, rent an apartment. I could add a few more reasons: get a mammogram, pick up a prescription of controlled medication, rent a postal box, get a medical operation, transfer money between bank accounts or withdraw cash, open or change a utility account, enter a federal building (like Social Security), and many others.

No one claims racism or Jim Crow for any of those reasons. Yet racism is always claimed when Republicans attempt to make picture identification a requirement for federal elections.