Would Teaching Civics Have An influence on Voting Percentages?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns voter turnout. Typically, fewer voters turn out in primary elections. Jaxon Tueller is a graduate student at Utah Valley University in the Master of Arts in Constitutional Government, Civics, and Law program. He discusses voter turnout in Utah during primary elections. 

In Utah’s previous midterm election in 2022, only 46.8% of eligible voters cast a ballot. Less than half of all Utahns accepted their civic responsibility to go out and vote. Utah was roughly the middle of all 50 states when it came to voter turnout.

Do Americans think midterms don’t matter? History has shown how important voting in midterm elections can be….

Are Americans’ decisions not to vote tied to a lack of civic awareness and education? Civics is the study of how government works and the rights, duties and responsibilities of citizens in society. One component of civics in the United States includes moral expectations and legal guidelines that dictate our behaviors. Civics education is particularly important as we approach voting age and begin actively participating in governmental functions.

Could more sufficient civics education help increase voter turnout?

In Utah, most students take a course that includes instruction on government and citizenship. Students are also required to pass a basic civics test. But is that enough?

Low voter turnout is one suggestion that this basic civics education is insufficient. If citizens truly understood how important civic responsibilities were, wouldn’t they turn out in elections throughout the state? Is something missing in civics curriculum for students in Utah? In the United States?

Fortunately, in the 2025 legislative session, Utah’s House of Representatives passed HB381 (Civics Education Amendments), which updates the high school graduation requirements starting with the 2027-2028 school year. The social studies requirements will change from 3.0 to 3.5 credits, with a 1.0 credit requirement dedicated to a government class.

Being governed by the will of the people is a fundamental principle of our democracy; using our right to vote means outcomes reflect the people.

This new class – “American Constitutional Government and Citizenship” – is a step in the right direction for improving civics education. With an extra semester, teachers will now have time to teach both constitutional government and citizenship. Students will learn more about state and local politics and citizens’ opportunities – to vote, serve on juries, participate in caucuses and be civically engaged.

Other states have already passed similar legislation. Starting in the 2026-2027 school year, public high school students in Idaho will be required to take one full year of American government alongside other requirements. Still, fewer than 10 states across the country require at least one year of civics education and the passing of a standard civics test….

Voter turnout matters in every election.

If this new curriculum works as intended, it may help increase voter turnout in all of Utah’s elections, especially the oft-neglected midterm elections. We hope that as the new graduation requirements roll out, recent trends in midterm election turnout improve.

So far this year, the trend is not positive. In the 2026 Utah primary elections, voter turnout varied from county to county, but 20 out of 29 counties had a turnout rate of less than 50%.... Will turnout be any better in midterms? It depends on what we choose to do in the next few days!

[Americans] must take their civic responsibilities seriously. Being governed by the will of the people is a fundamental principle of our democracy; using our right to vote means outcomes reflect the people. We must act; we must participate. Utah’s new “American Constitutional Government and Citizenship” class is a good start to improving and re-energizing our current civics education. As we continue improving our civic education, we also need to encourage our friends, family, and other Americans to get involved civically, especially voting. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, let’s get out, vote, and fulfill our civic responsibilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do You Boldly Stand Up for What Is Right?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Jeremiah in a lesson titled “I Will turn Their Mourning into Joy” (Jeremiah 31-33; 36-39; Lamentations 1; 3). The following material introduced the lesson. 

When the Lord first called Jeremiah to be a prophet, He told him that his mission would be “to root out, and to pull down” (Jeremiah 1:10) – and in Jerusalem, there was plenty of wickedness to root out and pull down. But this was only part of Jeremiah’s mission – he was also called “to build, and to plant” (Jeremiah 1:10). What could be built or planted in the desolate ruins left by the rebellion of the covenant people? Asked another way, when sin or adversity has left our lives in ruins, how can we rebuild and plant again? The answer lies in “the Branch of righteousness” (Jeremiah 33:15), the promised Messiah. He brings “a new covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31) – one that requires more than the outward appearance of devotion. His law must be “in [our] inward parts,” written “in [our] hearts.” That’s what it means for the Lord to “be [our] God” and for us to “be [His} people” (Jeremiah 31:33). It’s a lifelong process, and we will still make mistakes and have cause to mourn from time to time. But when we do, the Lord promises, “I will turn their mourning into joy” (Jeremiah 31:13).

The scripture block teaches the following principles: (1) The Lord will bring His covenant people out of captivity (Jeremiah 31; 33), (2) “They shall be my people, and I will be their God” (Jeremiah 31:31-34; 32:37-42), (3) The scriptures have power to turn me away from evil (Jeremiah 36), (4) Be firm in following God’s prophets (Jeremiah 37-39), (5) I can be bold in standing up for what is right (Jeremiah 38:6-13; 39:15-18), and (6) The Lord can relieve the sorrow I experience because of sin (Lamentations 1; 3). This essay will discuss principle #5 about doing what is right.

The king’s officials felt that Jeremiah’s prophecies were making their soldiers less willing to fight, so they threw Jeremiah into a filthy dungeon (see Jeremiah 38:1-4). The rulers cast Jeremiah into a muddy dungeon. Ebed-Melech, an Ethiopian, freed him and put him in the court of the prison. Jeremiah counseled Zedekiah concerning the war. Jerusalem was captured, and the people were taken captive. Jeremiah and Ebed-Melech were preserved.

Most of us face difficulties from time to time. Sometimes, we are in situations where we have to stand alone with severe consequences. In such circumstances, we can remember the example of Ebed-Melech.

The Babylonians captured Jerusalem. The king of Babylon killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes and slew all the nobles of Judah. Then he blinded Zedkiah, bound him with chains, and carried him to Babylon.

The Chaldeans burned the king’s house and the house of the people and broke down the walls of Jerusalem.

King Nebuchadrezzar instructed the captain of the guard to take Jeremiah, treat him well, and do him no harm. The captain of the guard took Jeremiah out of the court of the prison and told Gedaliah to carry Jeremiah home to dwell among the people. Jeremiah went through difficult times, but he eventually went home. He carried the words of the Lord to Ebed-Melech as follows. (See Jeremiah 39:15-18.)

15 Now the word of the Lord came unto Jeremiah, while he was shut up in the court of the prison, saying,

16 Go and speak to Ebed-Melech the Ethiopian, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring my words upon this city for evil, and not for good; and they shall be accomplished in that day before thee.

17 But I will deliver thee in that day, saith the Lord: and thou shall not be given into the hand of the men of whom thou art afraid.

18 For I will surely deliver thee, and thou shalt not fall by the sword, but thy life shall be for a prey unto thee: because thou hast put thy trust in me, saith the Lord.

Who Has More Sex?

Strong families start with strong marriages, and strong marriages usually include sex. There is a “correlation between ideology and marital sex habits,” according to Maria Baer and Brad Wilcox in their article published in Deseret News. 

One of the most powerful expressions of human intimacy is sex. Human beings are social animals, after all, and sex is an unparalleled way to express and receive love, to touch and be touched, and to bring new life into the world. No wonder that regular sex is tied to our physical and emotional health and is one of the most powerful predictors of human happiness.

Unfortunately, America is on the downslope of a “sex recession,” with the share of adults reporting weekly sex falling from 55% in 1990 to 37% today. A big reason is the retreat from marriage.

Pop culture says monogamous marriage kills passion….

The data says otherwise. The Dartmouth economist David Blanchflower and his colleague Andrew Oswald found that “married people have more sex than those who are single, divorced, widowed or separated.” The surest path to a good sex life still runs through the altar, not away from it.

But today’s married couples aren’t fully immune to the sex recession, either.

In 2008, 59% of married couples between the ages of 18 and 64 reported having sex at least once a week. That number today is about 49%. But there’s another stereotype-busting twist: That decline has largely missed religious couples.

According to recent research, churchgoing couples in America (and the religiously observant of other faiths) are still having sex about as often as they were in the 1990s, with almost two-thirds of religious husbands and wives getting intimate on a regular basis. It is secular couples who’ve experienced a big drop-off in sex, with less than half of them enjoying this kind of intimacy at least once a week.

Over the past few decades, religious faith has become bound more tightly to conservative political viewpoints and partisan affiliation. That left us wondering: Does the sex divide follow ideological lines as well as religious ones?

Data from the General Social Survey suggest a tentative “yes.” Among married women ages 20 to 55, marital sex has fallen sharply for liberals since the 1990s, but not for conservatives. Among husbands, the pattern runs in the same direction: Conservative men saw only modest declines. But the gap between conservative and liberal husbands isn’t statistically significant.

This pattern also shows up in the 2022 “State of Our Unions Survey” – a sample of about 2,000 married men and women by YouGov. Again, conservative husbands have a slight edge here in marital sex, but it’s not statistically significant. By contrast, when it comes to wives, we see that a majority (55%) of conservative wives have sex weekly or more, compared to only a minority (45%) of liberal wives.

The data suggests that the gap between conservative and liberal wives is largely explained by conservatives being more religious – recall, again, that churchgoing couples have more sex. But perhaps ideology, social lives and the algorithm are also parts of the equation.

Liberals are more exposed to messaging that catastrophizes about men and marriage, and they spend more of their lives online. Data from the Survey Center on American Life shows that Democratic women are about twice as likely to blame men for the “challenges that women face in American society” today – and the tide of anti-male attitudes has surged among women on the left since the rise of social media.

Other surveys indicate that Democrats are less likely to believe that marriage is a vehicle for happiness, important for children and needed to create strong families. Left-leaning Americans may be less likely to invest in their marriages – and, indeed, they are less likely to be happily married.

But the correlation between ideology and marital sex habits may also arrive from an unexpected statistic: the amount of time men and women spend online.

Liberals spend more time on social media than conservatives, so progressive men and women are more likely to encounter the polarizing, controversy stirring content that keeps the platforms churning. The “gender wars,” hot-take battles between far-right misogynists and far-left radical feminists, may keep people scrolling. But they can be poison for real relationships….

Men who have regular sex and are married (aged 20-55) are almost four times more likely to be “very happy” than their peers who are unmarried with little or no access to sex, according to data from the General Social Survey. Married women aged 20-55 who have regular sex are three times as likely to be “very happy” with their lives compared to unmarried women who do not have regular sex.

But false tropes about marriage being a threat to sexual satisfaction aren’t the only things that fester online. Pornography has a demonstrably corrosive effect on sexual intimacy, including within marriages. Couples in which one or both partners regularly view porn report lower marital satisfaction and a higher likelihood of infidelity and divorce. Nevertheless, according to one YouGov survey, Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say they view porn regularly, and almost two times as likely to say viewing porn is morally acceptable.

The online gender wars and widespread availability of pornography are content issues. The medium itself – time spent online – is another problem that may skew ideological. Researchers recently found evidence of what they called “lifestyle polarization” among college students along ideological lines. Conservative students were more likely to spend their leisure time with other people – at parties, bars, fraternity activities or church. Liberals were more likely to be at home or using social media during their free time.

This is not to say conservative and religious couples are uniformly happy, or that liberals are all glued to their screens. No marriage is perfect, and plenty of conservative couples struggle. Pornography is a problem for a sizable chunk of husbands, both conservative and liberal. On the flip side, plenty of liberals get married, have children and live happy lives.

But in general, conservatism and religiosity are linked to more real-life socializing – more “touching grass,” as the kids say. So, here’s the hypothesis about the sex divide between liberals and conservatives: Conservative married couples may place a higher premium on intimate time together, and they may be more embedded in social networks, especially religious ones, that sustain their marriages.

After all, religious Americans are more likely to gather with friends and extended family, provide for the poor, and volunteer. Extensive amounts of research have shown religious practice to be linked to better physical, mental and social health.

If there is one clear line in the sand to draw here, it’s that couples who want to enjoy the greatest intimacy in their marriages – regardless of their ideological commitments – ought to beware of spending too much time online and losing touch with what makes us human.

Those who prioritize real relationships with real people in the real world will likely spend more time with the people they love. They’ll probably love them a little better, and they’ll probably love them a little more often – if you catch our drift.

Who Determines National Sovereignty?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns who determines who enter and who stays in the United States. Numerous court cases have challenged the authority of the Executive Branch to deport immigrants who are in the United States illegally. In his article published at The Daily Signal, Tyler O’Neil reported on a recent court case. 

Almost 90,000 immigrants have tried a legal maneuver to escape detention, but an appeals court ruling just significantly undermined that part of the Left’s anti-deportation strategy.

ProPublica has tracked 89,170 cases in which immigrants filed writs of habeas corpus, challenging the lawfulness of their detention or imprisonment. The scale is extraordinary. Immigrants filed more habeas cases during the first 13 months of President Donald Trump’s second term than during the previous three administrations combined.

The cases aren’t materializing in an institutional vacuum, either. A network of advocacy groups has developed litigation resources, turning habeas corpus into a major front in the fight over Trump’s deportation program.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit on Friday ruled that detention without a hearing does not violate the due process rights of immigrants.

“The ACLU and the Left oppose immigration detention because they know it often results in deportation,” Lora Ries, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, told the Daily Signal on Tuesday. “The Left opposes deportation because it erodes their political power.”

The Organizational Push

The ACLU maintains a resource page for attorneys challenging immigration detention, including materials specifically addressing detention without bond hearings pending removal proceedings. The ACLU of Maine stated that it is working on habeas cases and that 70 cases had been filed between January 2025 and June 2026, many of which resulted in release.

Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, argued the 5^th Circuit case. She called the court’s ruling “an affront to the U.S. Constitution” and vowed, “We will continue fighting.”

Ellie Norton, supervising attorney at the National Immigration Project, similarly condemned the ruling. She argued that “this ruling opens the door to more people being locked up for no reason, with devastating consequences for them, their loved ones, and their community.”

James Percival, general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, called the ruling a “big win,” noting that the principle of detention for illegal aliens was “codified in 1996 legislation but ignored by the deep state for decades.”

The 5^th Circuit Ruling

In the case of Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez v. Miguel Vergara, three illegal aliens who were detained by immigration authorities pending removal proceedings filed writs of habeas corpus, and the lower courts ordered them released.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit initially agreed with lower-court judges, yet the full circuit reheard the case and ruled Friday that the illegal aliens were “not entitled to individual hearings” before they could be lawfully detained pending removal.

The illegal aliens had claimed a right to procedural due process, which they argued requires bond hearings on deportation safety and flight risk before they could be detained.

That framing, however, skips over the question the 5^th Circuit considered decisive: What process has Congress actually afforded illegal aliens who were never admitted into the country?

“Because petitioners have never been admitted to the United States, due process does not entitle them to additional proceedings beyond what Congress has provided before they may be detained pending removal,” Judge Cory T. Wilson wrote in the 10-7 en banc opinion.

While illegal aliens, like American citizens, enjoy the right to due process, Congress has the authority to determine deportation proceedings and did so in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That law stipulated that illegal aliens “shall be detained.”

“An alien who was not admitted into the U.S. but is later encountered in the U.S. interior is still an ‘applicant for admission’ and, per the IIRIRA, shall be detained,” Ries said. “Furthermore, the court affirmed that the immigration law provides no bond hearing process for such aliens.” The ruling does not eliminate habeas corpus challenges to immigration detention altogether. Rather, it forecloses this constitutional claim to an individualized bond hearing for similarly situated aliens within the 5^th Circuit.

Even so, it sets a strong precedent and may open the door to a Supreme Court ruling clarifying the matter.

Wilson’s opinion noted that illegal aliens may escape detention through one simple expedient: agreeing to leave the country.

“In no other context implicating a core liberty interest does the detainee hold the keys to his own confinement,” the judge noted.

Ries argued that this “is the difference between the U.S. deciding who may come here and who must leave, and the rest of the world deciding who gets to stay in the U.S. This ruling upholds our nation’s sovereignty.”

Articles of Faith: What Do Latter-day Saints Believe About the Atonement of Jesus Christ? 8

Article of Faith 3

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved,

by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

This is the eighth essay about the Atonement of Jesus Christ as stated in the third Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The first week, I discussed the importance of understanding how the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as the third pillar of eternity, is essential to Heavenly Father’s plan for the eternal happiness of His children. The second week, the discussion was about the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the nature of the atonement. The third week, the discussion concerned the Atonement of Jesus Christ as a vicarious sacrifice. The fourth week, the discussion was about Christ’s sacrifice being voluntary and love inspired. The fifth week, the discussion was about the Atonement being foreordained and foretold. The discussion for the sixth week was about extent of the Atonement of Christ. Last week, the essay was about the general effect of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This week the discussion will use the words of Elder James E. Talmage to discuss the individual effect of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Articles of Faith [1913], 89-91).

The Individual Effect of the Atonement makes it possible for any and every soul to obtain absolution from the effect of personal sins, through the mediation of Christ; but such saving intercession is to be invoked by individual effort as manifested through faith, repentance, and continued works of righteousness. The laws under which individual salvation is obtainable have been prescribed by Christ. Whose right it is to say how the blessings made possible by His own sacrifice shall be administered. All men are in need of the Savior’s mediation, for all are transgressors. So taught the apostles of old: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). And again: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). That the blessing of redemption from individual sins, while open for all to attain, is nevertheless conditioned on individual effort, is as plainly declared as is the truth of unconditional redemption from death as an effect of the fall. There is a judgment ordained for all, and all will be judged “according to their works.” The free agency of man enables him to choose or reject, to follow the path of life or the road that leads to destruction; therefore it is but just that he be held to answer for the exercise of his power of choice and that he meet the results of his acts.

Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience. “He becomes to the individual only through obedience. “He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Hebrews 5:9) is said of the Christ. And further: God “will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath. Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God” (Romans 2:6-11). To these may be added the words of the risen Lord, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

Consider further the prophecy that King Benjamin proclaimed to the Nephite multitude: Christ’s blood “atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned. But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Mosiah 3:11, 12).

But why multiply scriptural citations when the whole tenor of sacred writ supports the doctrine? Without Christ no man can be saved, and the salvation provided at the cost of Christ’s sufferings and bodily death is offered upon certain clearly defined conditions only; and these are summarized under “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”

Was It Correlation or Causation?

President Donald Trump ordered the borders to be closed, and there was a dramatic drop in crime. Was it a causation situation or a correlation coincidence? The media tried to tell us that there was no relationship or at best correlation. However, Jarrett Stepman does not agree. 

The restoration of law and order in America is happening in large part because of President Donald Trump, in particular, his insistence that immigration laws be enforced and criminal illegal aliens be deported.

The administration should double and triple down on this message. America’s return to normalcy is contingent on making border security and deportations a top priority.

This much is undeniable: Trump’s deportations and focus on border security have run alongside a remarkable national drop in crime. To dismiss this as a mere coincidence is as absurd as when we were told there was no crime surge following the George Floyd riots and police defunding in 2020 and the explosion of border crossings during the Joe Biden presidency.

The media – always quick to reinforce whatever narrative Democrats and the Left choose to peddle – have mostly tried to wave away the connection between crime and immigration law enforcement. They’ve run misleading headlines saying that Trump’s deportations are not targeting criminals – let’s leave aside the fact that all illegal aliens have broken U.S. law – and that if they are, then the numbers of criminal aliens are negligible, they say.

But that’s not true.

Earlier in October, Independent Women President Carrie Lukas wrote about how it would be a mistake to take plummeting crime for granted and linked at least some of the good news on crime directly to Trump’s immigration policies.

“Five thousand Americans are still living, working and loving their families because of policy changes that have brought down crime rates to historic lows,” Lukas wrote. “it is difficult to comprehend the one-year, 18% drop in the homicide rate from 2024 to 2025. Still, that dry statistic adds up to thousands of families – the equivalent of nearly one 9/11 – spared from mourning that would have been unavoidable if the Biden-era approach to crime and border policies had been in place these past 18 months.”

Lukas further explained that the fast-dropping crime rates are not random happenstance and that even the most conservative measures of how much mass deportation has led to reduced crime show that it had a profound effect on our country.

This change was the result of a dramatic policy shift.

The Trump administration is taking people off the streets who have not only committed crimes but are more likely to commit further ones in the future.

And that work continues even years after Trump was elected.

For instance, Immigration and Customs Enforcement nabbed over 2,000 illegal aliens in New York in July and August as part of Operation Rotten Apple – with no help from local authorities like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, of course. Among those arrested were “murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drug traffickers, and violent assailants,” according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin….

[After a list of arrested illegal immigrants]

“Crime has fallen to record lows under the Trump administration, including murders on pace to drop to the lowest level in 126 years,” former Assistant DHS Secretary Lauren Bis said in July. “It’s no surprise that this drop in crime coincides with deportations of dangerous criminal illegal aliens.”

Having these people in the U.S. puts Americans in harm’s way. Blue sanctuary jurisdictions in places like New York and California irresponsibly allow the problem to fester by not only refusing to deport criminal aliens but by doing everything in their power to impede federal authorities.

And federal authorities should continue to do so no matter the media narratives.

This is the “hidden” benefit of deportation. Countless Americans have escaped injury, predation, rape, and death at the hands of criminals because the Trump administration is doing what the Biden administration refused to do: enforcing U.S. immigration laws.

As infuriating as every case like that of Laken Riley – who was murdered by an illegal alien – is, there are now countless incidents that haven’t happened because of the switch from Biden to Trump.

How many horror stories haven’t happened because the administration decided to not only aggressively seal the border but to track down the criminals, from petty to heinous, who should have never been here in the first place?

Make no mistake, if the Left seizes power, the borders will open once again, criminal illegal aliens will breathe a sigh of relief, Americans will suffer a surge in violent crime, and the media will be quick with the excuses.

Who Will Vote in the Midterms?

            My VIPs for this week are the American citizens who will cast their votes in the midterm elections. The result of the midterm election is much in the news, but those who actually look at the midterms are few. In his article published by the Daily Signal, Victor Davis Hanson explains that there are “two ways of looking at the midterms.” 

One is as a simple referendum on the issues and politicians of the day. The other involves a far deeper conflict of visions (as Thomas Sowell puts it): socialism versus capitalism, intrusive versus limited government, and the destruction of time-honored institutions and traditions versus their preservation and renewal.

Rarely in American history have the two parties been so far apart or the choice between them so stark. In brief, Islamist-sympathizing socialism is on the ballot against free-market capitalism and American exceptionalism.

The new Islamist-allied socialist Democratic Party is confident, largely because the party holding the White House has increased its share of House seats in a midterm election only three times since 1900. Each of those exceptions arose under unusual circumstances.

In 1934, FDR was still riding the wave of his New Deal promises to end the Depression.

In 1998, Bill Clinton enjoyed backlash support after the Republicans’ unpopular impeachment inquiry, at a time when the economy was robust, and the budget was finally being balanced.

In 2002, George W. Bush had united the nation after 9/11 and had not yet begun what proved to be an unpopular Iraq War.

In other words, the party in the White House has gained House seats in only about 10% of the 31 midterms over the past 126 years. Pundits also point to President Donald Trump’s approval rating, now below 40% in most polls, and the persistently high price of regular gasoline ($4.33). Uncertainty over the 33-week Iran war, they argue, makes it difficult for Trump to preserve his majorities in either the House or the Senate.

Those are the issues ostensibly at stake. But the choice goes much further than that: Voters face a “deep” midterm election that will help determine the very future existence of the nation.

The new Democrat agenda is not about lowering gas prices. Americans are being asked to hand Congress to what has become the most radical major party in U.S. history, as socialists and neo-communists believe they can finally win statewide races across the country….

Hanson discussed numerous issues, including lawfare, the Iran war, energy, immigration, fraud, DEI, demands for reparations, and Islamism. He ends his article: “In short, treat this midterm election as the deep choice that it is.”