Why Is Greenlandic Security Essential to America?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns national security. With Russia and China venturing into the Arctic, America would be wise to install deterrents as quickly as possible. President Donald Trump recognized the threat to America and said that America needed to acquire Greenland. There were discussions, and the United States came away with the ability to own certain parts of Greenland, which would be sovereign territory to the U.S., on which to build military bases.

These discussions brought to forefront “the issue of Chinese and Russian threats to the forefront, particularly as it relates to their growing interest in the arctic,” according to an article by Robert Peters, senior research fellow for Strategic Deterrence at The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security.

As noted elsewhere, China seeks to establish economic presence in the Arctic – and almost assuredly, long-term options for military operations in the region, to include “space and satellite warfare to strategic positioning of nuclear-armed submarines.”

Russia similarly has increased its air and maritime operations in the Arctic and may bring its gray zone activities into the region as a means to disrupt NATO activities.

Indeed, the prospect for America’s adversaries to fire missile salvos at the United States is so grave that it prompted one retired Air Force general to write, “Nowhere is America’s exposure to attack more acute than from its Arctic approaches – the most direct corridor through which both Russia and China could strike the United States.” What then should be done about Greenlandic security, given the emerging threat to the Arctic, as well as North America and Europe?

To begin with, the United States and Denmark should increase their joint military presence in Greenland so that they can better monitor air and maritime threats within the region.

Such efforts should include ground forces trained in arctic or alpine combat stationed at key points along Greenland’s northern coast.

Indeed, Greenland would be an ideal location for NATO militaries to engage in arctic training operations – which not only benefits military members engaged in such exercises but helps establish a military presence.

In addition, the U.S. and Denmark should work with other NATO allies, such as Finland and Canada, to station icebreakers along the northernmost settlements, such as Qaanaaq and Ittoqqortoormiit. Such icebreakers would enable allied ships to operate in the Arctic year-round, which could enable allied navies to engage in effective combat operations even in winter, but are also important when it comes to sovereignty claims. Russia’s icebreaker fleet, the largest in the world, enables Moscow to deploy naval assets to the Arctic, regardless of ice coverage.

Also, the United States should rotate Army units capable of carrying medium- and intermediate-range fires to Greenland so that they can engage and, if necessary, destroy sea and air threats that may transit arctic air or maritime space.

Perhaps most importantly, Greenland is an ideal place in which the U.S. can station sensors and radars that would be critically important to building the Golden Dome missile defense architecture….

If Denmark proposes such concrete steps to Washington, wherein both countries could cooperate to shore up Greenlandic security, both nations’ legitimate security concerns could be address. At the same time, they would be able to mitigate Russian and Chinese threats to North America, Europe, and the Arctic.

 

 

What Is Best – Common Sense or Crazy?

President Donald Trump gave his first State of the Union address for his second term of office. According to Jarrett Stepman at The Daily Signal, “the central theme of the speech [was] common sense versus crazy.” 

Stepman began by saying that “one of President Trump’s signature lines” was “These people are crazy. I’m telling you, they’re crazy.” He continued as follows:

Despite the decade-long attempt to portray him as a deranged and illegitimate shock to the system, it’s Trump who is bring back normalcy as Democrats descend into madness.

On point after point, Trump delivered factual assessments about where the country is compared to a few years ago. He noted that crime and inflation are down, American savings accounts are up, and our enemies are on their back heels as opposed to being on the march.

At every turn, as Trump point out, Democrats have punted in their responsibilities to protect and represent the American people.

On no set of issues was that clearer than his record on immigration and border enforcement. And that’s where Trump landed his biggest blow.

Trump rightly pointed out that since returning to office the border crisis has all but dissolved.

“In the past nine months, zero illegal aliens have been admitted to the United States,” Trump said. “The flow of deadly fentanyl across our border is down by a record 56%... And last year, the murder rate saw its single largest decline in recorded history … the lowest number in over 125 years.”

By the reaction of Democrats in attendance, you would have guessed this is all terrible news.

And maybe from their perspective, it is. They appear to have been counting on former President Joe Biden’s border crisis to go on indefinitely, for their constellation of NGOs to continue getting government support to fan its flames, and for taxpayer dollars to keep flowing to their new, imported voters.

Democrats clearly no longer care if immigration happens legally or not, so why should they care if taxpayer dollars are going to legitimate sources as long as their supporters get paid, right?

One of the great lines of the night was when Trump blasted the massive and shameful fraud that occurred under the averted eye of Gov. Tim Walz and the entire Minnesota Democrat political establishment.

“The Somali pirates who ransacked Minnesota remind us that there are large parts of the world where bribery, corruption, and lawlessness are the norm, not the exception,” Trump said. “Importing these cultures through unrestricted immigration and open borders brings those problems right here, to the USA – and it is the American people who pay the price, in higher medical bills, car insurance rates, rent, taxes, and perhaps most importantly, crime.” …

Trump effectively laid out that he was, unlike his opposition, going to prioritize American citizens. He was going to take commonsense, level-headed positions that most Americans still believe in.

Trump also made it clear that if his opponents on the left retake federal power, they will immediately return to the ruinous open borders and many other terrible policies that Americans voted against in 2024.

In a sense, it was the way Democrats acted Tuesday night that said nearly as much as

Trump’s speech. House Speaker Mike Johnson said it well when he noted that it was “good” for the American people to see just how “shameful” and out of touch the opposition had really become….

What Did the Supreme Court Decide on These Cases?

 According to Fred Lucas, chief news correspondent for The Daily Signal, the Supreme Court announced that it will release opinions o February 20, 24, 25. Anticipated decisions would affect “the future of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, new congressional maps, and an expected strike at the ‘deep State.’” 

Among the most anticipated rulings is on Trump’s tariffs, imposed last year without authorization from Congress. Tariffs are a core element of his economic agenda….

At issue is whether the president exceeded his executive branch authority by imposing tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is intended to address emergencies only. Normally, trade policy, including tariffs, is enacted through legislation in Congress and signed by the president….

The case marks uncharted waters for the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on how far the International Emergency Economic Powers Act extends.

[The fact that the United States was dying economically after the failed Biden administration might be considered an emergency.]

Another major case could involve justices issuing an opinion that strikes a blow against the federal bureaucracy in Washington.

This specific case of Slaughter v. Trump regards Trump’s ouster of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. But the court’s ruling will affect other federal boards and commissions with members appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents.

The members, in theory, operate without political concerns. They serve for a set term until it expires….

The high court, in the 1935 precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, ruled Congress could enact laws limiting the power of a president to fire executive officials of an independent agency.

In oral arguments, a majority of justices seemed near certain to scrap the 90-year-old precedent, which has protected the federal bureaucracy.

In another case that could be ruled on in the coming days, the high court also heard arguments in a redistricting case in October that could affect which party controls the House of Representatives.

A majority of justices seemed inclined to uphold the congressional and legislative maps in Louisiana.

Liberal groups have sounded the alarm that the forthcoming ruling in Louisiana v. Callais could net Republicans up to 19 new sets nationwide in the U.S. House of Representatives, as the decision could impact parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The dispute began after the 2020 census when Louisiana redrew six congressional districts with just one majority-black congressional district.

The NAACP and others sued, alleging the new map resulting from the 2020 census violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans race-based gerrymandering of districts.

The state had one majority-black district from the 2010 census, but NAACP and others contend that the state’s black population shifted and grew, resulting in the need for a second district.

In 2022, U.S. District Chief Judge Shelly Dick sided with the NAACP and ordered the state to redraw the map with two majority-black districts.

After the state created a new map, other state voters sued, asserting the new map violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14^th Amendment, since the boundary lines of the second district had been drawn based on race. The 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the new map.

Yet another high-profile case involves campaign finance law. Justices heard arguments in December in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, and a majority seemed inclined to further roll back campaign finance limits.

If the Supreme Court sides with the Republicans in the case, it would mean candidates can accept funding directly from a political party and also discuss with party officials how to use the funds.

The case emerged in 2022, when plaintiffs, including then-U.S. Senate candidate JD Vance, now vice president, as well as then-Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, sued the Federal Election Commission. The plaintiffs contend that coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.

Who Is God and Why Should We Sacrifice for Him?

My VIP for this week is God. February 18 marked the beginning of Lent, so Catholics across the world went to Mass to “receive burned ashes on their forehead in the sign of the cross.” Lent is “the holiest season of the year” and leads “to the commemoration of Jesus’ betrayal, suffering, death, and resurrection during Holy Week.

For those people, like me, who are not Catholic, an article by Tom Griffin, chair of the religion department at a Catholic high school on Long Island, can increase our understanding of our friends, the Catholics. 

Griffin quoted Martin Luther King Jr. as saying, “If a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” Then he asked what or who we would make the ultimate sacrifice for or “resides at the center of our lives” Catholics receive ashes on their forehead to show that they are a witness, and there are three parts to this witness.

First, it reminds us that we came from nothing and that we will deteriorate into ashes. Life is fragile and life is short. Therefore, Lent serves as a launchpad for Catholics to consider what they are really living for? …

Second, the ashes act as our first opportunity to consider how I am being called to sacrifice more for God and others in my life. The ashes on our heads were produced through the bringing of palm branches. These branches were used in the celebration of Palm Sunday the previous year. This is the commemoration of Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem the week of his death.

The ashes on our heads are cause to consider our death, but also cause to consider the suffering, beating, and humiliation that Jesus endured for love of you and me.

In light of his sacrifice, what can I sacrifice to grow closer to him? The word sacrifice literally means to give up something good for something greater….

Finally, the ashes force us to think about our own brokenness and sinfulness.

The concept of Catholic guilt is a common understanding in our culture. The truth of Catholic guilt is that we are all sinners.

Christianity only makes sense if we admit that we are sinners in need of a savior….

The call of Lent is to be more honest with ourselves about our need for God. Yes, because we are sinners but also because we are not meant to go through life alone. Our God became one of us so that we would know that He is always with us drawing us closer to Himself. Even more so, we are invited to not only spend more time with God in prayer this Lent but to allow our time with Him to transform us to become like Him.

The Lenten season can become a transformation when we realize that God is worth everything. That He is worth dying for, yes, but even more – He is worth living for. That is why, above everything else, the ashes truly matter.

Not being Catholic, I did not receive ashes on my forehead today. However, I like the idea of the Lenten season as a time to recognize that I have been given much and that I have much to give to other people. It is also a time that I can prepare more fully to commemorate the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Savior, even Jesus Christ.

How Can Statements Like That of Billie Eilish Be Proven Dangerous?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the need for public education systems to teach correct history. For individuals to love their country, they must be taught the good parts of history, particularly in the younger grades. Older students can be taught the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of America’s history.

One example of incorrect teaching took place at this year’s Grammy Awards when pop artist Billie Eilish made her statement that “no one is illegal on stolen land.” A previous essay discussed the obvious things wrong with the statement: 

“no one is illegal” would mean that “immigration laws have no moral authority,” so we should just allow anyone and everyone into our nation.

“on stolen land” would mean returning the land to its original inhabitants: “Let’s give the Southwest back to Mexico, then back to Spain, then back to the Aztecs, and then back to the people the Aztecs slew and enslaved. Let’s give the Northeast back to the Iroquois, and then back to the Native Americans the Iroquois slew and replaced. Let’s give Florida back to the Seminoles, and then back to the people the Seminoles slew and replaced.”

The statement by Billie Eilish may become a “gift that keeps on giving” for conservatives because there are so many different ways that the message can be attacked. Paul Runko, senior director of Strategic Initiatives, K-12 Programs for Defending Education, criticized the statement from the education angle. Runko shared his thoughts about Eilish’s statement in an article published at The Daily Signal. 

This comment echoed two familiar positions of modern, progressive left-wing ideology: first, that the United States should allow unrestricted immigration and, second, that Americans are living on land illegitimately taken from Native Americans.

While it may be tempting to dismiss such rhetoric as another example of celebrity activism at an awards show, doing so would miss a more troubling reality. The idea that America is fundamentally “stolen land” is not confined to award show stages, it has become increasingly embedded into the schools that teach America’s children.

In 2024, Defending Education released a report revealing that 155 school districts, representing more than 2.7 million students, have adopted so-called land acknowledgements.

These are formal statements intended to recognize Indigenous or Native peoples as the original inhabitants or stewards of the land a school district, staff, and students occupy.

On the surface, land acknowledgments may appear benign or even respectful.

In practice, however, they function as a form of virtue signaling by institutions and leadership. Students are often asked or told to recite these statements, seeding the belief in young students’ minds that they occupy “stolen land” that is morally illegitimate and does not rightfully belong to the United States, but to Indigenous tribes.

Consider the land acknowledgment used by Frances C. Richmond Middle School in Hanover, New Hampshire: “We, the RMS community, would like to acknowledge that our school is built upon the unceded land of the Abenaki and Pennacook people. The land was stolen.”

For a young student, this is not a neutral historical observation. Imagine hearing this as an elementary or middle school student. What conclusions are they expected to draw about their families, their neighbors, or their town?

Rather than learning history, students are pushed toward a moral judgment that their community, their country, and even their family bear collective guilt simply for existing where they do.

For a child who trusts the public school system to teach facts, not an ideologically skewed version of the past, this can be deeply troubling. Instead of fostering civic understanding, these statements frame American history primarily through grievance and condemnation.

This messaging is not limited to land acknowledgments alone.

Another example comes from District of Columbia Public Schools that in 2021 sent a message to families ahead of Thanksgiving encouraging them to “Decolonize your Thanksgiving” by not “sugarcoat[ing] the past.”

They advised parent[s] to use terms like “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “stolen land,” and “forced removal” when discussing the American history of the holiday.

While older students should be exposed to both the proud and the dark side of our nation’s history, language such as “stolen land” means schools have replaced education with ideological indoctrination.

The messaging extends beyond words to art and images in classrooms as well.

In one Los Angeles Unified School District high school, a poster was displayed reading, “Make Israel Palestine again and Make Amerikkka Turtle Island Again.”

Such imagery does not invite critical thinking or intellectual diversity to play out. It asserts, as fact, that nations such as the United States and Israel are illegitimate occupiers whose existence should be undone.

A student exposed to these messages repeatedly could reasonably conclude that the United States has no rightful claim to its own territory. Over time, this worldview cements students’ belief in a far-left orthodoxy where law enforcement, people who express traditional views, and eve our fundamental and treasured American institutions can no longer be allowed to exist.

Parents and other adults should understand that the words spoken by Eilish are not just the words of a pop artist receiving an award. “… they are not isolated or inconsequential.” In fact, “They reflect a broader ideological worldview that has overtaken public education….” They are part of the vast number of people and organizations who are striving to overthrow the government of the United States.

How Was Abraham a Blessing to Others Because of His Covenant with God?

My Come Follow Me Studies for this week took me to Genesis 12-17 and Abraham 1-2 in a lesson titled “To Be a Greater Follower of Righteousness.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Because of the covenant God made with him, Abraham has been called “the father of the faithful” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:41) and “the Friend of God” (James 2:23). Millions today honor him as their direct ancestor, and others have been adopted into his family through conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet Abraham himself came from a troubled family—his father, who had abandoned the true worship of God, tried to have Abraham sacrificed to false gods. In spite of this, Abraham’s desire was “to be a greater follower of righteousness” (Abraham 1:2), and the account of his life shows that God honored his desire. Abraham’s life stands as a testimony that no matter what a person’s family history has been, the future can be filled with hope.

The scripture block teaches numerous principles, including (1) God will bless me for my faith and righteous desires (Abraham 1:1-19); (2) God wants me to make and keep covenants with Him (Genesis 12:1-3; 13:15-16; 15:1-6; 17:1-8, 15-22; Abraham 2:6-11); (3) “Melchizedek was a man of faith” (Genesis 14:18-19; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 14:25-40); (4) Abraham paid tithing (Genesis 14:18-24; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 14:36-40), and (5) God hears me (Genesis 16). This essay will discuss making and keeping covenants with God.

God wants me – and you – to make and keep covenants with Him. It is important for us to know about the covenant God made with Abraham because God wants to make a similar covenant with you. God promised that this covenant would continue in Abraham’s posterity, or “seed,” and that “as many as receive this Gospel shall be … accounted thy seed” (see Abraham 2:10-11). In other words, the covenant continues in you – when you are baptized and more completely when you make covenants in the temple (see Galatians 3:26-29; Doctrine and Covenants 132:30-32).

For that reason, we should desire to study Abraham 2:6-11 and make a list of exactly what God promised Abraham and Sarah (see also Genesis 12:1-3; 13:15-16; 15:1-6; 17:1-8, 15-22). Consider how these blessings might apply to you.

The following ideas were part of a special section in the February Come Follow Me lessons. It is called “Thoughts to Keep in Mind: The Covenant.” 

God’s covenant with Abraham promised wonderful blessings: an inheritance of land, a large posterity, access to priesthood ordinances, and a name that would be honored for generations to come. But the focus of this covenant was not just on the blessings Abraham and his family would receive but also on the blessing they would be to the rest of God’s children. “Thou shalt be a blessing,” God declared, “and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3).

Did this covenant give Abraham, Sarah, and their descendants a privileged status among God’s children? Only in the sense that it is a privilege to bless others. The family of Abraham were to “bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations,” sharing “the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal” (Abraham 2:9, 11). Being God’s covenant people didn’t mean they were better than others; it meant they had a duty to help others be better.

 

Why Do Children Need a Father and a Mother?

The strongest families have both a father and a mother. A single parent can create a strong family that sticks together and supports each other, but children need both a mother and a father.

Delano Squires (Director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Human Flourishing), Ellie Carson (a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation), and Jesse Castrinos (a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation) authored an article titled “Why Children Need Both a Mother and Father, According to Research.” 

… there is never a bad time for Americans to be reminded that strong families thrive when men and women commit to one another in holy matrimony before bringing children into the world.

It is no secret to conservatives that children raised by their married mother and father are more likely to succeed in school, avoid harmful behaviors, and enjoy better long-term mental health than those raised in a single-parent home.

Yet in a culture that has rejected the reality of biological sex and redefined the meaning of marriage, it can be difficult to explain why the natural family is the best structure for children’s long-term outcomes.

The differences between how men and women interact with their children are seen every time a dad throws a baby in the air – much to the child’s delight and often to mom’s distress. The complementary parenting styles of men and women are observed in everyday life, but they are also backed by research.

According to research from the Journal of Child and Family Studies, when it comes to raising children, mothers are generally more emotionally available, self-controlled, and responsive to their children, attributes that help children feel accepted and supported. Moms also tend to be more lenient with their children than dads.

Fathers, on the other hand, are generally more inclined toward discipline and structure than mothers.

That does not mean dads don’t enjoy time with their children. In fact, research shows that fathers are more likely to initiate active play time with their children and keep them physically active as time goes on.

Yes, fathers may show less affection as their children grow older when compared to moms, but they are more likely to grant the type of autonomy that launches teens into adulthood.

Researchers have found that fathers also push their children to take chances and overcome limits.

While these traits are not universal, they clearly point to the difference in how mothers and fathers approach parenting. Yet despite these seemingly contradictory attributes, studies find that most couples acknowledge and appreciate the balance men and women bring to the home.

Children don’t just need two parents. They need the care and affection of their mother and father.

Unfortunately, whenever you remove children from the traditional family structure, they are far more likely to experience poverty, abuse, and unstable relationships themselves.

Furthermore, children are much safer from abuse and neglect when they are raised by both of their biological parents.

One study found that children living with an unrelated adult were 50 times more likely to die from inflicted injuries than children living with their biological parents.

This reality is one reason The Heritage Foundation’s policy paper titled “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years” treats restoring the family home as a matter of justice, driven by two truths.

The first truth is that all children have a right to the affection and protection of the man and woman who created them. The second is that the ideal environment in which to exercise this right is in a loving and stable home with their married biological parents….

Marriage creates a special lifelong bond between a man and woman, but it is also the foundation for the best environment for raising happy and healthy children.