Have You Heard About the Movement to Make Our Children Innocent Again?

According to Rebecca Phillips, there is an inscription written on the wall of the Library of Congress in Washington stating: “the foundation of every state is the education of its youth” (quoting Diogenes). Phillips also wrote that America’s Founding Fathers agreed with the Greeks and Romans in their belief that “education meant instilling virtue as well as information. 

Things have changed in America since the nation was founded. “Now, education is progressive indoctrination.” However, “Education of the youth is still the foundation of a state, so what happens when the moral foundation of education itself begins to shift decisively toward a political extreme?” Another change may be coming. Phillips shared the following information.

On Thursday, the House decided in a narrow 214-212 vote to pass Trump’s rescission package to cut taxpayer funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS. These media conglomerates have a decidedly left-wing bias, having supported cultural Marxist themes, drag shows, and blatant relativism. Perhaps PBS is more strongly associated in the minds of some Americans with cultural classics for young people such as “Cat in the Hat,” “Sesame Street,” or “Martha Speaks.” True, PBS did have a strong educational content in the early years, but by the turn of this century it took a turn for the woke.

In 2022, PBS was forced to cancel the longest running animated children’s show in the network’s history, “Arthur,” after backlash over their 2019 episode featuring a homosexual wedding and a 2020 episode discussing George Floyd’s death. Previously, when “Arthur” had tried to promote LGBTQ+ narratives, the episodes were removed under pressure from President George W. Bush’s Department of Education. But since Bush departed office, producers shamelessly have aired leftist propagandized shows. And they’re funded by American taxpayers.

In 2017, Bustle, the online women’s magazine with an audience of over 100 million monthly readers, said unashamedly that, “these progressive children’s shows prove that you don’t need to have an over 18 target audience to create work that challenges assumptions abut gender, race, and politics … that’s the beauty of these shows … this is education via stealth” [emphasis added]. They said the quiet part out loud, which gives me the chills, and not in a good way.

In line with this approach, Sesame Street ran an episode called “Family Day” with gay couple Dave and Frank in 2021, and in 2022, Elmo encouraged children to get the COVID shot, as part of PBS’s “the ABCs of the COVID Vaccine” learning initiative.

Sesame Street hosted outspoken homosexuals in recent years, such as Ellen DeGeneres and rapper Lil Nas X. Even PBS’ bipartisan literacy initiatives launched during the Reagan administration are now focused on “racial literacy.” PBS’ movie “Real Boy” features a transgender teenager who struggles with sobriety. The perfect viewing for a Friday family movie night! Lest we forget, these programs are aimed at children, who should not be over racialized or sexualized if the goal is to educate, not indoctrinate.

Phillips continued her article by explaining that “NPR’s programming over the past decade is rife with woke propaganda” and sharing some examples. She ended her article this way:

Feeling edified? Well, hopefully taxpayers across the political spectrum who value education won’t have to fund programs like this for much longer, as 214 House members concluded Thursday afternoon on the House floor: Federal funds do not belong in the pockets of woke media conglomerates. Education of youth is the foundation of a state, and elected officials are beginning to take that seriously.

Who Is Hans von Spakovsky?

My VIP for this week is Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation. I chose him as my VIP because of his understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

When a lower court ruled against President Donald Trump about his activating California’s National Guard, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals acted within a few hours to block the ruling.

According to an article by Tyler O’Neil, von Spakovsky claimed that the quick action by the 9^th Circuit was because Trump clearly had the authority to take the action required. 

“Look, what the president did is something he is statutorily authorized to do, much less looking at his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal in an interview Friday.

He cited 10 U.S.C. 12406, which allows the president to call the National Guard – which ordinarily falls under the purview of state governors – into federal service in three circumstances: invasion or threat of invasion, rebellion or threat of rebellion, and if the president cannot execute U.S. law with regular forces.

Trump invoked the third reason when he ordered the California National Guard to assist federal law enforcement in Los Angeles amid the riots. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had carried out raids to detain and deport illegal aliens, and agitators physically blocked them from doing so. Protests against the raids devolved into violence, as agitators attacked ICE agents, set vehicles ablaze, and looted retail stores.

After Trump activated the California National Guard, Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., filed a lawsuit challenging the action.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton and brother to former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, issued an order Thursday demanding that Trump turn control of the National Guard back to Newsom by Fridy afternoon.

The president appealed, however, and later that afternoon, a three-judge panel of the 9^th Circuit granted his request to stay the order….

“The 9^th Circuit moved almost immediately to stay the decision while they take a look at the case,” he noted.

Von Spakovsky also mentioned that the 9^th Circuit is “very liberal,” but he insisted, “This is really not a gray issue. The statute’s very clear.” …

 

What Authority Does Trump Have to Use National Guard in Los Angeles?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the authority of the President of the United States to protect Americans. When riots broke out in Los Angles and threatened ICE officers, Mayor Karen Bass refused to order police officers in to protect ICE officers, and California Governor Gavin Newsom refused to send in the National Guard. So, President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard into Los Angeles to protect federal employees and federal property.

California Governor Gavin Newsom would not order the National Guard into action, but he would use the court system in an attempt to force Trump to surrender the control of the National Guard to him. Joseph M. Hanneman at The Blaze reported the following information. 

President Donald J. Trump has authority under the U.S. Pservice [sp.?] for defined purposes that include putting down rebellion, defending against invasion, and ensuring execution of the laws of the United States.

When rioting broke out in and around Los Angeles on June 6 and federal employees and facilities were attacked, President Trump used his constitutional and statutory powers to call 2,000 and later 4,000 members of the California National Guard into federal service.

Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom on June 9 asked a federal district court judge to force the commander in chief to relinquish control of the National Guard, complaining that President Trump had not adequately consulted him.

United States District Judge Charles Breyer, appointee of President Bill Clinton and brother of retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, sided with Newsom in a ruling that was quickly stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A hearing is set for June 17….

The fight that Newsom started in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is shaping up to be more about partisan politics, policy, and lawfare than presidential authority. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit quickly stayed a district judge’s ruling that President Trump exceeded his authority. The case will almost certainly end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys general for nineteen states and Guam -- conservative and liberal states – “petitioned to file an amici curiae brief in opposition to Newsom’s attempt to wrestle control of the Guard back from the president.”

Newsom complained bitterly in California’s application for a federal temporary restraining order that President Trump and Defense Secretary Pet Hegseth are using a “warrior culture” that targets “the streets of cities and towns where Americans work, go to school, and raise families.”

In his application seeking judicial fiat to regain control of the Guard, Newsom denied the existence of any rebellion or invasion, instead describing the fiery rioting and assaults on federal agents and buildings by supporters of illegal aliens as “civil unrest that is no different from episodes that regularly occur in communities throughout the country that is capable of being contained by state and local authorities working together.”

“Absent immediate injunctive relief, defendants’ use of the military and the federalized National Guard to patrol communities or otherwise engage in general law enforcement activities creates imminent harm to state sovereignty, deprives the state of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote in the state’s motion for a restraining order….

In calling up the National Guard and ordering 700 active-duty U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, President Trump judged that Newsom and Bass were unwilling to support the rule of law and protect federal employees, vehicles, facilities, and the general public.

Attorneys for the DOJ insist that the authority to use the military to protect federal agents rests solely with the president, and it is his job alone to determine the measures needed to keep federal employees, facilities, and interests safe from mob rule….

Under Section 10 U.S. Code § 12406, the president has authority to use the National Guard to suppress rebellion, repel an invasion, or execute federal laws…. [Emphasis added.]

Judge Breyer’s issuance of a temporary restraining order, quickly stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, was a “dangerous” overreach of judicial authority, Edelman suggested….

The president’s authority under Section 10 was tailored in this case to protect those engaged in law enforcement functions, such as ICE agents and Department of Homeland Security officers. Neither Guard troops nor Marines were assigned law enforcement duties, so President Trump’s actions do not run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits U.S. military personnel from performing domestic law enforcement functions.

“Plaintiffs offer no contrary evidence, only a speculative assertion that the National Guard and Marines will be used for unlawful purposes in the future,” Edelman wrote.

“Courts did not interfere when President Eisenhower deployed the military to protect school desegregation … when President Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail in the midst of a postal strike. And courts should not interfere here either.”

Given the rioting involved, President Trump could have federalized the National Guard by enabling the Insurrection Act. But he chose to work through federal statute in Section 10.

“The statutory lineage of [sub] Section 12406 begins with the First Militia Act of 1792, which, among other things, was used by George Washington to respond to the Whiskey Rebellion,” Edelman wrote….

            The Insurrection Act has been legally invoked 30 times by 17 presidents, according to the                        Brennan Center for Justice, a New York-based law and policy center. 

What Is the Law of Chastity?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 60-63 in a lesson titled “I Am with the Faithful Always.” The lesson was introduced by the following paragraphs.

In early August 1831, Joseph Smith and other elders of the Church were preparing to return to Kirtland after a short visit to the “land of Zion” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:3). The Lord had wanted them to preach the gospel during their trip (see Doctrine nd Covenants 52:10), and some of them did so diligently. But others were hesitant. “They hide the talent which I have given unto them,” the Lord said, “because of the fear of man” (Doctrine and Covenants 60:2). Many of us know how these elders felt. Even though we love the gospel, fear and doubt might keep us from sharing it. But the Lord is merciful. He “knoweth the weakness of man and how to succor [us]” (Doctrine and Covenants 62:1). Scattered throughout these revelations to early missionaries are reassurances that can help us overcome our fears and shortcomings: “I am able to make you holy.” “All flesh is in mine hand.” “I am with the faithful always.” And “He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.” (Doctrine and Covenants 60:7; 61:6; 62:9; 63:47.) 

The scripture block contains several principles, including (1) I can share my love and testimony of Jesus Christ (Doctrine and Covenants 60; 62, (2) The scriptures teach of Jesus Christ (Doctrine and Covenants 60:2-4; 61:1-2, 20, 36-38; 62:1, 6), (3) My decisions should balance “judgment and the direction of the Spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 62), (4) Signs come by faith and the will of God (Doctrine and Covenants 63:7-12), (5) I can be chaste in my thoughts and actions (Doctrine and Covenants 63:16), and (6) Sacred things should be treated with reverence (Doctrine and Covenants 63:58-64).

This essay will discuss principle #5 “I can be chaste in my thoughts and actions” (Doctrine and Covenants 63:16). We will first look at the applicable verse of scripture.

16 And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.

In the above quoted scripture, the Savior reaffirmed what He taught in the New Testament – that the law of chastity should govern not just our actions but also our thoughts (see Matthew 5:27-28). This verse tells us that we commit adultery in our heart if we lust after anyone. It also says that adultery causes us to lose the Spirit.

Many people think the Lord’s standards of chastity of thought and action are old-fashioned or even oppressive. It would be wonderful if all of God’s children lived the law of chastity. Even when we know the blessings of being chaste in our thoughts and actions, it is not always easy to live the law. In his general conference address titled “We Believe in Being Chaste,” Elder David A. Bednar gave the following counsel: 

The means by which mortal life is created is divinely appointed. “The first commandment … God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife” (Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2010, 129). The commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force today. Thus, marriage between a man and a woman is the authorized channel through which premortal spirits enter mortality. Complete sexual abstinence before marriage and total fidelity within marriage protect the sanctity of this sacred channel.

The power of procreation is spiritually significant. Misuse of this power subverts the purposes of the Father’s plan and of our mortal existence. Our Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son are creators and have entrusted each of us with a portion of Their creative power. Specific guidelines for the proper use of the ability to create life are vital elements in the Father’s plan. How we feel about and use that supernal power will determine in large measure our happiness in mortality and our destiny in eternity….

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a man and a woman in the marriage relationship prescribed in God’s plan. Such relations are not merely a curiosity to be explored, an appetite to be satisfied, or a type of recreation or entertainment to be pursued selfishly. They are not a conquest to be achieved or simply an act to be performed. Rather, they are in mortality one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential and a way of strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife. We are agents blessed with moral agency and are defined by our divine heritage as children of God—and not by sexual behaviors, contemporary attitudes, or secular philosophies….

The doctrine I have described will seem to be archaic and outdated to many people in a world that increasingly mocks the sanctity of procreation and minimizes the worth of human life. But the Lord’s truth is not altered by fads, popularity, or public opinion polls. I promise that obedience to the law of chastity will increase our happiness in mortality and make possible our progress in eternity. Chastity and virtue are now, always have been, and always will be “most dear and precious above all things” (Moroni 9:9). I so testify in the sacred name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen (Ensign or Liahona, May 2013, 41-44).

Why Do We Celebrate Father’s Day?

Families are stronger when members commemorate important days. Sunday, June 15, 2025, is Father’s Day in the United States. This non-federal holiday is celebrated on the third Sunday in June in the United States.

Most government offices and businesses run their usual Sunday schedule. If they are open or closed on a regular Sunday, the same will be true on Father’s Day.

Even though Father’s Day is not a federal holiday, it is a meaningful day that most Americans observe. It is a day to thank the father-figures in our lives: fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers, guardians, and other male role models who give us their love, guidance, and support. It can be observed with a quiet meal or a big celebration.

The important thing about Father’s Day is the act of showing appreciation for fathers and their important role in our lives and society. This site gives the following history of Father’s Day in the United States. 

The idea of celebrating Father’s Day started in the early 1900s. In 1908, Grace Golden Clayton held a church service in Fairmont, West Virginia, to honor fathers who died in the 1907 mining disaster in Monongah, West Virginia.

A year later, Sonora Smart Dodd, a young woman from Spokane, Washington, proposed a national Father’s Day. Inspired by a Mother’s Day sermon, she wanted to honor her father, William Jackson Smart, a Civil War veteran and widower who raised his six children alone.

Sonora approached the Spokane Ministerial Alliance for support. Although she suggested June 5, her father’s birthday, the alliance opted for the third Sunday in June to give pastors more time to prepare their sermons.

With help from local churches, community groups, and the Spokane Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), the first Father’s Day celebration was held on June 19, 1910.

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson visited Spokane and spoke at a Father’s Day service, showing early presidential support. The idea gained momentum over time.

By the 1930s, advertisers and retailers began promoting Father’s Day as a commercial holiday, encouraging people to buy gifts and cards. The National Council for the Promotion of Father’s Day helped push the holiday into wider public acceptance through marketing campaigns.

In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued a presidential proclamation recognizing Father’s Day. In 1972, President Richard Nixon signed it into law as an official national observance.

Does Trump Have Authority to Use Military to Quell Riots?

 The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the right to protest peacefully. This right is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [Emphasis added.] The following explanation is from the staff at FindLaw.com: 

Protesting is the practice of publicly speaking out against perceived injustices and urging action. It is a form of assembly protected by the Constitution and by international human rights law. While there is a right to peaceful protest in the U.S., there are limits. These rights also only apply to public space, not private property….

The ability to air grievances without fear of retribution or censorship is fundamental to democracy in the United States.

According to Eleanor Stratton at USConstitution.net, “The right to assemble is a fundamental aspect of American constitutional law, deeply rooted in the history and principles that shaped the United States.” This right allows Americans to assemble for assorted reasons and supports freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to protest or to “petition the government for redress of grievances.” 

All of the above information is to show that this writer supports the right to assemble and to protest. Nevertheless, there are limits to all rights. Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to slander another person. Freedom of press does not give anyone the right to print lies about a political enemy. In much the same way, freedom to assemble and to make grievances known does not give anyone the right to destroy government property, injure law enforcement officers, or to loot stores.

Application to LA Riots

Peaceful protests from last Friday have turned into raging riots. Yet, California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass did not act to stop the rioters. President Donald Trump remembered the events in 2020 when peaceful protests erupted into riots in several cities that lasted for months. Rioters were destroying Minneapolis, and Trump waited seven days for the governor to activate the National Guard.

This time, Trump saw the protests turning into anarchy, warned Newsom, and then acted. Democrats and liberals are apoplectic, claiming that Trump overreacted and threatened democracy over a non-crisis. Columnist Monica Showalter explained why Trump has authority to call out the National Guard and Marines.

Will a lefty judge pop out of the woodwork like a wooden cuckoo on a clock to say time for an injunction?

So far, that isn’t happening.

That’s because in this case, [Trump is] on extremely strong legal ground. President Eisenhower deployed the National Guard in 1958 to desegregate schools in Arkansas. President Johnson deployed the National Guard to Alabama during the March on Selma in 1965 to protect peaceful protestors. President Bush deployed the National Guard to guard gas stations and other sensitive locations in New York City on the day of 9/11 – the only reason I know this is I saw it. The former two instances were done explicitly over the governor’s objections, and if 9/11 happened today, the latter would have been done over the woke governor’s objections, too.

Jonathan Turley has a superb legal analysis that explains just why that’s so, and he even cites leftwing legal eagles as being in agreement.

Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the president is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

The Administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs attack vehicles and trap federal personnel.

Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that “Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this.”

There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the President is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after the George Floyd killings, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard.

Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who “shall” issue the President’s order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials “to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau.”

Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment….

But as Turley and Allen both note, Trump has that covered, based on his order to deploy Marines from TwentyNine Palms with an invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 if a judge sidelines the Guard.

It raises questions as to why the left is fighting so hard to stop Trump on this matter, given the potential for violence, destruction, deaths and lost tax revenue.

Two things spring to mind:

The first is that the state is funding it. One of the key organizers of these “peaceful” protests is an NGO called CHIRLA which is reportedly the recipient of $34 million in state funding from the California Department of Social Services.

The other is the impact of illegal immigration enforcement on the size of the state’s most powerful blue cities. How big would Los Angeles be if every illegal immigrant was sent home? …

Court’s Non-Action

Newsom tried to immediately stop Trump from activating the National Guard and bringing in the Marines by taking it to the court system. However, he did not have satisfactory results. Virginia Allen at The Daily Signal explained as follows. Judge Spurns Newsom's Request Against National Guard Troops

A federal judge on Tuesday afternoon denied California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom’s request to immediately limit President Donald Trump’s use of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles. 

Newson asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to limit the enforcement activities of the federal troops to the “immediate vicinity” of federal property while Newsom’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to LA proceeds.

The governor asked for a quick ruling on the matter since National Guard troops have already begun arriving in LA to protect federal buildings and personnel from violent rioters protesting immigration enforcement operations.

On Thursday afternoon, the court will hold a hearing on the matter.

The judge’s decision to deny Newsom’s request for an immediate restraining order follows five consecutive days of rioting in LA that began Friday in opposition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. …

Trump initially ordered the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to LA and on Monday announced he would be sending an additional 2,000 to the California city. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also announced Monday that he was sending 700 Marines from Camp Pendleton to LA. 

The primary role of the National Guard troops Trump pledged to deploy is the protection of federal government property and federal employees.

The National Guard troops “may perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,” the White House explained as it announced the deployment of the troops. 

Allen explained that the majority of Americans support Trump’s decision to use the military to quell the riots. “RMG Research polling conducted among 1,000 registered voters on Monday found that 52% of respondents either ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’ approve of Trump’s decision to send National Guard troops to LA in the face of the fiery street protests.” The poll results show that 42% of American voters do not support Trump’s action while 7% are “not sure” what they think of sending troops into an American city.

What Is the Democrat Solution to Riots by Illegal Immigrants?

Rioting took place in Los Angeles against enforcement of immigration and customs enforcement. The reason for ICE agents being in LA was to “apprehend illegal aliens and those employers who hire illegal aliens. Although the riots began with smaller numbers of participants, they soon turned to violence and grew larger. The violence included “throwing rocks at cars, torching cars, defacing government buildings, and attacking law enforcement,” according to Victor Davis Hanson in his article at The Daily Signal. 

But here’s what’s interesting. The mayor, Karen Bass, came down, in her public comments, on the side of the protesters who were protesting the idea of deportation at all. Kind of like former Vice President Kamala Harris used to march against deportation.

And California Gov. Gavin Newsom then gave a series of editorializations that I think have ruined his chances ever to be a serious national candidate. He said this was “chaotic,” this was “reckless.” And he said that they were just trying to have “an arbitrary” deportation “quota.”

Gavin, 12 million people came into the country illegally. That was 3 million a year. That was 250,000 per month. That was over 8,000 a day. They have not been able to deport more than a thousand on most days – sometimes 500. They would have to deport 8,000 people every single day for four years to get back where we were with 20 million illegal aliens when President Joe Biden entered office. So, it’s not a quota, it’s an effort to stop an invasion.

And it’s a very funny invasion because now Gavin is made that they nationalized the California guard. President Donald Trump has that ability. And people said, “No. No president --- they have to request it.” No, they don’t. You think that JFK said to George Wallace, when he nationalized the Alabama National Guard, said, “Would you please let us nationalize your guard so you can be removed from stopping African American people going to the University of Alabama?” No.

So, what I’m getting at is, on one side of these violent acts, you have these protesters. And I’ll just give a word of advice. You’re going to lose the optics – Democrats, the Left, and immigration protesters – if you have a lot of people here illegally and they’re waving, not the American flag, but the Mexican flag, as they’re committing acts of violence.

Think of the logic: “I am waving the flag of the country under no circumstances I want to return, but I am attacking the officers and the infrastructure of the country that under every circumstance I want to stay in.”

That might explain why, in the midst of all of this negative publicity, a CBS poll taken to show that people were outraged showed that just the opposite: 54% of the American people are for continued deportations.

Donald Trump was the POTUS in 2020 when Minneapolis, Seattle, and Portland experienced riots for several months. Hanson wrote, “Donald Trump does not want to see a May, June, July, August, September 2020 $2 billion in property damage, 35 people killed, 1,500 officers assaulted, $14,000 in arrests, precinct burned, courthouse burned, historic church burned. He doesn’t want to see that.”

Democrat leaders, such as Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass, are egging on the violent behavior, according to Hanson. For some reason, such leaders think that such riots are peaceful and acceptable protests. News flash: Actions, such as “burning a car or burning a whole neighborhood down,” are not peaceful protests. Such Democrat leaders obvious see a different riot than do those with common sense. Hanson’s “Final bottom line” is:

If you take an oath to enforce the laws of your state or the country and you see people swarming detention centers, swarming the streets, obstructing traffic, burning cars, trying to injure people with rocks, and you do nothing, then you are forsaking your oath of office.

And secondly: Mayor Bass, Gov. Newsom, would you please tell us what is your position on 12 million people who entered the United States illegally, who are residing illegally at a time when the country is running a $2 trillion deficit and your state, at one point, recently owed $75 billion that it did not have?

Hanson is exactly right in asking for the Democrat solution to the immigration problem. Should we allow one million more illegal immigrants into the United States? Should the number be three million more? How about five million more? What is their solution to find the 300,000 to 500,000 illegal immigrants who are believed to have criminal records?

Another question asked by Hanson is, What is your solution to the problem of “violent protesters waving the flag of foreign national country as a way of persuading us that we should not deport them when they are burning things and committing violence about the country they want to stay in but waving the flag of the country they do not want to return to?

Still another question put forth by Hanson is about the position of the Mexican government. This foreign government must not be too happy about the “big, beautiful bill” with tax remittances of $63 billion. Maybe that number should be increased – maybe it should be doubled or tripled or more. Maybe then Mexico would do something about their own citizens trying to destroy America.