Articles of Faith: What Do Latter-day Saints Believe About the Godhead 3?

                                                             Article of Faith 1

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ,

                                                        and in the Holy Ghost. 

This is the third article on the Godhead in my series on the Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The past two weeks, I discussed a statement by the Prophet Joseph Smith in a lecture on faith titled “The Character of God.” Early in the lecture, he shared three things that are necessary to have faith in God strong enough to lead to salvation. The statement is important enough to repeat in this discussion. 

Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

First, The idea that he actually exists.

Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will.—For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding, it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Last week I discussed the personality of each member of the Godhead, or Trinity. This week I will use the words of Elder James E. Talmage about some of the divine attributes of the Godhead (Elder James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith [1890], pp. 42-44).

God is Omnipresent

There is no part of creation, however remote, into which God cannot penetrate; through the medium of the Spirit the Godhead is in direct communication with all things at all times. It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present; but this does not mean that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be physically present in more than one place at one time. The senses of each of the Trinity are of infinite power; His mind is of unlimited capacity; His powers of transferring Himself from place to place are infinite; plainly, however, His person cannot be in more than one place at any one time. Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the fact of His materiality; indeed, an “immaterial being,” under which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms. If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension in space. It is impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such limits; and it is not surprising, therefore, to learn from the scriptures that He moves from place to place. Thus we read in connection with the account of the Tower of Babel, “And the Lord [i.e., Jehovah, the Son] came down to see the city and the tower” (Gen. 11:5). Again, God appeared to Abraham, and having declared Himself to be “the Almighty God,” He talked with the patriarch, and established a covenant with him; then we read “And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham” (Gen. 17:1, 22).

God is Omniscient

By Him matter has been organized and energy directed. He is therefore the Creator of all things that are created; and “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). His power and His wisdom are alike incomprehensible to man, for they are infinite. Being Himself eternal and perfect, His knowledge cannot be otherwise than infinite. To comprehend Himself, an infinite Being, He must possess an infinite mind. Through the agency of angels and ministering servants He is in continuous communication with all parts of creation, and may personally visit as He may determine.

God is Omnipotent

He is properly called the Almighty. Man can discern proofs of the divine omnipotence on every side, in the forces that control the elements of earth and guide the orbs of heaven in their prescribed courses. Whatever His wisdom indicates as necessary to be done God can and will do. The means through which He operates may not be of infinite capacity in themselves, but they are directed by an infinite power. A rational conception of His omnipotence is power to do all that He may will to do.

God is kind, benevolent, and loving – tender, considerate, and long-suffering, bearing patiently with the frailties of His children. He is just and merciful in judgment, yet combining with these gentler qualities firmness in avenging wrongs. He is jealous of His own power and the reverence paid to Him; that is to say, He is zealous for the principles of truth and purity, which are nowhere exemplified in a higher degree than in His personal attributes. This Being is the author of our existence, Him we are permitted to approach as Father. Our faith will increase in Him as we learn of Him.

What Lessons for 2026 Can We Learn from 1976?

America celebrated its Bicentennial in 1976. Lessons were learned, and Rebecca de Schweinitz at the Deseret News reminds her readers: “Recognizing the nation’s religious diversity and acknowledging its flaws are not at odds with a unifying commemoration.” 

As the country approaches the 250 anniversary of the Revolution, Americans are increasingly divided over what they are celebrating. Some advance a triumphalist narrative of a providential nation, virtually perfect at its founding and rooted in a singular religious identity, while others, who see value in confronting the country’s struggles, are case as at odds with the patriotic project. Fifty years ago, during the 1976 bicentennial, many American religious communities wrestled with similar tensions. They celebrated, but they also reflected, confessed and organized, treating the bicentennial less as an occasion for patriotic display than as an opportunity for democratic practice, grounded in diverse expressions of faith and lived out in families, congregations and communities. That moment offers no simple blueprint, but it points to ward practices – cooperation across difference, moral self-examination and active participation – that remain essential now.

Religious freedom as a shared stewardship

At the national level, religious leaders made clear that the bicentennial could not be claimed by any single tradition. Initiatives like Project FORWARD ’76 (“Freedom of Religion Will Advance Real Democracy”) brought together Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Latter-day Saint and other groups in a shared endeavor. Their goal was not a unified religious interpretation of America but something more foundational: a democracy strengthened by the moral vision of people.

The structure of such efforts mattered. Rather than competing for cultural influence, religious groups cooperated. They exchanged resources, sponsored research and encouraged congregations to explore how religious liberty and democratic life are intertwined. Religious diversity was treated as a strength to learn from and safeguard, not a problem to solve….

Gratitude and repentance in the work of patriotism

Some of the most meaningful Bicentennial work of Project FORWARD ’76 happened in local congregations. Churches did not simply drape sanctuaries in flags. Many reinterpreted national symbols through a moral and theological lens.

In one Lutheran resource, “Stars, Stripes, and Crosses,” the American flag became a framework for reflection. The stars pointed to aspiration, the ideals of liberty and equality. The stripes represented suffering and contradiction, the ways those ideals had been tested or betrayed. The cross stood as a moral measure, reminding believers that no nation, however, noble its founding, is beyond judgment.

This was neither spectacle nor cynicism. It was an effort to tell the truth. Patriotism meant loving one’s country enough to see it clearly and to work to improve it. That spirit shaped worship itself. Bicentennial services blended gratitude with introspection, patriotic hymns alongside prayers that named national failures like racism, inequality, exclusion and violence.

In doing so, faith communities practiced a form of moral speech linking faith to public responsibility. They affirmed that devotion to God does not require silence abut injustice, and that love of country can include a call to repentance.

Remembering in ways that widen belonging

Congregations also turned to history as a lived, shared experience rather than a distant narrative. Programming featured oral histories, archival work and intergenerational storytelling: Young people interviewed older members about migration, work, worship and community-building; families shared photographs and artifacts; “Do you remember?” evenings gathered neighbors to share memories.

These efforts connected individuals to a larger, generous story and invited them to see themselves within an ongoing national project shaped by religious commitments. They also strengthened relationships across generations and fostered belonging rooted in faith and community.

Importantly, these efforts did not simply reinforce exceptionalist narratives. Many congregations included Native American perspectives, inviting Indigenous speakers, integrating Native histories and confronting the consequences of colonization. The bicentennial became an occasion to ask how a nation founded on liberty could also be a site of dispossession.

This widened perspective did not weaken national identity. It made commemorations more honest, meaningful and demanding of people of faith.

Service as patriotic and covenant responsibility

For many religious communities, the most authentic way to mark the bicentennial was not ceremony but service. Congregations organized hunger walks, planted community gardens, supported food banks and engaged in tutoring programs, prison outreach and advocacy. Such efforts pushed people of faith to wrestle with harder questions about poverty, justice and what the nation’s ideals required in practice.

In this context, voluntarism became more than a civic virtue; it was a religious obligation tied to national purpose. To celebrate the nation’s founding was to take responsibility for its unfinished work….

Creating democracy together

Perhaps most strikingly, bicentennial programming treated democracy as something to be learned and practiced. Congregants of all ages and denominations studied their communities, listened to neighbors, engaged public officials, and contributed to local reform efforts.

Politics was not presented as distant or inherently corrupt, but as a domain where moral agency mattered – a place individuals could act on their values to serve the common good. Underlying this was a broader conviction that democracy depends on participation, on citizens willing to listen, learn, deliberate and act in alignment with their moral convictions.

Religious communities helped cultivate positive civic habits, serving as schools of moral and ethical citizenship where people practiced cooperation, developed empathy and linked principles with action.

A nation as shared work: Faith, humility and the more perfect union.

Looking back, the bicentennial era approach contrasts with contemporary currents that more tightly link religious and national identity in exclusionary ways. Where earlier efforts stressed pluralism and honest reflection, today’s rhetoric can narrow belonging, dismiss critique and favor symbolic affirmation over lived engagement. These differences are not merely political; they reflect deeper questions about how faith relates to democracy.

In 1976, many religious communities saw their role as strengthening democratic life through dialogue, accountability and bridge-building – work requiring humility and openness to complexity. It also required a particular understanding of belonging. The nation was not a possession to defend but a project to shape, a shared endeavor inviting both gratitude and responsibility.

Recovering that approach does not mean returning to the 1970s. That era had its own limitations. But the habits it cultivated remain relevant. It showed that commemoration can be more than celebration. It can be a time for reflection, learning and recommitment.

It showed that patriotism can include critique, and that such critique – grounded in love and responsibility – can strengthen the nation. Moreover, it underscored that religious communities can play a vital role in democratic life by fostering participation, cooperation, moral clarity and care for others.

As the United States approaches another anniversary, the question before us is not simply how to celebrate. It is how to do so in ways that sustain a healthy democracy.

The bicentennial offers one answer. It calls us to turn memory into action, widen the circle of voices and measure our national life not only by our ideals but also by how faithfully we live them.

If we take that lesson seriously, celebration itself can become an act of faith – one that binds us more closely to one another and to the enduring work of building a more perfect union.

Rebecca de Schweinitz claims that Americans need to act with faith. One of the ways that we can act with faith is to turn to the God of this land, even Jesus Christ.

As part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ observance of the America 250 commemoration, the First Presidency is holding a special unified fast on Sunday, July 5, 2026 – the day after the United States’ 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The purpose of the fast is to express gratitude for religious liberty as well as to pray for religious freedom to be strengthened throughout the world. Fasting is more than going without food; it is also praying to express gratitude for blessings as well as to ask for help. Everyone is encouraged to join Latter-day Saints in this special fast.

Who Is JD Vance?

My VIP for this week is Vice President JD Vance who visited with the ladies on “The View” and came out of the experience with his skin and soul intact. In fact, according to Christian Toto at The Blaze, the VP “gave ‘The View’ plenty to chew on last week [with] facts [and] knowledge.” He added that Vance’s arguments did not “require a tinfoil hat.” 

The Republican did something else during his trip to the far, far-left showcase. He gave the gals a ratings boost. The show’s 3.3 million viewers represented the highest “View” tally since 2024…. That makes sense, since the ABC showcase rarely offers opposing views from the right and Vance has a reputation for being a thoughtful guest.

Even “View” haters wanted to see what went down.

Why Does the Pledge of Allegiance Include the Words “Under God”?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal considered it to be “both a spiritual and strategic move” for President Dwight D. Eisenhower to sign this bill, on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. I was nine years old when this change took place, and I remember the change.

“From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty,” the president said upon signing the bill….

“To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country’s true meaning,” he continued.

This event was included in “The Soul of an American President: The Untold Story of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Faith,” written by Alliance Defending Freedom founder and former President Alan Sears and two co-authors, Craig Osten and Ryan Cole. It “details how faith was important to the 34^th president well before he entered the White House.

“In World War II, he saw the concentration camps and it shook him to his core,” Osten told the Daily Signal. “He was convinced this is where a godless society ends up. He also looked at what was happening in the Soviet Union and the destruction of their churches.”

During the bill-signing remarks, Eisenhower made a subtle reference to the Cold War. “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future. In this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons, which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war,” Eisenhower said.

Critics of the bill have dismissed it as a geostrategic move to claim the moral high ground against the Soviets.

Osten stressed it was much more than that for Eisenhower.

“He looked at what was different about America. He believed the Soviet Union’s weak link was that it was an atheistic society,” Osten said. “it’s not that he was using religion as a weapon, but he did want to remind America of its spiritual roots.”

Osten added the president “wanted to make sure America didn’t drift the way Russia and Germany did.”

After the bill-signing ceremony, the former Supreme Allied commander met with an American Legion gathering at the Capitol, where he and the others recited the pledge with the newly added words “under God.”

As for the pledge itself, it had quite a journey before Eisenhower’s monumental act.

The first version of the pledge, which skipped from “… one nation indivisible …” was interestingly enough written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892 to mark the 400^th anniversary of the discovery of North America by Christopher Columbus….

It was during World War II, on June 22, 1942, that President Franklin D. Roosevelt officially recognized the pledge in signing the U.S. Flag code.

It was well after the war, in 1951, that the Catholic group Knights of Columbus resolved to call on Congress to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., introduced legislation adding the words to the pledge; the measure then passed both the House and Senate.

Though Catholics initiated the effort, Protestants weren’t far behind.

It was well after the war, in 1951, that the Catholic group Knights of Columbus resolved to call on Congress to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., introduced legislation adding the words to the pledge; the measure then passed both the House and Senate.

Though Catholics initiated the effort, Protestants weren’t far behind….

Almost two months after the Flag Day bill signing, Eisenhower wrote a letter of gratitude to the Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart.

“And this year we are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words ‘under God’ added to our Pledge of Allegiance,” Eisenhower wrote in the Aug. 6, 1954, letter. “These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.”

What Are Your Feelings About the House of the Lord?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to 2 Samuel 11-12 and 1 Kings 3; 6-9; 11 in a lesson titled “Hear Thou in Heaven Their Prayer.” The following information introduced the lesson. 

Saul, David, and Solomon, the first three kings of Israel, all started out with so much promise. Humble, courageous, and wise, they each found favor with the Lord – at least at first. Sadly, each king also gave in to human weaknesses and temptation. They put their own desires before the Lord’s. And as we’ve seen over and over in the scriptures – and in our own lives – that led to tragedy.

But something important happened during the reign of Soloman that provided some hope for stability in the lives of the covenant people. Solomon built a temple. It was to be a more permanent house of the Lord than the tabernacle had been. And it would represent a more permanent presence of the Lord among His people. Solomon knew that the people would continue to face weakness and trials of various kinds. In dedicating the new holy house, Solomon pleaded with the Lord, “If they … return unto thee with all their heart, … then hear thou their prayer” (1 Kings 8:47-48). That’s part of what temple covenants do for us – they create a connection to God. They secure for us the promise that through our repentance and His mercy, He can “dwell among [us]” and never forsake us (1 Kings 6:13).

This block of scriptures teaches several principles, including the following: (1) The Lord can help me make good choices when I am tempted to sin (2 Samuel 11; 12:1-14). (2) The gift of discernment helps me distinguish between right and wrong (1 Kings 3:1-15). (3) Through covenants in the Lord’s house, the Lord dwells with me (1 Kings 6-8; 9:1-9). (4) “His heart was not perfect with the Lord” (1 Kings 8:61; 11:1-11).

This essay will discuss principle #3 about making covenants in the Lord’s house. Covenants are promises between God and an individual. God sets the conditions, and the individual agrees to abide by those conditions – or not.

The writer of 1 Kings 6-7 wrote a detailed description of the sacred house that Solomon built for the Lord. Although we may not understand the importance of the details, the ancient Israelites knew their importance. The important thing for us to take from these chapters is to get a sense of how important it was to the Israelites to have a house of the Lord. How important is it to you to have a House of the Lord that you can attend or in your community?

Some years ago, I was visiting my daughter and her new baby in Spring, Texas. The Houston Temple was close to her home, so I attended a temple session one day. I knew about where the temple was – particularly from a distance – but I lost sight of the temple as I drew closer to it. I stopped at a little store and asked for directions. There were three people in the store when I asked, and they knew exactly where “their” temple was located. They gave me directions, and I was able to find the temple without any problems. Although none of those people were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the temple was important to their community.

I lived in Alaska for about twenty-five years before a temple was built about one mile from my home. Until that temple was built, I had to travel outside of Alaska to attend a temple. Although our assigned temple was the Seattle Washington Temple, I usually traveled to Hawaii or Utah to attend the temple – Hawaii because it is Hawaii, and Utah because it is home and family. Whenever I was near a temple, I attended numerous temple sessions to soak up the temple spirit because I knew it would be months or even years before I could return.

Now, I live approximately one mile from the Anchorage Alaska Temple. Attending the temple is so convenient now that I feel an obligation as well as a desire to attend often. I usually attend the temple at least once each week because it gives me spiritual strength to face the problems of life.

Attending the temple often is one way that I keep the covenants that I make in the temple. Temple attendance gives me an opportunity to renew the covenants and to remember the promises that I made. It also gives me strength to better keep those covenants. I love to see the temple, and I love to go inside temples to feel the presence of the Savior there.

President Henry B. Eyring, then-Second Counselor in the First Presidency, spoke in the April 2021 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the topic “I Love to See the Temple,” the title of a song that children often sing in Primary. He taught the following information about temples. 

I know that temples of the Lord are holy places. My purpose today in speaking of temples is to increase your desire and mine to be worthy and ready for the increased opportunities for temple experiences that are coming for us.

For me, the greatest motivation to be worthy of temple experiences is what the Lord has said of His holy houses:

“Inasmuch as my people build a house unto me in the name of the Lord, and do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled, my glory shall rest upon it;

“Yea, and my presence shall be there, for I will come into it, and all the pure in heart that shall come into it shall see God.

“But if it be defiled I will not come into it, and my glory shall not be there; for I will not come into unholy temples.”

President Russell M. Nelson made clear for us that we can “see” the Savior in the temple in the sense that He becomes no longer unknown to us. President Nelson said this: “We understand Him. We comprehend His work and His glory. And we begin to feel the infinite impact of His matchless life.”

 

How Do Fertility Rates Affect Culture in America?

Families are stronger when parents understand and instruct their children about the numerous ways that culture divides people in America. One of those ways “extends to parenthood, “according to an article by Kevin Stocklin that The Daily Signal published. Here is Stocklin’s explanation for why there is a parenting divide in American culture. 

A new report from the Institute for Family Studies states that a fertility gap has opened up between the Left and the Right. Based on a survey of 7,000 Americans, age 18 to 54, the study found that conservative respondents had, on average, 1.4 children, compared to 1.09 for liberals. A birth rate of 2.1 children per woman is the minimum to sustain a population. More than half of liberal respondents reported having no children at all, compared to 40% of conservatives.

“Progressives are more likely to look at marriage and parenthood as decent options to consider but not necessarily as primary vocations,” Brad Wilcox, IFS senior fellow, told the Daily Signal. Conservatives are more likely to see marriage, motherhood, and fatherhood as core parts of their identity.”

Religion likely plays a key role.

“In the U.S. and in other parts of the world, political conservatives tend to be more religious than political liberals, and more religious people tend to have more kids,” Tom Vogl, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, told the Daily Signal.

Those on the left often find that purpose in career or social causes rather than children.

“If you’re fighting to save the planet, if you’re fighting against white supremacy, that gives your life meaning,” Timothy Carney, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Daily Signal. “And so, what secularization means is that politics becomes their religion.”

Across the board, America’s fertility rate has fallen by more than half over the last century, from 110.9 births per 1,000 women in 1924 to 53.8 in 2024, according to USA Facts. This brings significant societal ramifications.

“An aging society with fewer young workers must either raise productivity dramatically, attract more workers, reduce government spending, raise taxes or some combination of all four,” Thomas Savidge, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, told the Daily Signal.

Raising children certainly comes with costs. A new Harvard report, for example, states that house prices rose 54% since 2020, now averaging five times the median income.

Despite this, however, fewer conservatives (24%) than liberals (36%) saw parenting as “very complicated, difficult, and stressful,” the IFS noted.

The IFS survey found that anxiety about parenting also played a role: 18% of liberals doubted whether they would be good parents compared to 9% of conservatives; 19% of liberals said their mental health wasn’t good enough to have children, compared to 10% of conservatives; and 18% of liberals worried about passing down unhealthy traits, compared to 10% of conservatives.

“The act of having children is fundamentally an act of hope,” De Gance said.

“When we’re open to life and want to bring a new child into this world, it’s being hopeful in the future for that child,” he said. “I think our friends on the left are more likely to be fearful of the future.”

Beliefs regarding the impact of people on the environment are also relevant.

“If you want to understand why the birth rate is collapsing, you can’t just look at economics or politics, you have to look at spiritual questions, and one of the questions is: are we good?” Carney said.

“There’s a Christian answer to that, which is that we’re good, but we’re fallen,” he said. “If you’re a secular liberal today, you look at the obvious flaws and it’s hard for you to think the human species is a good thing.”

It’s not just that blue states are having fewer children, many of the families they have are leaving. Since 2000, red states saw a 7% increase in their child population, while blue states experienced a 7% decline, according to the IFS.

“We’re seeing hundreds of thousands of families migrate from blue states to red states,” Wilcox said. “States like Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Idaho have been the recipients of a lot of families looking to move to places that are often more culturally, educationally, and economically attractive to them.”

Despite “family-friendly” mandates on parental leave and childcare in many blue states, parents appear to prefer red states’ lower taxes and housing costs, better job prospects, and school choice.

But all is not lost, even for low-fertility regions.

“Some of the current below-replacement fertility rates may reflect the postponement of births to later ages, so it’s not obvious that population decline is around the corner for the U.S.,” Vogl said.

Indeed, while the number of mothers under 25 has declined, the number over 35 has increased significantly, such that more women over 40 are now giving birth than are teens. And when asked the number of children they ideally wanted to have, conservatives averaged 2.71, and liberals averaged 2.165, IFS reported.

While government programs are seldom effective in boosting fertility, experts say things like increasing child tax credits and cutting regulations that discourage construction of single-family houses could help.

“[Parents} don’t need a huge home, but people want to have their own place,” De Gance said. “One of the big things blue states have done is make it harder to build homes and skewed their policy to high-density and mixed-use communities, and these are things that generally tend to discourage fertility.”

 

 

 

What Is the Difference Between Culture and Race?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the value of knowing the difference between race and culture. America and Americans have welcomed legal immigrants from the beginning of the nation. Most, if not all, immigrants in the early years came from the same nations from which early American Colonists emigrated. Their cultures were similar. Their religions were similar.

Immigrants today come from every nation in the world, and many of them come with cultures that are far different from those that Americans value. Example: most Americans today believe that it is wrong for an adult to marry a child, yet there are immigrants who believe that it is okay. They come from a different culture. Rebecca Downs discussed culture and race in her article published at The Daily Signal. 

Although major sports wins bring celebration, the festivities are often marred in big cities by unruly behavior. That was particularly the case in New York, following the Knicks’ June 13 clinching of the NBA championship. The parade that followed brought more chaos.

Following the victory over the San Antonio Spurs – the Knicks’ first title in 53 years – hooligans took to the streets, vandalizing as they went, including targeting and torching a school bus. Those in the crowd cheered. Police, meanwhile, could not visibly be seen.

As he showed footage of the chaos during Friday’s episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast” on the Daily Signal, host Tony Kinnett noted how those burning the school bus were both white and black. And the bus driver begging the crowd to stop was black. “The point of the story is that it is not about the race, it is all about the culture,” Kinnett observed.

The revelry of the parade was marred by random gunshots fired into the air to “just cause chaos and panic because that is the celebratory nature that has come out of some of these events,” as Kinnett mentioned.

Meanwhile, New York isn’t doing much to stop lawlessness. “There’s no condemnation of this from the city level. There’s nothing. [Mayor Zohran] Mamdani is busy running around patting himself on the back and p raising Islamic migrant stuff,” Kinnett said, also addressing how liberals excuse such behavior as how “it just happens.”

The New York Department of Sanitation unveiled commemorative garbage cans to celebrate the Knicks’ win. (They’re also available online for purchase.) Fans reacted by stealing them, dumping out trash onto the city sidewalk to do so. People could be heard cheering in the background.

During the parade, an individual appeared to be passed out from a drug overdose on the roof of a platform, as individuals sought to help. Kinnett observed that it took place with a “cop standing there, doing very little, ‘cause this is just normal behavior in New York.”

The passed-out man was revived using Narcan. He then proceeded to try to kiss the woman who gave him that Narcan.

This is a stunning juxtaposition with the amount of support the United States is getting from visitors from around the world who are here for the FIFA World Cup. These visitors, Kinnett said, “realize that everything they’ve been told by people like Keir Starmer about the United States, things that they’ve been told about by, for example, Zohran Mamdani, is a lie and that the United States is freaking incredible.”

Japanese guests receive particular attention for how respectful they’ve been, as they come to games ready with garbage bags to clean up trash afterward. For Kinnett, culture plays a significant role. “There are cultures that are objectively better than others because of how they carry themselves.”

A young Japanese woman picking up trash shared that it is part of their “culture,” but also a matter of respect, “respect for everything, respect for the players, supporters, and also for the stadium.” The young woman shared, “We are honored to be here, so we don’t want to make a mess and then leave it.”

What cultures do we want in America? Do we want more of the type of person who trashed a school bus in New York, or the Japanese who picked up their own mess? Americans must decide what type of cultures they want in America and then act to build those types of cultures. Whether they are imported, or whether they are born and reared in America, we are responsible for building the cultures that we desire. Races can live together if Americans develop the proper cultures in our nation.