Why Are Election Audits Critical for Election Integrity?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns election integrity. The Arizona Senate forensic audit is complete, and the hand-count portion of it confirmed that Joe Biden received more votes than Donald Trump and that voter fraud did not affect the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

Democrats, mainstream media, and uninformed Americans consider the election complete. They declare that the nation should move forward and stop performing audits. The mainstream media seldom notes that Arizona audit had various components. Yes, the counting portion did not prove sufficient election fraud to change the election results. The simple fact is that the machine count and the hand count each counted the same available ballots.

            I read an outstanding explanation for why the hand count is not enough of an audit. The writer made a comparison between the audit and money: A man received 1,000 bills, among them were 170 counterfeit bills. A simple count would prove that there were 1,000 bills. However, a different examination would confirm that 170 of the bills were counterfeit.

The forensic audit looked at the type of ballots and found questionable ballots. Was there enough fraud to change the results of the election? The Arizona Attorney will make that determination, and the Arizona Senate sent the completed forensic report to him for further investigation. D. Hunter Schwarz wrote the following about the audit. 

On Tuesday, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said in a statement that the report released last week “raises some serious questions” about the election and promised his office would conduct a review. Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem, a Republican running for secretary of state, has called for neighboring Pima County to conduct its own review.

            Representatives from other states traveled to Arizona to observe the forensic audit there, and they went home determined to hold an audit in their own states. In fact, politicians in Arizona are calling for forensic audits in all the counties in their state.

            The purpose of the audits is not necessarily meant to overturn the 2020 election results. If the audits prove beyond doubt that Joe Biden did not win the election, America will have a constitutional challenge. There are no precedents, so our nation would be treading on new ground. I would like to know for certain if the majority of Americans chose the idiot residing in the White House and presiding over the destruction of America, or if he won by cheating.

            The most important reason for every state to hold forensic audits is to determine if the election in each state was fair and free. If there were election fraud, we must determine how it happened and how to stop it from occurring again. In the United States, there is one vote per voter. The forensic audits should result in more secure elections where every eligible citizen has an opportunity to vote and to have their vote count equally with every other vote.

What Happened When the Generals Went to Congress?

            The generals went to Congress and were roasted. The top three military leaders – Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Army General Mark Milley (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and Marine General Kenneth McKenzie Jr. (Commander of U.S. Central Command – appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday. Austin, Milley, and McKenzie returned to Capitol Hill again today for another hearing in the House of Representatives.

            Much of the two hearings covered the same material. Fred Lucas found six big takeaways from the two hearings. 

1. Mental States of Biden, Trump

Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., pushed Milley on the contents of “Peril,” a new book by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, by reading aloud from its reported conversation between Milley and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., shortly after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol….

The book also quotes Pelosi as telling Milley about Trump: “You know he’s crazy. He’s been crazy for a long time.”

Woodward and Costa quote Milley as saying: “Madam Speaker, I agree with you on everything.”

“If you’re the principal adviser to the president and she said that to you, do you think that you were doing service to a president by agreeing with the speaker that your commander in chief is crazy?” DesJarlais asked Milley.

Milley responded: “I actually said I’m not qualified to assess the mental health of the president. What I’m agreeing to is that we have to have a secure nuclear system.” …

DesJarlais then pivoted to Biden.

“Have you had any conversations with the [House] speaker or any of our foreign leaders about our current president’s mental capacity?” DesJarlais asked….

Milley said he has not commented on the mental state of either Trump or Biden….

2. Liz Cheney Apologizes for GOP

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who has been on the outs with her party over her repeated criticism of Trump, did nothing to make amends with fellow Republicans during the hearing….

Gen. Milley, you found yourself in your constitutionally prescribed role standing in the breach. For any member of this committee for any American, to question your loyalty to our nation, to question your understanding of our Constitution, your loyalty [to] our Constitution, your recognition of the civilian chain of command is despicable. I want to apologize for those members of this committee who have done so, and I want to thank you for standing in the breach when so many, including many in this room, failed to do so.

3. Contradicting Biden Again

McKenzie again contradicted Biden’s claim that none of his military leaders advised against his timeline for a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“It has been my view, I recommended a level of 2,500 [U.S. forces] a level that would have allowed us to hold Bagram and other airfields as well,” McKenzie said, referring to the large military air base that the U.S. abandoned in preference for staging an evacuation from the much smaller civilian airport in Kabul.

“Once you go below that level and make a decision to go to zero [troops], it is no longer feasible to hold Bagram,” Milley said.

4. ‘Conditions Set’ for al-Qaeda, ISIS Resurgence

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., asked: “Is the terrorist threat from Afghanistan greater today or lesser than it was pre-9/11?”

Milley said in as little as six months either the al-Qaeda or the Islamic State terrorist group could “reconstitute” there….

Austin, the former four-star Army general who is Biden’s defense secretary, concurred that terrorists could take over the region….

McKenzie responded “absolutely” to the question of whether al-Qaeda is still at war with the United States.

Responding later in the hearing to Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., Milley said radical Islamists across the world will be emboldened by the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, including its capital….

5. State Department’s Fault

Rep. James Langevin, D-R.I., asked Austin why the United States did not rescue American citizens and applicants for or holders of special immigrant visas, mostly Afghans who assisted the U.S. in its 20 years fighting in Afghanistan.

“On the issue of why we didn’t bring out civilians and SIVs sooner, again, the call on how to do that and when to do it is really a State Department call,” Austin said….

Later, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., asked: “The blame for the disastrous withdrawal that everyone agrees was a disaster, who is to blame for that?”

The three military leaders sat silently for seven seconds before Johnson said: “I’ll let the silence speak for itself.”

6. Milley Says He Is Apolitical

Well before the new Woodward-Costa book, Milley was criticized for talking about the threat of “white rage.” Amid the presidential campaign in 2020, he also apologized for accompanying Trump in a walk that June through Lafayette Square to a church that had been burned by vandals.

Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., asked about the concerns that the military had become politicized.

“I think an apolitical military is critical to the health of this republic,” Milley replied….

            Several members of Congress called for Austin, Milley, and McKenzie to resign or to be fired. Everyone knows that Biden will not fire them, and none of them said that they would resign.

What Cases Are on the Supreme Court Docket for the 2021-2022 Term?

            Each year, the United States Supreme Court agrees to hear certain cases, and the 2021-22 year is no different. The high court usually hear the big and important cases. Zack Smith and Alexander Phipps at The Heritage Foundation previewed what they considered to be “five of the most important cases the Supreme Court will hear in its 2021-2022 term.” Here are their five choices. 

1. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

This is the most important abortion case in the last 30 years. Essentially, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to reconsider – and potentially overrule – its wayward decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In 2018, Mississippi enacted the Gestational Age Act, which prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of gestation except in cases of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality.

The state legislature set forth two findings in the law: 1) 75% of all nations do not permit abortions past 12 weeks’ gestation, and 2) an unborn human’s heart starts beating after five to six weeks’ gestation and by nine weeks all “basic physiological functions are present.” …

It’s hard to overstate the potential impact of this ruling, whether it be a decision upholding the lower courts’ decisions and reaffirming Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which would be a huge blow to the pro-life movement, a moderate ruling that would gradually diminish prior abortion precedents, or a broad decision completely overturning its previous decisions.

2. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

This will be the first time in 11 years that the Supreme Court will review a significant Second Amendment case.

New York requires its residents to obtain a license for lawful possession of a firearm, regardless of whether they plan to keep it at home or take it outside. To obtain a license, a licensing officer must determine whether the applicant is of good moral character, lacks a history of crime or mental illness, and that “no good cause exists for the denial of the license.” …

3. Carson v. Makin

The Carson and Nelson families are challenging Maine’s prohibition of applying state funds from the state’s tuition assistance program towards secondary schools that, in addition to teaching academic subjects, provide religious instruction.

Petitioners argue this law prevents their families from using the funds towards the schools they consider to be best for their children and, more importantly, that it violates their Constitutional rights under the free exercise, establishment, and equal protection clauses…

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether a state violates the First or 14^th Amendments by prohibiting students from choosing to use student-aid funds towards schools that provide religious instruction.

4. CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe

This case raises the issue of whether policies that disparately impact disabled groups violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The respondents, using “John Doe” aliases, are enrollees of employee-sponsored health care who are afflicted with HIV. The petitioners, all wholly owned subsidiaries of CVS Health Corporation, provide the John Does with their medication….

The outcome of this case will clarify whether, and if so the extent to which, facially neutral policies can be deemed discriminatory if they disparately impact a distinct group.

5. United States v. Zubaydah

This case involves the state-secrets privilege, which was established by Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Reynolds. In United States v. Reynolds, the Supreme Court held that courts must exclude privileged evidence if it threatens national security interests.

Abu Zubaydah is a former associate of Osama bin Laden who was detained in Pakistan by the CIA for being an enemy combatant and put in a detention facility in Poland. During his time there, the CIA used enhanced interrogation techniques on Zubaydah.

Poland launched a criminal investigation into the CIA’s operations there, and Zubaydah asked a U.S. federal district court to order the U.S. government to provide Poland with information pertaining to his detention. The district court was initially willing to grant discover for these materials until the U.S. government blocked it, citing the state secrets privilege established in the United States v. Reynolds….

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether the 9^th Circuit erred in its assessment of these materials concerning their potential to harm national security.

            The five outlined cases include abortion, Second Amendment, religious freedom, treatment of disabled persons, and national security issues – all important matters. However, as Smith and Phipps reminded their readers, these are “only a few of the cases” that will be heard by the Supreme Court this term. Other cases are “important death penalty cases” and “a host of other important cases.” We should all pray for the justices that they will judge the cases according to the Constitution and not be swayed by political pressure.

Why Is Punishing Mounted Border Patrol Officers Wrong?

             My VIPs for this week are the men and women who work to secure the southern border of the United States, particularly the mounted Border Patrol. When videos were released showing thousands of Haitian migrants under the International Bridge at Del Rio, Texas, mounted Border Patrol officers were sent to stop them from crossing the river.

            The officers on horse back were doing their job when photographers took videos and picture that sent the city dudes of the eastern United States into spasms. One picture showed an officer using split reins to control his horse, and he was waving the reins in the air as he used his horse to stop migrants from entering the United States. However, the unknowing eastern dudes did not know the difference between split reins and a whip and threw fits.

            President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris did what they do best – made it a racial matter and condemned the officers without knowing any other details than the pictures. Biden said that the officers would pay for treating the migrants with such disrespect, and the U.S. Border Patrol suspended horse patrols in Del Rio, Texas, temporarily.

            Border Patrol officers are understandably upset with Biden because they know that they were not whipping and mistreating the migrants. Americans with knowledge about horses are also upset with him. He needs to keep his mouth shut until he has enough facts to make an intelligent statement.

            The entire incident – the 17,000+ migrants living under the bridge and the use of horse patrol to stop more migrants from crossing into the United States – could have been prevented by the borders being controlled by the federal government. Texas Governor Greg Abbott blamed the incident on the Biden administration. “Because the Biden administration is doing nothing to secure our border, it has been the state of Texas that has had to step up and address this challenge.” 

            The State of Texas under the leadership of Abbott stopped the migrants from entering Texas by making a steel “wall” with police and trooper cars and National Guard vehicles. Abbott signed a bill for $3 billion dollars to secure the border and protect Texans and all Americans from further hordes of migrants crossing the border illegally. Abbott also promised to hire any Border Patrol officers who lose their positions by simply doing the job they are hired to do.

 

What Does Arizona Election Audit Mean?

             The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns election integrity and validity. Karen Fann, the Arizona Senate President received the final audit report from the Cyber Ninjas. According to the report, the final hand count by the auditors found about the same numbers as the official machine count for Maricopa County after they performed a quadruple-checked all 2.1 billion ballots. This audit report has Democrats lauding the report. However, the hand count of the ballots was only one part of the forensic audit.

            No one complained about the counting of the ballots, and the forensic audit was not about suspected miscounting.. The question was not about the number of ballots, but there was a question about the validity of the ballots. Where did the ballots come from? Who voted? Did anyone vote more than once? Andrea Widburg studied the situation and discussed why the Democrat celebration could be problematic. 

There are two documents at issue here, one of which is a purported final draft of the executive summary from Cyber Ninjas, … and the other of which is a cover letter that Karen Fann, the Arizona Senate President, sent to Mark Brnovich, the Arizona Attorney General. I quoted above from Fann’s cover letter, which offers the meaningless conclusion that a hand count matched the machine count….

However, the same letter, in a small bow to honesty, also points out systemic problems with election security. The five bullet-points can be summarized this way:

·         absentee ballots were inadequately verified,

·         voter rolls do not match the ballots, as well as showing duplicate and dead people,

·         amateurs oversaw election technology and machinery they didn’t understand and misused,

·         private companies had the passwords to the vote-counting machines, and

·         election officials deleted material making it impossible to do a truly accurate audit (or, in legal terms, they deliberately spoliated evidence, which I’m guessing might be illegal under statutory requirements that all voting data must be preserved for 22 months after an election).

In other words, even though the hand-counted paper ballots matched the machine count, there were some huge and dangerous irregularities going on with the election.

But wait! There’s more – and this is the really important part because it shows the Big Lie. As Gateway Pundit notes, a purported final draft of the actual audit summary said that “the 2020 presidential election had 57,734 ballots that should not have been counted and should have been set aside, investigated or removed.”

Considering that the margin of Biden’s victory was only 10,457 votes, the presence of 57,734 ballots that were improperly counted is highly relevant. And that’s where we get to the actual audit info from Cyber Ninjas. Their letter does not say that everything is fine and Biden absolutely won.

Instead, having found invalid ballots in numbers more than five times greater than Biden’s “victory,” the audit’s conclusion is that “the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable.”

            As I understand news reports, Fann will now turn the results of the forensic audit over to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who has stated that he will do his own investigation. He has the power of subpoena and indict if his investigation shows election fraud. The story is far from over, so Democrats should hold their celebration. Meanwhile, forensic audits are moving forward in other states, such as Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

How Does the Lord Lead His Church on Earth?

            My Come, Follow Me lesson this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 106-108. These sections include information about the calling of leaders. The revelation recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 107 contains instructions for the organizing of priesthood offices into a leadership structure for the Lord’s Church.

The Prophet Joseph Smith received this revelation as the newly called members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were preparing to serve missions in the eastern United States. This revelation was recorded in 1835, but portions of it were received in 1831.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was growing so rapidly at the time of this revelation that Church membership was greater than the capacity of its few leaders. There was urgency in the need to outline the roles and responsibilities of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Seventy, bishops, and quorum presidencies. However, the Lord included much more in his revelation.

Doctrine and Covenants 107 includes more information than how to organize priesthood offices and quorums. After His instructions about organizing quorums, the Lord shared information about an ancient priesthood order that was “instituted in the days of Adam” (verse 41). He explained that the purpose of this priesthood order from the beginning was to make it possible for all God’s children to receive the saving ordinances of the gospel and to enjoy “all the spiritual blessings of the church – to have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, [and] to have the heavens opened unto them” (verses 18-19).

The topic of discussion for tonight is this principle: “The Lord leads His Church through priesthood authority.” As I have studied the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I noticed that the Lord does not explain a doctrine in full in one revelatory session. Instead, He reveals information “line upon line” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:12) when circumstances require it. In other words, the Lord does not dump lots of information on His servants at any one time, but He gives the instructions needed at the point in time.

The Lord gave information on the priesthood in earlier revelations (see Doctrine and Covenants 20 and 84). However, in 1835 He gave additional instruction to the Saints about specific priesthood offices needed at the time to govern and guide the growing Church. President Boyd K. Packer (1924-2015) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught the following about the priesthood:

Priesthood is the authority and the power which God has granted to men on earth to act for Him. When priesthood authority is exercised properly, priesthood bearers do what He [Jesus Christ] would do if He were present (“The Power of the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 2010, 7).

            Doctrine and Covenants 107:5 says, “All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.” An appendage is something that is attached to or part of a greater whole. The words “this priesthood” in this verse refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood. This means that “all other authorities or offices in the church” are appendages to the Melchizedek Priesthood. President M. Russell Ballard taught the following:

Our Father in Heaven is generous with His power. All men and all women have access to this power for help in their lives. All who have made sacred covenants with the Lord and who honor those covenants are eligible to receive personal revelation, to be blessed by the ministering of angels, to commune with God, to receive the fulness of the gospel, and, ultimately, to become heirs alongside Jesus Christ of all our Father has (“Men and Women in the Work of the Lord,” New Era, April 2014, 4-5).

            President Dallin H. Oaks also taught that women of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints serve under the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings.

We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman – young or old – is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties (“The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 2014, 51).

            Women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hold positions from serving as president of the Relief Society on a branch, ward, stake, district, or general level to serving as nursery leader in the Primary. Women are set apart to their callings by the priesthood leader responsible for the position. In the ward or stake, it is the bishop or stake president who calls them. On the general level, it is the First Presidency who issues the call.

Whatever the office or position in the Church of Jesus Christ held by either men or women, the person called to it perform their duties under the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

How Are Loving and Effective Relationships Created?

            Strong families, communities, and nations are founded on effective marriages. Most people understand that loving and supportive relationships help to create effective marriages, but not everyone comprehends how to create loving relationships. Family researchers have developed ideas that should be helpful to all who are searching.

            Jason S. Carroll, professor of Marriage and Family Studies at Brigham Young University (BYU), shared these concepts while speaking to students at the university in April 2019. The first idea is that love is a choice, and the best kind of love is Christlike love. Carroll quoted Lynn G. Robbins who wrote in his book Love Is a Choice: “Because love is as much a verb as it is a noun, the phrase ‘I love you’ is as much a promise of behavior and commitment as it is an expression of feeling.”

            Carroll said that family researchers recognized that there are “different types of love” and some types of love work better to form and maintain strong relationships. Dr. Patricia Noller, family psychologist from Australia, discovered in dozens of studies that strong and happy family relationships are built on “mature love.”

Mature love has three dimensions that are interconnected: emotional (feelings and emotions), cognitive (attitudes, priorities, and choices), and behavior (actions and behaviors). Immature love is based primarily in the emotional dimension where choices and behaviors are conditional on the emotional state of the relationship.

According to Noller and other experts, the emotional quality of love is an important part of marriage and family, but it is often the most unstable of the three dimensions. Feelings ebb and flow because of physical conditions – hunger, fatigue, fear, etc. Yet, priorities, choices, and behaviors should be intentional and consistent. Individuals with mature love understand that they can choose to love their spouse and to act lovingly, whereas a person with immature love often believes that the marriage is over because they are no longer “in love” with their spouse.

Carroll taught five principles that create loving relationships. “Principle 1 - Thoughtful Service Produces Love; Principle 2 – Commitment Produces Love; Principle 3 – Equal Partnership Produces Love; Principle 4 – Practicing Virtues Produces Love, and Principle 5 – Sincere Discipleship [of Jesus Christ] Produces Love.

In closing his remarks, Carroll quoted Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

You want capability, safety, and security in dating and romance, in married life and eternity? Be a true disciple of Jesus. Be a genuine, committed, word-and-deed Latter-day Saint. Believe that your faith has everything to do with your romance, because it does. You separate dating from discipleship at your peril. Or, to phrase that more positively, Jesus Christ, the Light of the World, is the only lamp by which you can successfully see the path of love and happiness for you and for your sweetheart.”

            Carroll taught that there are two ways to gain Christlike love. The first way is to pray to be filled with charity, and the second way is to follow Jesus Christ. Parents can strengthen their family by developing Christlike love, and their strong family can assist in strengthening their community and nation.

Can America Survive the Biden Administration?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the truism of “peace through strength.” According to Wikipedia, the concept of peace through strength “is quite old and has famously been used by many leaders from Roman Emperor Hadrian in the second century AD to former US President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.” However, critics maintain that “peace through strength” can easily become “peace through war.” 

            I am aware of three United States Presidents who operated with the concept of peace through strength. In his 1793 State of the Union message to Congress, President George Washington enunciated his policy of peace through strength: 

There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.

            Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan used the concept of peace through strength in the 1980 campaign against Jimmy Carter. Carter was the weak and vacillating incumbent president, and his weakness invited enemies to attack both the United States and its allies – much like Joe Biden’s weakness invites attacks by our enemies today. Reagan kept the idea of peace through strength as one of his main policies when he became president. 

We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. George Washington’s words may seem hard and cold today, but history has proven him right again and again. “To be prepared for war,” he said, “is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” Well, to those who think strength provokes conflict, Will Rogers had his own answer. He said of the world heavyweight champion of his day: “I’ve never seen anyone insult Jack Dempsey.”

            President Donald Trump operated with the policy of peace through economic and military strength. Peter Navarro explained Trump's policy this way: 

Trump knows the key to keeping America safe in an increasingly dangerous world is to “make America great again” through economic renewal. America must have the fiscal firepower to end Pentagon’s budget sequestration in order to fund the military the U.S. needs for adequate defense. Cutting the corporate tax rate and cracking down on unfair trade practices to increase America’s GDP growth rate are just as demonstrative of national might as the F-35….

            The enemies of the United States did not attack while Donald Trump was in the White House because they understood that he would protect America and Americans. Trump did not want war, and he sought to bring the military men and women home. However, he always acted within his policy of peace through strength. His policy was that every nation should pay its own way before expecting money from the United States. Allies and enemies alike knew that Trump would make them pay if they chose to go against him.

            The idea of peace through strength is defined by one word – deterrence – according to Victor DavisHanson. He described deterrence as “the ancient ability to scare somebody off from hurting you, your friends, or your interests – without a major war.” In other words, if we want peace, we must be prepared to wage war. Hanson continued:  

Deterrence is omnipresent, and also applies well beyond matters of war and peace. The current crime wave of murder and violent assault in our major cities is the wage of loud efforts to defund the police and contextualize crimes as somehow society’s – rather than the criminal’s – fault.

As a result, lawbreakers now think there is a good chance that robbing people or hurting or killing them might result in monetary gain or at least bloody satisfaction. They no longer fear a likely sentence of 30 years in prison. So, they see little risk in hurting people. And innocents suffer.

With a border wall, an end to catch and release, and tough jawboning of the Mexican and Central American governments, a new American deterrent stance in 2019-20 discouraged once unstoppable waves of migrants.

Northern-bound migrants knew that even if they reached and crossed the border, there was a good chance all such effort would be for naught, given quick apprehension and deportation.

So, in their rational calculations, migrants waited at home for less deterrent times. And they found them when President Joe Biden stopped construction on the wall, renewed catch and release, and eased pressures on Mexico to interrupt caravans headed northward.

Hanson explained that “Trump restored the strategic deterrence lost by his predecessor.” Barack Obama drew his red lines in the sands of Syria without any intent of enforcing them, and ISIS knew it. China suspected that Obama would not do anything when they built military bases in the South China Sea. Obama was just as weak against Russia when Putin threatened Ukraine. “Aggression followed as U.S. deterrence eroded.” Obama did nothing to stop the threats of missile attacks coming out of North Korea.

Then Trump entered the White House. He “destroyed the ISIS ‘caliphate,” “obliterated an attack of Russian mercenaries in Syria,” “took out terrorist masterminds like Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and the ISIA cutthroat Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.” He traveled to North Korea and calmed those troubled waters. Hanson continued:

To dangerous actors, an unpredictable Trump appeared likely to strike back if provoked. As a result, America’s enemies became fearful of challenging the United States. And its friends and neutrals were more ready to join a power again deemed not just reliable, but willing to take reasonable risks to assist in their safety.

Key to deterrence is for all parties to know beforehand the relative power of each and the likelihood that it may be used. When strong powers unfortunately transmit signals of weakness, whether deliberately or inadvertently, then weak powers are confused and come to believe their rivals may not be so strong as their armed forces appear. Often, unnecessary wars are the unfortunate result.

            Anyone with eyes to see, ears to hear, and brains to think should know that the deterrence that the United States enjoyed under Donald Trump has evaporated under the weakness of Joe Biden. America’s allies do not trust her leaders, and her enemies are no longer afraid. Will Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea take advantage of the apparent weakness in Biden? They know that the U.S. military has the power to stop them. Their only question may be: does Biden have the backbone to use the military to stop them?

            America is in a dangerous situation because she has lost the deterrence factor gained during the Trump administration. After watching the national destruction of the past nine months, I question if it is possible for America to ever regain the deterrence that Biden “so rashly and foolishly” threw away. May God bless and protect America until patriots gain control of the U.S. government!

Do You Want Your Tax Dollars Paying the Salaries of Journalists?

            Many Americans are aware that members of the lame stream media have been lap dogs for the Democrats and the Deep State for years. Joe Biden is President of the United States because the media would not vet him and actually hid information from American voters. Now the Democrats are working to reward the media.

            Adam Guillette is the current president of Accuracy in Media and the former vice president of development for Project Veritas. He found something in the $3.5 trillion spending bill that should anger every American – a bailout for the media. 

The massive, bloated $3.5 billion spending bill has so much pork that fiscal hawks could eat it for weeks. One piece that hasn’t received much attention yet is a special journalism “tax credit” equal to 50% of the salary of each journalist – up to $50,000 per journalist annually.

Yes, that’s correct, your tax dollars would be paying 50% of the salary of many journalists, whether you like their reporting or not.

Think of it as a way to turn every news outlet in America into a version of NPR.

            What would happen to the media if the government began paying half the salary of every journalist? Would you have more or less trust in a tax-dollar funded media? Do you like or believe what you hear on NPR? Guillette had definite words to say about such a situation.

Let’s be clear: “Saving” the media would destroy the media. How could we ever trust journalists to accurately cover the elected officials who voted against their funding? How can you “speak truth to power” when you’re also pleading with that power for cash? Which news outlets would get the funding, and which would be snubbed?

Any pretense of objectivity would be destroyed once the media is on the federal payroll.

And if you think the media is already hostile to conservatives, libertarians, Christians, business leaders, southerners, and basically anyone who didn’t love Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s D-N.Y., dress from the Met Gala, just imagine the disdain they’ll show us once they’re funded by tax dollars. Also imagine the press coverage of any politician that dares to oppose renewing – or increasing – their funding.

The idea that Americans should be forced to financially support news outlets they don’t like is immoral, obnoxious, and a threat to both free markets and free speech. It’s also outrageous when one considers that proliferation of new media outlets that have already replaced these dinosaurs.

In 2021, most Americans are getting their news from independent podcasts, blogs, social media sites, and more. They compensate these journalists using new payment services….

            According to Guillette, progressives “tried to redistribute your tax dollars to their allies in the media” at the beginning of the pandemic. They first proposed a “dedicated media bailout” after “news outlets lobbied Congress” for one. However, the dedicated bailout did not “catch steam.” Accuracy in Media opposed both versions of the media bailout. “Accuracy in Media activists sent emails, made phone calls, and even delivered 50,787 anti-bailout petitions to the office of then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.” McConnell responded to the petitions by blocking the proposal. “Bad businesses should be allowed to fail. Doing so creates space in the market for better companies to take their place.”

            Accuracy in Media is again in a fight to defeat media bailouts. “Every American should tell their member of Congress to oppose this idea,” as well as their local news outlets. “No journalist subsidized with tax dollars should ever be taken seriously in this country.”

            Journalists were working for the Democrats when they totally ignored the scandals surrounding Hunter Biden just prior to the 2020 presidential elections. However, “their allies in Washington, D.C., are going to reward them for their loyalty.” If so-called journalists “become beneficiaries from the federal spoils system,” we can say goodbye to the good that comes from a press free of governmental controls. Plus, Americans will never trust the media again!

Why Do Democrats Treat Black People Badly?

             I do not understand why Black people continue to vote for Democrats when the Democrats treat them so badly. Democrat politicians make promises to help Black people, but their “help” does not actually make life better for them. The fact is, Democrats do just enough for Black people to keep them voting Democrat, but not enough to actually help them to prosper.

            I am not the only person that sees this problem. Roger L. Simon, an award-winning novelist, Oscar-nominated screenwriter, co-founder of PJMedia, and editor-at-large for The Epoch Times, left the Democrat Party for “the atrocious way it treated black people.” 

            Democrats were responsible for Jim Crow laws and President Lyndon B Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” Both programs made life worse for black people. Democrats are quick to call Republicans “racist,” but Democrats are actually more racist than Republicans. It is Democrats who continue to divide America on race, not Republicans.

            Simon wrote about the recent recall election for California Governor Gavin Newsom. As you may be aware, there were two votes possible. The first vote was to decide if Newsom should be recalled, and the second vote was to decide who would replace him if the recall was successful.

            Despite being a terrible governor, Newsom was not recalled, but Larry Elder received 47% of the vote, comparable to 48.5% for Arnold Schwarzenegger in his recall attempt. Both candidates were “competing against dozens of candidates.” Elder would have won the election in a landslide if voters had voted for a new governor. Simon suggested that a certain type of voter kept Newsom in office despite his lack of ability to lead.

I submit that many of them were what we used to call “limousine liberals” and might today be called “Tesla-crats.” They are the rich, often mega-rich, almost always white, people who drive by the myriad horrific homeless encampments of California, trying not to look, as they head for the next trendy restaurant or their magnificent home.

And what is the largest group on a percentage basis in those homeless encampments? Well, I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that it’s blacks.

            How can we not have contempt for the hypocritical (to say the least) “Tesla-crats”? But 

            they’re only the plutocratic tip of the Democratic war on blacks we're watching at this very                    moment. 

            Simon then discussed the border crisis in in Del Rio, Texas, where a camp of illegal immigrants grew within days from a couple of thousand people to more than 15,000 living under the International Bridge. Most migrants living under the bridge are from Haiti, meaning that they are black. We do not know how many of the migrants are infected with COVID-19 because they have not been tested. We expect that most immigrants will be allowed to enter the United States. There are two ways that black people are endangered.

            The first is that the Biden administration claims that it is deporting the Haitians back to Haiti. How many of the 1.6 million people with brown or white skin were deported? Are they being deported because they are black?

            The second is that the black Haitians allowed to reside in the United States will end up living in black communities, bringing COVID-19 with them. Black communities already suffer more from COVID-19, so bringing the Haitians into their communities will worsen the situation.

            Simon mentioned that the Biden administration is punishing the Southern red states by restricting monoclonal antibody treatments. Since a larger percentage of Black people become infected with COVID-19, the punishment will affect Black people more. In Joel Pollak’s words, “President Joe Biden’s decision to cut deliveries of monoclonal antibodies to southeastern states, in what critics have called a politically-motivated effort to punish Republican states, could end up sentencing black people to death from coronavirus.”

            Democrats want the votes of black people, but they do not care about them as human beings. They use and abuse them and then cast them aside when they are no longer useful – such as when they become conservative. Large numbers of Black people are recognizing the maltreatment of Democrats and are leaving the Democrat Party.

One reason the Democrats opened the border is to obtain more Democrat voters. They prey on minorities, and they do not seem to care which minority it is. They claim to be compassionate toward minorities, but they are neglectful and/or abusive.

Who Is Ken Burns?

            My VIP for this week is historian and documentary filmmaker Ken Burns. I chose him for two reasons with the first being that we are living “in the worst of times” in America.

A second reason for choosing Burns is his statement about these times in the “SmartLess” podcast, hosted by Will Arnett, Jason Bateman, and Sean Hayes. The podcast was a comparison of current events with other serious crises in our nation – the Civil War, the Depression, and World War II. This is the statement: “It’s really serious. There are three great crises before this: the Civil War, the Depression, and World War II. This is equal to it.” 

            That is quite a statement. I have long believed that Joe Biden is a disaster for America, but I had not considered our situation to be as serious as the Civil War or the Great Depression or World War II. – yet. According to Burns, our nation is headed in the wrong direction. To support his statement, he quoted Abraham Lincoln from a January 1838 made to a group in Springfield, Missouri.

From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we will live forever or die by suicide.

            Burns concluded by saying, “We’re looking right down the muzzle of that gun.”

In other words, Burns believes that America is on the verge of committing suicide and agrees with Lincoln’s statement that America will last forever unless it kills itself. Lincoln was correct when stating that America is stronger than all the “armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa” combined, but this is true only when America is strong. The Biden administration has weakened America: did away with our oil independence, overwhelmed our system with more than a million migrants crossing into the nation illegally, destroyed relationships with allies, emboldened enemies, and wrecked the economy with bad policies. Biden is a weak leader who is destroying the strength of the nation.

We know that elections have consequences, and the policies of Biden administration have brought America to her knees. If we can believe that Biden received eighty million votes, it looks like the majority of Americans chose to kill America rather than to re-elect Donald Trump, a president who made America stronger. Prophets warned of such a danger.

            Prophets of God wrote the material contained in the Book of Mormon – Another Testament of Jesus Christ for our day. As I study the book, it seems that I am reading of current events in our nation today. One of the authors in the Book of Mormon warned us about what happens when the majority of the people chooses evil.

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law – to do your business by the voice of the people.

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land (Mosiah 29:26-27).

            The current conditions in America show that the so-called majority of Americans chose iniquity when they voted for Biden. I hope that this is not true and that there was enough voter fraud to sway the election. I have faith in my fellow Americans, believing that most Americans are still good people. Hopefully, enough good Americans will defend America and its Constitution long enough to survive the Biden administration and regain our national strength.

What Can States Do When Federal Government Does Not Do Its Job?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the division of powers outlined in the United States Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal government has certain outlined powers, and the remaining powers and authorities remain with the States or the people of the nation. One of the responsibilities of the national government is to secure the borders of the nation, but the federal government has thrown the borders wide open.

            Texas and other States along the southern border are suffering from the onslaught of thousands and hundreds of thousands who have entered the United States illegally over the past eight months. Within the past week, approximately 15,000 migrants poured into the Del Rio, Texas, area. About 85 percent of the migrants are from Haiti, and they have been massing under the International Bridge at Del Rio. Texas finally said, “No more!” 

            Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced yesterday, September 18, 2021, that the Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas National Guard were working together to stop the steady stream of Haitian migrants crossing into the United States. Texans are taking a pro-active stance to do the work that the federal government should do.

The Texas Department of Public Safety is in full force along the border around the Del Rio area. They have built a barricade with their squad cars and State Troopers. The National Guard is working with them to secure the border.   

            Texan agencies are acting under Operation Lone Star set in motion by Abbott previously. Approximately 1,000 Texas State Troopers and National Guardsmen swarmed the area. The illegal crossing of the international border has stopped for the present time.

            The large numbers of migrants camping under the International Bridge are a big security concern. The heat, combined with the lack of adequate toilets and growing mounds of trash, could lead to the thousands of migrants becoming violent.

            The majority of the migrants belong to a caravan that the Mexican government stopped in Panama but decided to allow to continue to the U.S. border. The Biden administration was planning to start flying the migrants back to Haiti today. Meanwhile, Texas has stopped the flow migrants from coming to the United States.