Will Dobbs Decision End Abortion on Demand?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the principle that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are protected in America. The recent Supreme Court decision – Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey because there is no constitutional right to kill unborn babies. By overturning Roe and Casey, the Supreme Court sent abortion law back to the states where it belongs. 

            In anticipation that the abortion laws would be overturned, twenty-six states passed legislation to protect the unborn. Now other states are quickly acting to protect life. Governors in South Dakota, Indiana, South Carolina, and Nebraska have called for special legislative sessions to pass pro-life bills.

Even though this is good news to pro-life supporters, many people agree with Jessica Anderson who said, “While many states already have protections for life on the books, our pro-life fight is only getting started…. States with either no laws or weak laws should follow the lead of other states like South Dakota, Indiana, South Carolina, and Nebraska in calling special sessions to put even more protections in place for unborn children.”

Anderson added that the fight for life will be “one of the most important issues of our lifetime, and we should all demand our elected officials at both the state and the federal levels take action to reflect our values and protect life. Especially when we are met with radical proposals from Democrats in Congress like abortion on demand, the states must be the front line of defense.”

While more than half the states are acting to protect the lives of unborn children, other states are passing pro-abortion legislation. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker called a special legislative session in his state to pass pro-abortion laws.

Are You Fighting to Protect Title X and Women’s Sports?

            Title IX is fifty years old this year, and many women recently celebrated its birthday. Title IX is legislation that was designed to give women and girls the opportunity to excel in women’s sports. In today’s upside-down-world, biological males are threatening to destroy this opportunity. However, the battle to protect women’s rights to equality and safety have united Democrats and Republicans.

            A recent rally in Washington, D.C., “Our Bodies, Our Sports” showed an increasing sense of unity and bipartisanship. Jennifer Bracers is the director of the Independent Women’s Law Center, and she said the following at the recent rally: “This issue isn’t a Republican issue, and it isn’t a Democratic issue: This is an equality issue.”

            The threat against women and girls is real because the Biden administration supports biological males participating in female sports. The administration recently proposed rule changes to redefine the word “sex” to include gender identity and sexual orientation.”

            One of the speakers at the rally was Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii and former Democrat candidate for president in 2020. She has gained my respect because she sees things as they really are. She made the following statement at the rally:

The Biden administration’s actions today are seeking to erase the entire female sex and reject the objective reality that there are biological and physiological differences between men and women.

This is the height of disrespect, offense, and what at its core is a hatred for women, because if you loved women, if you supported us, then you would take a stand for women and girls.

            Gabbard does more than talk. While a congresswoman, she introduced a bill that would keep biological males out of female sports. The Protect Women’s Sports Act of 2020 would prohibit athletic associations or programs that receive federal funds from allowing biological males from competing on women’s sports teams.

            Expressing disappointment with the Biden administration in its support of women and girls, Gabbard said the following: “There is such a thing as a woman. We do exist.” She continued with this statement:

It is the height of hypocrisy that as we stand here today, there are those who claim to be feminist, who claim to be champions for women’s rights, who are at the very same time simultaneously denying the fact that we exist, denying the fact that there is a woman that is biologically distinct from a man….

If a man can become a woman simply by declaring it to be so, then there is nothing that is real, there is nothing that is true.

            Another woman declaring that the effort is bipartisan was Maud Maron, a Democrat running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in New York. She declared that there is unity between Democrats and Republicans in protecting sports for women and girls.

This is not a partisan issue. There are Republicans and Democrats and independents, [people] all across the political spectrum who agree with all of us here on the commonsense definitions of sex and understand that our kids have a right to the nonpoliticized joy of playing sports on teams that make sense….

Trans people can and should participate in sports for their sex category, which is real, and not their gender identity, which is invented.

            All men and women with commonsense should join this fight. Anyone with eyes to see should understand that biological males do not belong on female sports team. 

What Should Be Done About “Dreamers”?

            DACA has been around for ten years, but no one is celebrating because no permanent solution has been found. Mya Jaradat explained that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) “allows some of those who were brought to America by undocumented parents to stay in the country legally and work.” However, “the policy excludes many people in similar circumstances – sometimes even siblings. This situation leads to mixed-status families that live under threat of losing immediate family members to deportation.” 

            DACA is a program that was put in place under President Barack Obama. Participants in the program are also known as “Dreamers.” They do not have a path to citizenship, and they tend to live in the “shadows” of American life. However, they can attend college or university but without the benefit of federal financial aid. Some states withhold the privilege of driver’s licenses, and they are limited in their choice of professions because they cannot meet the requirements for certification due to their temporary status.

            “Dreamers” have been in limbo since the early days of DACA. Some religious leaders are pushing the government to find “bipartisan solutions that will give DACA holders permanent status.” DACA recipients and their families are uncertain about their future in the United States. Their families include “hundreds of thousands of U.S.-citizen children.” Other religious leaders work for “wide scale immigration reform.” A recent poll by the National Immigration Forum had the following results:

Asked about the potential for bipartisan efforts to “strengthen border security, create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children and ensure a legal, reliable workforce for America’s farmers and ranchers,” 79% of Americans said they support such initiatives….. Most of those surveyed – 72% -- said they would like to see this happen before November 2022 midterm elections.

The same survey found that 81% of white evangelicals – a group that is often depicted as hostile to immigration – said they would support work on a bipartisan package that addresses the three issues of DACA, border security and migrant farmworkers…. Almost the same number of evangelical Protestants support a bipartisan initiative for immigration reform.

            I do not support any initiative that rewards illegal entry into the United States with citizenship. However, I could support making the “Dreamers” legal residents. Nevertheless, I believe that the border must be secured first.

Why David Axelrod Is My VIP?

            I never expected anything like it, but David Axelrod is my VIP for this week. Axelrod is a former advisor to Barack Obama. I did not like him then, and I still do not like him. However, I will honor him for being brave enough to tell the truth. He recently raised a “major” red flag about any possibility that Joe Biden would run for re-election in 2024. 

            The Biden administration has been a disaster in its short 18 months of existence. Everything the administration does turns to mud. Why would anyone want Biden to have an additional four years in the White House? However, that is not the reason Axelrod opposes a Biden re-election.

            Axelrod is concerned about Biden’s elevated age. He particularly noted that Biden would be nearing 90 years of age by the end of a second term. Anyone with any sense would agree with Axelrod when he said, “The presidency is a monstrously taxing job, and the stark reality is the president would be closer to 90 than 80 at the end of a second term, and that would be a major issue.”

            I know a few people who are still healthy physically and mentally in their 90’s. One such person is President Russell M. Nelson who is the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, such elderly people are exceedingly rare – and Joe Biden is not one of them. He is already stumbling as he goes up the steps to Air Force I, mumbling whenever he speaks, and obviously senile. He is not healthy enough for a first term, let alone a second term.

            The truth is that being President of the United States is a tough job. I watched as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all entered the Oval Office looking young with dark hair. After eight years in office, they all looked much older.

            Donald Trump did not show signs of aging or slowing down. His energy level is still high, and his dyed orange locks do not show any gray. However, even the Donald is aging and may not be healthy enough to run for re-election in 2024. Axelrod is correct in saying that being POTUS is a difficult job and not for elderly people. No, Biden should not run for election!

 

What Are the Powers of the Presidency?

            The topic of conversation for this Constitution Monday concerning the Presidency of the United States. The office of president was established by Article II of the Constitution. This article begins: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This language is known as the “vesting clause.”

            Article II, Section 3 confers upon the president the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Section 1 contains the oath of office for the president, and it obligates and empowers the president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

            The language in the oath of office requires the president to act if constitutional government is threatened, but it does not put limits on that action. President Abraham Lincoln acted in 1861 during the Civil War by suspending the writ of habeas corpus. The write of habeas corpus protects individuals from arbitrary government detention. Lincoln stated that he would break his oath of office if the government were overthrown and that suspending habeas corpus was necessary to protect the government.

            Article II gives presidents three types of powers: expressed powers, implied powers, and delegated powers. Presidents claim a fourth type of power not listed in Article II: inherent power of the office. The Constitution lists the following expressed powers: military (Commander in Chief), judicial (power to grant reprieves and pardons), diplomatic (power to make treaties with advice and consent of Senate), executive (power to see that all laws are faithfully executed; power to appoint, remove, and supervise all executive officers, and to appoint all federal judges), and legislative (power to participate authoritatively in the legislative process).

            “Each expressed power has become the foundation of a second set of presidential powers, the implied powers of the office” (We the People, Ginsberg et al., 2021). These powers are derived from the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8 in the Constitution. These powers are not expressly stated but are implied through the interpretation of delegated powers.

            Delegated powers are powers that the Constitution gives to one governmental agency but are exercised by another agency with permission from the first agency. Over the past century, Congress has delegated numerous powers given to it by the Constitution to the Executive Branch. When Congress passes a bill and the presidents signs the bill into law, then the applicable agency in the Executive Branch draws up the rules and regulations to administer the law.

            Inherent powers are powers claimed by a president that are not expressed in the Constitution but are inferred from it. Inherent powers are most often used in times of war or national emergency. Presidents use this power to declare war to bypass the Congress who is constitutionally assigned the power to declare war. President George W. Bush used it several times. President Barack Obama used it to order drone strikes against suspected terrorists and to order air strikes against Libya. President Donald Trump used it to ban travelers from several Muslim countries and to determine whether businesses could reopen or stay closed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

            Presidents also claim many powers from the institutions in the Executive Branch. These institutions include the Cabinet, the White House staff, the Executive Office of the President, the vice presidency, the president’s political party, and the first spouse. These institutions broaden the capacity of the president to act for the good of the nation.

            Much of the information in this post comes from chapter 11 of the textbook titled We The People by Benjamin Ginsberg, Theodore J. Lowi, Margaret Weir, Caroline J. Tolbert, Andrea L. Campbell, and Robert J. Spitzer.

What Decisions Are You Making that Will Affect Your Destiny?

            My studies for the Come, Follow Me lesson this week took me to 2 Samuel 5-7; 11-12; 1 Kings 3; 8; 11. The title of the lesson was “Thy Kingdom Shall Be Established for Ever.” The lesson was introduced with this information:

King David’s reign started out with so much promise. His undaunted faith in defeating Goliath was legendary. As king, he secured Jerusalem as his capital and united Israel (see 2 Samuel 5). The kingdom had never been stronger. And yet David gave in to temptation and lost his spiritual power.

The reign of David’s son Solomon likewise started out with so much promise. Is divinely received wisdom and discernment were legendary. As king, he extended Israel’s borders and built a magnificent temple to the Lord. The kingdom had never been stronger. And yet Solomon foolishly allowed his heart to be turned away to other gods.

What can we learn from these tragic stories? Perhaps one lesson is that regardless of our past experiences, our spiritual strength depends on the choices we make today. We can also see in these accounts that it isn’t our own strength or courage or wisdom that will save us – it is the Lord’s. These stories show us that Israel’s true hope – and ours – is not in David, Solomon, or any other mortal king, but in another “son of David”: Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1), the Eternal King who will “forgive the sin of [His] people” if we “turn again to [Him]” (1 Kings 8:33-34).

            David had been a faithful servant of God in the past, but his past faithfulness did not give him immunity to temptation in the present. He did not go out to battle with his armies and had difficulty sleeping one night. As he “walked upon the roof of the king’s house,” he “saw a woman washing herself” (2 Samuel 11:2). The accidental viewing of a woman in the midst of her bath was not wrong. However, David chose to linger longer to watch her and then to lust after Bathsheba enough to order her to his home. There he committed adultery with her.

            David’s bad decisions did not stop at that point. When he learned that Bathsheba was pregnant, he ordered her husband to return to Jerusalem. He encouraged Uriah to go home to sleep with Bathsheba, but Uriah was an honorary leader and would not leave his troops. David then arranged to have Uriah killed at the battlefront.

One wrong decision followed another, and each decision was worse than the previous one until David was in spiritual peril. The same can happen to you and me. We can make a little decision that is wrong. If we do not correct it, we might continue making decisions that gradually grow larger and more dangerous. One such area is pornography, which afflicts many of the men and women of the rising generation.

Accidently linking to a pornography site and quickly leaving is not a sin. If we choose to linger longer and to visit the site often, the sin becomes bigger and bigger. Pornography is the cause of the downfall of many people and can lead to broken marriages, broken families, and much unhappiness.

In a video titled “To Look Upon” that is included in this Come, Follow Me lesson, President Dallin H. Oaks links the downfall of King David to the use of pornography in our day. Many people are being exposed to pornography, and many are falling into its traps. June 20–26. 2 Samuel 5–7; 11–12; 1 Kings 3; 8; 11: “Thy Kingdom Shall Be Established for Ever” (churchofjesuschrist.org)

God gave us agency and allows us to make choices. However, we cannot choose the consequences to our choices. We must be aware of our choices and make course corrections when we choose unwisely. Otherwise, we will face unwanted consequences, just as King David did long ago. As President Thomas S. Monson taught, “decisions determine destiny.”

Are You and Your Spouse on the Same Page with Finances?

            Families, communities, and nations are stronger when financial information is known by all who are in leadership positions. Elder Marvin J. Ashton quoted a study by the American Bar Association that indicated that “89 percent of all divorces can be traced to quarrels and accusations over money.” 

            One way to achieve oneness with a spouse on finances is to discuss finances while dating. In their textbook titled Fundamentals of Family Finance – Living Joyfully within your Means,

E. Jeffrey Hill and Bryan L. Sudweeks discussed this topic. In chapter 13 Marriage and Money, the authors listed lots of questions to discuss with a potential spouse. Some of those questions are as follows:

Are you a saver or a spender?

What is your net worth?

What is your attitude about debt?

What is your attitude about financial help from family?

What is your credit score?

Do you currently have and live within a budget? If so, what are your living expenses each month?

How are you paying for your college education?

How do you foresee sharing finances and assets with your spouse after marriage?

How many children do you desire in hour family?

What is your expectation about who is going to earn the money in your family?

What do you think about tithing and other donations?

            The authors taught that the purchase of “the engagement ring is the first major financial decision that you will make related to your marriage” (p. 177). The decision on the ring should be a joint decision. The second big expense is the wedding budget, and couples should avoid going into debt to pay for a wedding.

            The authors gave four principles for handling money in marriage: (1) Spouses should be equal partners in financial decisions. (2) There should be total trust and transparency between marital partners. (3) Couples should work together to reduce and eventually eliminate debt. (4) Couples should counsel with the Lord in all thy financial doings.

            In addition, the authors gave six practices for handling money in marriage: (1) Do your budget together and review it frequently. (2) Make major purchases together. (3) Agree to spending limits. (4) Sleep on big purchases. (5) Deal with financial disagreements constructively (remember H.A.L.T. – hungry, angry, lonely, tired). (6) Both spouses should have some mad money to spend on anything they desire without a need to account for it.

            Marital partners can strengthen their marriage by getting on the same page with finances. By following the authors’ suggestions, they can strengthen their marriage, family, community, and nation.

What Do We Do about Renegade Teachers and Schools?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns renegade teachers and schools teaching undesirable topics to children. Teachers and administrators in numerous schools are bypassing the rights of parents, and parents are fighting back.

            Nicole Russell posted an article at The Daily Signal outlining the situation of parents in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She stated, “There are school policies and state and federal laws that outline parameters for transparency between parents, students, and schools.” These parameters are there for the protection of everyone and particularly for the child. “They are rooted in the idea that parental authority is paramount, even in schools.” Yet, some teachers and some schools do not understand the concept. 

In Pennsylvania recently, three parents filed a federal lawsuit alleging that their children’s first grade teacher violated their rights, not to mention school policy and state law, by teaching their children about “gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning….

Carmilla Tatel, Stacy Dunn, and Gretchen Melton are all mothers speaking out against the Mount Lebanon School District. In their lawsuit, which names multiple school administrators and first grade teacher Megan Williams, the mothers are seeking a court order to either stop the gender-related instruction at Jefferson Elementary School in Pittsburgh or provide parents the ability to opt their children out of it.

The mothers allege Williams failed to honor their parental rights with her “direct classroom instruction” on gender dysphoria and that the district didn’t list “gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning” as part of the curriculum online, violating its own policy. In essence, it sounds like the school was taking advantage of kids who were confused about their gender – experiencing dysphoria – and was encouraging them to adopt the qualities of the opposite sex, like changing their names and using a different bathroom.

            The parents did not file the lawsuit for the sake of politics or because they are anti-transgender. Their case is not about censorship or banning books. The case is about the “Plaintiffs’ parental rights and each of their respective decisions not to want their six- or seven-year-old child to receive first-grade classroom instruction on gender dysphoria or transgender transitioning from their first-grade teacher.” The Pennsylvania moms are not the only parents filing lawsuits against schools.

            In a case in Monterey County, California, a mother filed a similar lawsuit. In 2019, her sixth-grade daughter was recruited by teachers at her school to join an “Equality Club.” There she was introduced to transgender and bisexual.

Two seventh grade teachers created the club for students “who they believed might be receptive to ideas such as homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, gender nonconformity, etc.”

Teacher and school administrators encouraged Jessica Konen’s daughter to change her name to a boy’s name and then “specifically instructed her not to tell her mother about her new identity because her mother couldn’t be ‘trusted.’” Together, school staff convinced the middle school-aged girl she was bisexual and later, transgender.

Without Konen’s knowledge, teachers and administrators created a “Gender Support Plan” and told faculty to call her daughter by her new male name and to let her use the unisex teachers’ restroom. It was only after months had passed that Konen was made aware of what her daughter had been experiencing and what the school had been doing without her knowledge or consent.

In this specific case, Konen maintains she would have gladly supported her daughter’s gender struggles – if only the school had been transparent. Ironically, during the COVID-19 pandemic and throughout remote learning, Konen’s daughter, now released from the influence of school staff, no longer agrees she is bisexual or transgender.

            Across the nation in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, a parent is suing a school district and its individual administrators a curriculum that includes “anti-racism” and discriminates against students with white skin. Certain parts of the curriculum were put in place after the death of George Floyd in 2020. The lawsuit is about the parts that “allegedly teach ‘racial political ideology’ and create a ‘hostile educational environment’ for white students. 

            When parents send their children to school, they expect the teachers and administrators to teach reading, writing, math, science, geography, social studies, and other such topics. They do not want their grade school age children taught anything about sex, and they certainly do not want their children to be taught to hate the color of their skin.

            I say, good for these parents who are suing the teachers and schools. If enough parents fight back against the evil ideologies, schools will get back to teaching educational topics and forget for their social engineering.

Why Is Violence Not Condemned by Democrats?

            The leaked Supreme Court opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization came out on May 2, 2022. Since the leak occurred, many pro-life organizations have been attacked. On June 13, 2022, John Knox put the number at 41. Yet, the Department of Justice does not take actions against any of the perpetrators. 

According to Jarrett Stepman, conservative leaders noticed the lack of DOJ action and recently sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for civil rights. The leaders requested that the DOJ address the recent wave of attacks on pregnancy resource centers and churches. 

The severity of the situation calls for your leadership. This continued assault on religious and pro-life groups because of their beliefs is a manifest injustice that requires prompt, comprehensive, and public response.

            As Stepman reported, the leaders noted in their letter that the attacks were occurring prior to the leak of the Dobbs decision, but they “intensified” after the leak. The writers of the letter called for the DOJ to investigate and to take actions to stop the violence.

Since May 2020 over 130 incidents have occurred across 29 states and the District of Columbia at Catholic properties alone. Incidents include arson, statues beheaded, limbs cut, smashed, and painted, gravestones defaced with swastikas and anti-Catholic language and American flags next to them burned, and other destruction and vandalism. A number of these incidents appeared to express hostility toward the Catholic Church because of its beliefs on the sanctity of life in the womb.

We call on you to publicly condemn these unlawful attacks; to commit to vigorous efforts to prevent them, and to investigate and prosecute them; and to proactively engage with the affected faith communities to ensure their concerns and security needs are being met.

            According to Stepman, the letter was signed by Brian Burch (president of Catholic Vote), Tony Perkins (president of the Family Research Council), Jeanne Mancini (president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund), Ben Carson (former secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and chairman of the American Cornerstone Institute), Kevin Roberts (president of The Heritage Foundation), and Jessica Anderson (executive director of Heritage Action for America).

            Stepman noted that the “escalating wave of attacks on pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations” have had little attention from the media. He wrote that The Washington Stand (news site of Family Research Council) reported “at least 41 separate incidents of violent attacks against churches, pro-life organizations, and pro-life property across the country” the Supreme Court draft was leaked on May 2 leak.

The radical pro-abortion group Jane’s Revenge took credit for recent vandalism and arson and said it would continue acts of violence.

From here forward, any anti-choice group who closes their doors, and stops operating will no longer be a target. But until you do, it’s open season, and we know where your operations are.

            Jane’s Revenge is not the only pro-abortion group committing illegal and/or violent acts. The group known as Ruth Sent Us has been active in protesting at the homes of several conservative justices. They recently sent out an open invitation to protest at the home of Justice Amy Coney Barrett as well as her church and the school that her children attend.

If you’re in the D.C. metro area, join us. Our protests at Barrett’s home moved the needle to this coverage. Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the Board of Directors for. She attends church DAILY.

            Neither President Joe Biden nor Vice President Kamala Harris have condemned the protests. Neither was there any condemnation from them after an alleged attempt to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi discussed her own pro-abortion views when she was asked about the violence. The Department of Justice fails to stop the protests or to investigate the threats against the justices even though it is illegal to protest at a federal judge's or a justice's home. It is like the Democrat leaders want the violence to continue.

            The formal Supreme Court decision will come out in the next few weeks – either the end of June or the first part of July. If the Justices are not swayed by the violence, the decision will send the question of abortion back to the states where it belongs. If the past is a precursor to the future, we can expect more violence without the DOJ or the Democrat-controlled cities and states doing anything to stop it. More property will be destroyed, and people may lose their lives. When will the violence on the Left be treated the same way as the assault on the Capitol Building? Never, if it is left to the Democrats!

 

Should Women Be Drafted into Military Service?

            My generation fought the Vietnam War. I had friends who were drafted into the military, and some lost their lives. My husband came close to being drafted, and our lives were badly affected by the possibility. My sons registered for the draft when they turned 18 years old, and one of my sons served four years in the Air Force. The fact is that there are people who are not satisfied with drafting my sons and grandsons. Now, they are discussing the idea of drafting my daughters and granddaughters.

            I do not like the idea of sending my sons and grandsons to defend the nation on the front lines. I dislike even more the idea of my daughters and granddaughters going into the military. One of my nieces chose to serve in the military where she was raped. War is not good for either men or women, but men are more suited to deal with the conditions of war than are women.

            Last year, Congress debated a requirement for young women to register for military duty. It was “a very bad and ill-considered idea,” according to James Carafano. Congress decided against the provision, but proponents of the bad idea could bring it up again. 

            Carafano suggested that Congress consider questions Americans as to what we want. If drafting young women is “a pressing reform,” he suggested that the subject should be nationally debated. “Why isn’t every candidate for office being asked about the issue in the run-up to the midterms in 2022?

Drafting our daughters is following an all-too-familiar pattern of implementing consequential social change without seriously looking at the consequences.

Many states, for example, have forged ahead with so-called gender-affirming medical treatment with almost no serious consideration of the impact on our children.

            Carafano declared that America should take a timeout on the issue because proponents of the idea of drafting women have been working on the issue in secret rather than discussing it openly. The reason that they want to draft women is for “equity” – if men are drafted, then women should be drafted also. Carafano continued with his reasoning:

That argument raises a second red flag. Women already have widespread opportunities to serve in the armed forces. This initiative won’t promote equal treatment or opportunity for women.

This sounds suspiciously like every woke campaign started by the left that begins with making a case that it’s all about “fairness,” when what’s really intended is a small first step for a radical agenda….

The reality is that the current system of U.S. conscription is an anachronism that serves no useful military purpose. Rather than talking about drafting women, we ought to be asking why we perpetuate a draft at all.

Registering for the draft is not an act of patriotism that builds civic virtue. It’s just a legal requirement that, beyond registering, requires individuals to do nothing.

The brutal truth is that even if the U.S. tried to draft Americans, the system would produce almost no manpower. The vast majority of American youths, for various reasons, don’t qualify for military service.

If the U.S. reinstituted a draft, we would be drafting from the small pool of American youths who are already volunteering for military service. That makes no sense.

Rather than tackling real issues, like the social, cultural, and health issues making American youths ill-prepared to serve, and focusing on creating more opportunities and options for service in the all-volunteer force that would contribute to military readiness, Congress will yet again toy with an empty gesture that would do nothing about meeting the constitutional obligation to “provide for the common defense.”

            I like Carafano’s reasoning because I do not women to be drafted into military service. For those women who desire a military career, I wish you success. I do not want my daughters and granddaughters to serve in the military. The conditions of war are bad for all people, but they are worse for females than for males. There is no good argument for drafting women.

How Important Are Fathers in the Lives of Their Children?

            Since this is the week of Father’s Day, my VIP for this week is fathers who impact their posterity for good. There are people in our society who believe that fathers are unnecessary in the lives of children, at least after the act of conception. The Child and Family Advocacy Society at Brigham Young University-Idaho believes otherwise. They recently posted a meme with the following information on Facebook.

Fathers do much more than society realizes. They provide important socializing skills, moral traits, and even physiological changes when present in their children’s lives. Children suffer when fathers aren’t present. How has your father blessed your life?

Fathers PLAY Differently

They tickle, wrestle, and roughhouse more. This kind of play helps children learn when not to use physical violence. Through the father’s play children learn self-control.

Fathers BUILD Confidence

Fathers tend to encourage running faster, climbing higher, and throwing farther. Fathers encourage children to push limits. This helps children learn boundaries and strengths, which builds confidence.

Fathers PREPARE for the World

Fathers are more likely to deliver hard truths that need to be heard. They value children knowing the reality, even if the truth might be uncomfortable or unflattering.

Fathers DISCIPLINE Differently

Fathers tend to focus on justice, fairness, and duty. They tend to enforce rules more consistently and timely. Children develop a stronger sense of right and wrong.

Fathers SPEAK Differently

Fathers don’t tend to modify their language when speaking to children. Father’s teach new words, expand comprehension, strengthen linguistic skills.

Why Fathers Matter

63% of teen suicides are fatherless

70% of juvenile delinquents are fatherless

71% of dropouts are fatherless

80% of rapists are fatherless

85% of youths in prison are fatherless

90% of homeless children are fatherless

            The post emphasized that “both fathers and mothers are important” in the lives of their children. “It is their strengths and differences that create healthy children. Fathers are a vital part of a child’s development.” Another bit of information: “Sadly, over fifteen million children in the US are living in a fatherless home – 25% of all children have this reality.”

            Today, I want to recognize the men who are fathering their children. As a grandmother, I have lots of opportunities to watch how my children mother and father their children. I must say that I am amazed at their parenting skills. All of my grandchildren live in homes where their fathers and mothers are actively involved with them. For this fact, I am grateful!

Can We Save Our First Amendment Freedoms?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is First Amendment freedoms. Some people believe that the Biden administration promotes censorship on information not approved by the Biden administration.

Republican Senator Josh Hawley recently criticized the Biden administration of censoring information on environmental issues by technology companies. In an appearance on “The Ingraham Angle” with host Laura Ingraham, Hawley said, “Laura, this is the most recent example of the most anti-First Amendment administration in American history.”

Hawley’s statement came in response to a clip played on the show of Gina McCarthy, White House National Climate Adviser, calling for tech companies to censor debate over environmental issues. According to Harold Hutchison, McCarthy said the following: 

The challenge is that now we’re moving from denial to actually just trying to disengage the public. We have to get tired, we have to get better at communicating, and frankly, the tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation.

            Hawley has a point. Tech companies have censored “specific individuals” because they were spreading “disinformation.” In 2021, YouTube said that videos had to align with “well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change” to be monetized. YouTube was not alone in its censorship because Twitter and Facebook also censored individuals for so-called “misinformation” on environmental issues. Hawley continued with this explanation:

This is an administration assaulting our basic fundamental constitutional values and principles at every single turn. I can’t think of another administration in our history that has assembled an enemies list if you will and read it over and over from the White House podium and says, “We want these people off of social media, we want these people not to be able to communicate a message.”

            Hawley continued by giving examples. His list included “vaccines to combat COVID-19, mask mandates and environmental issues” to show the topics about which the Biden administration wants to suppressed debate.

            Hutchison reported that neither Hawley nor the White House did not respond to requests for comments. Nevertheless, Americans can plainly see that the Biden administration is coming for our First Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

 

Do You Prefer the Lord as Your Leader, or a King?

            My studies of the Come, Follow Me lesson took me to 1 Samuel 8-10; 13; 15-18. The lesson was titled “The Battle Is the Lord’s.” As we learned last week, Samuel was known to be a prophet in Israel. This lesson is about the battles of the children of Israel with their enemies surrounding them. It is also a tale of what happens when we reject God. The lesson was introduced by the following statement:

Ever since the tribes of Israel had settled in the promised land, the Philistines had been an ongoing threat to their safety. Many times in the past, the Lord had delivered the Israelites from their enemies. But now the elders of Israel demanded, “We will have a king … [to] go out before us, and fight our battles” (1 Samuel 8:19-20). The Lord relented, and Saul was anointed king. And yet when the menacing giant Goliath hurled his challenge to the armies of Israel, Saul – like the rest of his army – was “greatly afraid” (1 Samuel 17:11). On that day, it wasn’t King Saul who saved Israel but a humble shepherd boy named David, who was wearing no armor but was clothed with impenetrable faith in the Lord. This battle proved to Israel, and to anyone who has spiritual battles to fight, that “the Lord saveth not with sword and spear” and that “the battle is the Lord’s”

(1 Samuel 17:47).

According to the Old Testament student manual, the background for the lesson is found in 1 Samuel 4-7, which deal with “Israel’s loss of the of the ark of God to the Philistines.”

… The Israelites viewed the ark as the visible symbol of the presence of God, but bringing the ark from Shiloh on this occasion was a demonstration of Israel’s state of spiritual wickedness rather than a demonstration of their faith.

“They vainly supposed that the ark could save them, when the God of it had departed from them because of their wickedness. They knew that in former times their fathers had been beaten by their enemies, when they took not the ark with them to battle; as in the case of their wars with the Canaanites, [see Numbers 14:44-45]; and that they had conquered when they took this with them, as in the case of the destruction of Jericho, [see Joshua 6:4]. From the latter clause they took confidence; but the cause of their miscarriage in the former they laid not to heart.” (Clarke, Bible Commentary, 2:219.)

Great disaster followed the appearance of the ark among the troops because of Israel’s wickedness. Israel suffered a resounding defeat, Hophni and Phinehas were slain, and the ark was captured. News of the capture of the ark and of the death of his sons caused Eli such consternation that he lost his balance on his seat, fell over backwards, and died, thus fulfilling the prophecy that his house would come to a tragic end (see 1 Samuel 2:27-36).

            The Israelites were living in a theocracy or a government under the immediate direction of God. Jesus Christ was the King of Israel, and He had helped the children of Israel to win their battles many times – such as when Israel conquered Jericho – when they were righteous. However, the children of Israel wanted to be like their neighbors: they wanted a king that would lead them into battle.

19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. (1 Samuel 8:19-20)

            The elders of Israel rejected Samuel as their judge and leader because his sons set bad examples. They rejected the teachings of their youth and began taking bribes and giving bad judgments. However, there was an underlying problem: the Israelites were not keeping God’s commandments and had become sinful and weak. For some reason, they began to desire the same type of government as that of surrounding kingdoms, even though those governments were oppressive and wicked. The behavior of Samuel’s sons was their excuse, but their wickedness was the real problem. The student manual shared the following quote:

“The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, from which they had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to the defects of their own political constitution. They wished to have a king, like all the heathen nations, to conduct their wars and conquer their enemies. Now, although the desire to be ruled by a king, which had existed in the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in itself at variance with the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive which led the people to desire it was both wrong and hostile to God, snice the source of all the evils and misfortunes form which Israel suffered was to be found in the apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting with the gods of the heathen. Consequently their self-willing obstinacy in demanding a king, notwithstanding the warnings of Samuel, was an actual rejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, since He had always manifested himself to His people as their king by delivering them out of the power of their foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of heart.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:78).

            The people did not realize what they were doing, but the Lord understood the situation. He told Samuel, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them” (1 Samuel 8:7). The Lord told Samuel to give the people a king, and He revealed to Samuel that Saul should be the king. The Lord supported Saul until Saul turned away from God. Then the Lord revealed to Samuel that David would be the king. The principle taught by this lesson is, “God calls people by prophecy and revelation to serve in His kingdom.”

            Elder Harold B. Lee taught that we need a certain amount of spiritual preparation before we can receive divine communications.

The Lord will bring us his blessings to that extent that we have diligence in keeping his commandments. Each of you, in other words, must stand on your own feet if you will receive the great blessings which the Almighty has in store for you….

Stand upon your own feet, so the Lord can speak to you. In humility be prepared to say with Paul, “Lord, what wilt thou have me do?” And with dauntless courage say with the boy Samuel “Speak, Lord, thy servant heareth.” Be humble, be prayerful and the Lore will take you by the hand, as it were, and give you answers to your prayers. (“But Arise and Stand upon Thy Feet” – and I will Speak with Thee, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year, Provo, 7 Feb. 1956, pp. 7, 11.)

            The Lord needs His leaders and people to be willing to listen to Him. Life is good when leaders are righteous and listen to God, but it becomes unbearable under unrighteous leaders. I am grateful to belong to a Church – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – whose leaders follow God. I want to live in a nation where the political leaders also listen to Him.

How Do You Combine Responsibility to Nurture and Provide for Family?

            Families, communities, and nations are stronger when parents figure out how to nurture their family while also providing for them properly. Many people spend too much time at work and neglect family, while other people may not work enough to provide for their family.

            Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urge members to provide fully for their family but to do it in such a way that nurturing does not suffer. President N. Eldon Tanner taught, “The happiest people I know are those whose life-style centers around the home. Work is very important, and success in one’s profession or business is also essential to happiness, but remember what we say so often: ‘No other success can compensate for failure in the home.’”

            E. Jeffrey Hill and Bryan L. Sudweeks wrote a textbook titled Fundamentals of Family Finance – Living Joyfully within your Means. In Chapter 12 Work and Family, the authors wrote the following:      

… Recent social science research proposes that work, family, and other life domains can actually be complementary – not competing – priorities. Success on the job often contributes to our success outside of work and vice versa. A recent international study reveals that relationships and social interactions, physical and psychological benefits, and improved skills are some aspects of work that can enhance home life, and it also works the other way around. The key to harmony is to invest our time and money in activities that enhance multiple domains that we value in our lives. Regularly making the time and spending the money to engage in family relationship-building activities can be thought of as a long-term investment, lie the stock market, which will yield long-term blessings of family unity.

This concept of enhancement – sometimes called life harmony -- utilizes a musical metaphor. Just as the different melodies in a well-composed piece of music unite in harmony, the different facets of our life can also coordinate in peace. Using the perspective of life harmony, we no longer see work, family, and church as fighting for our limited time and money. We see mortality as a great symphony, with the many different responsibilities in our own lives as instruments united harmoniously to the glory of God. The way we manage and consecrate our financial resources is a great orchestrator of these instruments.

There is no single formula for creating a life where we successfully provide for and nurture our families. However, there are a variety of strategies that can help us no matter our circumstances. Employing any of these strategies can help us experience greater joy as we bring the demands of job, family, and church into greater harmony… (p. 162).

            The authors then discussed seven areas for our focus to bring greater harmony into our lives: (1) Enhance Energy [by doing the most energizing tasks just before going home or by choose to do things that are “personally renewing.”] (2) Increase Quality Time [Eat dinner as a family, have a bedtime routine, create special playtime.] (3) Learn to Bundle. [Take child with you while running errands or to purchase groceries, have meaningful conversation while chauffeuring children to games or practice. “When we do two or more things at the same time in harmony, we give that time period greater value” (p. 165).] (4) Focus on the most important things. (5) Work flexibly. (6) Simplify your life. (7) Center on the Savior. [“We create harmony as we center on the Savior by building spiritual patterns in the home.”]

            Every parent has the responsibility to provide for their family, and they also have a responsibility to nurture their family members. There are ways for parents to both nurture and to provide for their families. When parents follow the authors’ suggestions, they can strengthen their family, community, and nation.

How Can Build Back Better Be Killed?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better economic plan. The plan was defeated once in Congress, but Democrats in the Senate have not stopped trying to revive it. Bernadette Hassan described Build Back Better as “a multitrillion-dollar legislative package proposed by Biden consisting of massive spending on social, infrastructure, and environmental programs.” 

            Steve Forbes, the CEO of Forbes Media, wrote about Build Back Better (BBB) in his new book titled Inflation: What It Is, Why It’s Bad, and How to Fix It. At a recent speaking engagement in Washington, Forbes said the following: “Don’t call it an ideology. Call lit an idiot-ology.” In his remarks, Forbes compared BBB to an 18^th-century doctor: “To cure you, they bleed you, which got rid of pain and suffering – because it got rid of you.”

            Forbes is not the only person speaking negatively of BBB. According to the article by Hassan, Preston Brashers is a senior analyst for tax policy at The Heritage Foundation, and he concurs with Forbes. He described the bill as a “$3.5 trillion patchwork of taxes, mandates, job-killing regulations, and social welfare entitlements that will only exacerbate the supply-side issues plaguing the economy.”

Hassan noted that “Forbes concluded that Republicans [in the Senate] did Biden a favor” when they block the BBB bill. This bill passed out of the House – controlled by Democrats – without a single Republican vote. “If the bill had passed, you would have a far worse [economic] situation.”

            Republicans cannot let their guard down on this bill because Democrats are trying to revive it. According to Hasan, they “are attempting to craft a pared-down version of Build Back Better that they hope to pass through the reconciliation process with only Democratic senators’ votes.” 

When Will the Abortion Ruling Come Out?

            The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is imminent. The decision could be announced any day and will be given some time before mid-July. Whatever the ruling, there will be a big change in America. Angry pro-abortion protesters have been marching at the homes of conservative Justices since the possible decision was leaked on May 2, 2022.

One deranged protester traveled from California to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh but gave himself up when he saw U.S. marshals guarding the Kavanaugh home.

            Douglas Blair posted an article that including numerous tweets showing preparations being made for protests around the Supreme Court building. 

            Dan Hart posted an article about the many protests and attacks that have taken place in the past six weeks. He quoted The Washington Stand as stating that there were “at least 41 separate incidents of violent attacks against churches, pro-life organizations, and pro-life property across the country since the May 2 leak.” The attacks were of a variety of “arson, vandalism, property theft, and property destruction.” 

These incidents do not include at least nine other occurrences of physical violence against pro-life advocates, threats of violence against churches, and illegal disruptions of church services that have unfolded within the same time frame.

In the same time period, there has been a single instance of violence against pro-abortion advocacy groups, in which a woman is suspected of committing arson at an abortion facility under construction on May 25 in Wyoming.

Despite the wide disparity in violent incidents between the two groups, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a “Terrorism Threat” advisory bulletin on June 7 that appeared to equate the amount of violent incidents from activists on both sides of the abortion issue. It stated, in part, “… individuals who advocate both for and against abortion have, on public forums, encouraged violence….”

            Equating fifty (41 + 9) attacks against pro-life advocates and “violence against churches, pro-life organizations, and pro-life property” with one instance of “violence against pro-abortion advocacy groups” is a giant act of dishonesty. Both types of violence are wrong, but why did the Department of Homeland Security color both types with the same brush?

            One of the reasons why the pro-abortion crowd continues to protest is that they do not face any obstruction for breaking laws. There is a federal law against protesting at the homes of federal judges and justices. Yet, the DOJ has not arrested any of the protesters marching around the homes of the justices. We need a Department of Justice that is apolitical that will treat Americans from all political sides equally.