What Is Apostasy?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to the book of Galatians by the Apostle Paul and a lesson titled “Walk in the Spirit.” The lesson was preceded by the following counsel: As you read Galatians, record the impressions you receive. Doing so will help you remember and ponder them in the future.” The lesson was introduced by this paragraph: 

The gospel of Jesus Christ offers freedom from spiritual bondage. But sometimes people who have experienced the freedom of the gospel turn away from it and “desire again to be in bondage” (Galatians 4:9). This is what some Galatian Saints were doing—they were turning away from the liberty Christ had offered them (see Galatians 1:6). Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, then, was an urgent call to come back to “the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free” (Galatians 5:1). This call is one we also need to hear and heed because while circumstances change, the struggle between freedom and bondage is constant. As Paul taught, it’s not enough to be “called unto liberty” (Galatians 5:13); we must also “stand fast” in it (Galatians 5:1) by relying on Christ.

The principle for this discussion is found in Galatians 1-5: “The law of Christ makes me free.” Paul wrote to the Galatian Saints after he learned that they were being led astray by false teachings.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon are moved from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any bother gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 

Paul heard that the Galatians were heading into apostasy because of false teachings and sent a letter to warn them. One of the false teachings was that Gentiles who had accepted the gospel needed to be circumcised and to keep other traditions of the law of Moses to be saved (see Galatians 2). In Galatians 5:1, Paul called these traditions the “yoke of bondage.” This site described apostasy as follows. 

When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy. One example is the Great Apostasy, which occurred after the Savior established His Church. After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel. (Emphasis added.)

 

Latter-day Saints believe that, through the priesthood conferred to Joseph Smith by the ministering of angels, the authority to act in God’s name was brought back to the earth. This is “restored,” not “reformed,” Christianity. Their belief in a restored Christianity helps explain why most Latter-day Saint converts, from the 1830s to the present, converted from other Christian denominations. (Emphasis added.)

 

None of these converts thought they were leaving Christianity; they are simply grateful to learn about, and become part of, the restored Church of Jesus Christ, which they believe offers a more complete and rich Christian Church spiritually, organizationally, and doctrinally. (Emphasis added.)

 

During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Parts of the holy scriptures were corrupted or lost, and no one had the authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost or perform other priesthood ordinances. (Emphasis added.)

 

We now live in a time when the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored. But unlike the Church in times past, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not be overcome by general apostasy. The scriptures teach that the Church will never again be destroyed (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:44; see also Daniel 2:44). (Emphasis added.)

 

Although there will not be another general apostasy from the truth, we must each guard against personal apostasy by keeping covenants, obeying the commandments, following Church leaders, partaking of the sacrament, and constantly strengthening our testimonies through daily scripture study, prayer, and service. 

What Is Abortion?

Families, communities, and nations are stronger when individuals understand that abortion is the act of killing a baby. Since life begins at conception – as evidenced by continual growth from conception to birth. Any person who considers abortion as a good thing does not understand the big picture. Abortion is an evil act that should be avoided whenever possible and legally permitted only for acts of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

According to S. A. McCarthy, political commentator Tucker Carlson declared that abortion is not a “political debate” but a “spiritual battle.” 

Carlson then extolled the joys of being a parent and raising a family.

“I’m serious,” he said. “The one unalloyed source of joy in your life is your children, the point of life is to have children and to watch them have grandchildren. Nothing will bring you joy like that will – nothing comes close, nothing comes close….

“So anyone telling you, ‘Don’t have children, kill your children,’ is not your friend. It’s your enemy. And by the way, it’s a very recognizable promise that they’re making to you, because it’s as old as time and it’s chronicled in great detail throughout the Hebrew Bible – it’s human sacrifice, which rears its head about every four chapters, and which is singled out for approbation every time. Of all the sins the ancient committed, that sin, every single time it’s described, is called detestable. … Detestable. God singled that out.

Carlson stated that human sacrifice or killing of babies and children was present in most ancient societies and then asked an important question: “Where did human sacrifice come from?” He then explained that the concept came from outside forces to convince people that killing their babies leads to happiness and safety.

Killing babies brings neither happiness nor safety because it brings the wrath of God down on civilizations. If the sin of slavery brought the Civil War to American soil, what will the sin of killing unborn babies bring? Individuals who recognize the value of life, born and unborn, will strengthen their families, communities, and nations. 

Why Did the Founders Create a Divided Congress?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the need to adhere to constitutional principles. The further America moves away from the U.S. Constitution, the more freedom is lost. In an interview with Virginia Allen of The Heritage Foundation, Joseph Postell, an associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College, discussed Congress and its history. 

Allen asked a question about the design for government created by the Founders of America. The question is, “Now, when the Founders were crafting Congress, why did they see a need for two separate entities, to have a House and a Senate?” Postell gave the following as a short answer: “But I think the question you’re asking really gets at the most significant thing about Congress…. So they actually deliberately made Congress weak by dividing it up into these two bodies.” The professor continued with his explanation, which Allen said, “invites a very different answer.” Then she explained her opinion as follows.

First, there is the significance of the word “Congress.” Here is the first definition of that word in my dictionary: “A formal assembly of representatives, as of various nations, to discuss problems.” The Congress of Vienna is a famous example. It was a series of meetings between representatives of the nations of Europe to try to work out a new European political order after the defeat of Napoleon. It was not called the Parliament of Vienna because it was not a legislative body but an assembly of representatives.

And neither was America’s Continental Congress. As Postell notes, the Continental Congress predated the Constitution. Representatives of the 13 former colonies met to work out how they could win their independence from the British Empire. It is often said that the Continental Congress was politically weak. All that really means is that it was not a legislative body. The states retained their sovereignty, and the representatives of the states met together to discuss the challenges the states needed to face together.

Why, then, did the Founders keep that name for the American legislature created by the Constitution? After all, it was no longer a formal assembly of representatives of the various states to discuss the problems they had in common.

Keeping the name made sense because the first Congress under the Constitution was in many ways more like the Continental Congress than the Congress of the bloated post-constitutional central government we have in Washington, D.C., today….

So, why did the Founders use the word Congress rather than Parliament? Because they delegated few and defined powers to the federal government and left all other powers to the States. The powers delegated to the federal government are “exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” The Founders reserved all other powers to the States. This is the principle upon which the current Supreme Court sent the matter of abortion back to the States.

Allen quoted Postell as giving a “very astute discussion of why the Founders kept the name is right on target.”

So unlike, say, Parliament, which was the ide of a legislative body with which the Framers were familiar, Congress implies something more like a bunch of different countries or different groups of people coming together to hash out their differences…

They use this word Congress because they really believed in a federal system. They really believed that they were states that were united for limited purposes, but a lot of the power and the sovereignty was going to lie back with the states.

So under this conception, really, it’s not an entirely national system. It’s actually a federal system in which the Congress is almost like diplomatic representatives from different countries coming together to kind of deal with issues like trade and military defense and things like that.

Under the U.S. Constitution, States send people to Congress to represent the interest of those States and their residents. The States gave up power to wage war or to negotiate with foreign nations. However, they also kept control of those powers through the representatives that they sent to Congress. Allen explained the situation as follows:

Besides, the state governments would not be giving up control of those powers. They would retain control of them by means of the Senate. According to the founding bargain, senators would be chosen by the state legislatures, and the Senate would control those powers delegated to the federal government. That’s why the Constitution gives the Senate power over treaties, over the declaration of war, even over the people the president selects for his Cabinet. By giving the state governments control of the Senate, the Constitution gave them enormous power within the federal government.

Consequently, Congress needed two houses, not to make it weaker, but for the simplest of reasons: the Founders’ astonishing innovation required it.

The American state governments were to be represented in the Senate – the federal legislative house of the state governments – and you and the people in your locality were to be represented in the House of Representatives – the federal legislative house of the people. The states and the people would each have a representative body in the federal legislature.

But in 1913, the American people broke the founding bargain, setting in motion the ongoing process of progressively overthrowing the Constitution, which is the source of the mess we find ourselves in today.

The 17^th Amendment was the single change that did the most to undo what the Founders had accomplished by means of the Constitution. It provided for the direct election of senators, the system we have now. The state governments would no longer control the Senate through the representatives they chose. The state governments’ base of political power within the federal government was taken from them, putting an end to the federal system of the Founders.

Allen continued by explaining that Progressives “tricked” the American people into believing that the Constitution needed to be reformed. “The ‘reform’ in effect repealed the 10^th Amendment: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’”

If the American voters had understood that the “reform” acted to repeal the 10^th Amendment, they most likely would not have voted for the change. “But by means of the 17^th Amendment, the Progressives accomplished something even more far-reaching: They removed the central pillar of the Founders’ brilliantly designed federal system.” With the 17^th Amendment, Americans lost freedoms. The loss of those freedoms brought us to the situation in which we live today. Progressives continue to work to change the Constitution.

Today, the U.S. Constitution “hangs by a thread” as prophesied by the Prophet Joseph Smith. The 2024 presidential election is our last chance to save the Constitution. If Biden is re-elected – or another Democrat is elected, we will lose our nation as we know it. Anyone and everyone who is interested in saving America and the U.S. Constitution should vote for Donald Trump!

Should Senators Wear Business Clothes to Do the People’s Business?

For 234 years Senators have dressed like business men and women with the men wearing business suits, suits, and ties, and women wearing business-appropriate clothing. Then John Fetterman was elected by the state of Pennsylvania, and he began showing up for work wearing a hoody sweatshirt and shorts.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) decided that the precedented dress rule was not necessary. He announced on September 17 that U.S. senators could “wear whatever they want on the Senate floor,” according to news reports.

The public as well as other senators did not like the unwritten rule to be thrown aside. Senators Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) co-authored a resolution to reinstate the dress code. According to Eva Terry at the Deseret News, Romney made the following statement prior to the Senate unanimously passing “a bipartisan resolution to reinstate the requirement that business attire be worn on the Senate floor. 

The United States Capitol is more than just a place of work – it serves as a symbol of freedom and democracy to the world….

Hard work was done, and sacrifices made, to ensure that our legislative branch of government wasn’t just housed in some tent. As senators, we should demonstrate a high level of reverence for the institution in which we serve – and our attire is one of the most basic expressions of that respect. I’m proud to stand with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to call for a return to a level of dress becoming of the Senate.

Terry wrote that Romney “related the architecture of the U.S. Capitol building to the respect the builders of America had for its ideals and values.” She quoted Romney as saying, “I think it’s in keeping with that spirit that we say we want those who serve inside this room, in this hall, to show a level of dignity and respect which is consistent with the sacrifice they made and with the beauty of the surroundings.”

Terry wrote that Manchin also “emphasized the importance of respecting the American Senate.” She quoted him as saying, “For 234 years, every senator that has had the honor of serving in this distinguished body has assumed there were some basic written rules of decorum, conduct and civility, one of which was a dress code.”

Manchin continued, “Just over a week ago, we all learned that there were not – in fact – any written rules about what Senators could and could not wear on the floor of the Senate. So Senator Romney and I got together and we thought maybe it’s time that we finally codify something that was the precedented rule for 234 years.”

The fact that the Senators wore business dress for 234 years without any written rule says a lot for those men who set the precedence as well as those men and women who have continued it. Every single senator respected the Senate chambers enough to dress appropriately to do the business of the people – except one Democrat senator named John Fetterman. Shame on him, and shame on Schumer who tried to make sloppiness the rule. 

What Happens If the Government Shuts Down?

There is much talk in the news about what will happen in less than five days. Saturday, September 30, 2023, is the end of the fiscal year for the federal government. The federal government will officially “shut down” if Congress does not pass the necessary appropriation bills to keep the government running. So, what will happen if the government shuts down? According to Eva Terry at The Deseret News, the following is expected: 

·         Essential workers will be required to work during the shutdown, but other employees will be furloughed. Those who are furloughed will not receive paychecks until the government is funded once again.

·         Economic growth will be reduced by 0.2% per week until the government is funded, and normal rates return.

·         TSA and its 56,000 employees will be working without pay. However, employees may call in sick, and delays, and wait times at airports could be increased.

·         Passport services will continue.

·         Amtrack will continue normal operations.

·         Ten thousand children may lose access to Head Start.

·         Routine inspections by the FDA, the EPA, and the Department of Interior will be halted.

·         Social Security and disability payments will be sent because they come from a trust fund.

Who Is Paulie Giannone?

My VIP for this week is Paulie Giannone, owner of Paulie Gee’s and Paulie Gee’s Slice Shop in Brooklyn. Giannone is one owner of pizzerias in New York City who are being targeted by Democrat Mayor Eric Adams. The target is on any “coal- and wood-burning ovens installed before 2016” and their emissions – which were compared “to the Canadian wildfires.” 

New York City passed a rule earlier this year “mandating that such ovens be bitted with expensive scrubbers designed to reduce soot, in an attempt to limit air pollution and fight climate change.” However, the rule may not be effective. Giannone has already installed expensive scrubbers – about $20,000 for his oven. In the video interview, Giannone said that he would not install a wood-burning oven if he were to open a new pizzeria. This means that future visitors to the Big Apple may not have the experience of eating the traditional pizzas.

How Can the U.S.A. Stop Illegal Immigration?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the invasion across the southern border of the United States. Most people describe the invasion as immigrants crossing the border illegally. However, the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces involved a few hundred thousand people. There have been somewhere between 7 million and 8 million immigrants enter the United States since early 2021. Why do we call the Russian action an invasion but refuse to describe the action on the southern U.S border by the same term?

Victor Davis Hanson discussed the southern invasion in his article recently published in The Daily Signal. He did so by reminding his readers about how the actions by the Biden administration is slowly destroying America. 

The more the border vanished, the more federal immigration law was rendered inert, and the more Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas spun fantasies that the “border is secure.” He is now written off as a veritable “Baghdad Bob” propagandist.

But how and why did the Biden administration destroy immigration law as we knew it?

The Trump administration’s initial efforts to close the border had been continually obstructed in the Congress, sabotaged by the administrative state, and stymied in the courts. Nonetheless, it finally had secured the border by early 2020.

Yet almost all the Trump administration’s successful initiatives were immediately overturned in 2021.

Hanson listed some of the successes of Trump that Biden tossed out, and they include the following: (1) Abruptly stopped construction of the wall; (2) Obama-era “catch and release” immigration policy was resurrected; (3) Pressure was ceased on Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to stop Mexican citizens from moving north; (4) Border Patrol officers were told to stand down; (5) New federal subsidies enticed and supported illegal arrivals.

Hanson reminded his readers that “No one in the Democratic Party objected to the destruction of the border or the subversion of immigration law” – until a few thousand illegal immigrants were bused into northern sanctuary cities such as New York, Chicago, and Martha’s Vineyard. The “humanists” in sanctuary cities are no longer so eager to welcome illegal immigrants.

Many Americans have wondered why the Biden administration was deliberately unleashing millions of illegal immigrants across the U.S. border – “the largest influx” in our history. Well, Hanson answered the question:

The ethnic chauvinists and Democratic Party elites needed new constituents, given their increasingly unpopular agendas.

They feared that the more legal Latino immigrants assimilated and integrated into American society, the less happy they became with left-wing radical abortion, racial, transgender, crime, and green fixations.

Democratic grandees always had bragged that illegal immigration would create what they called “The New Democratic Majority” in “Demography Is Destiny” fashion. Now they slander critics as “racists” who object to left-wing efforts to use illegal immigration to turn southwestern red states blue.

Hanson also had answers for why Mexico does nothing to stop the migrations across it. “Mexico now cannot survive as a modern state without some $60 billion in annual remittances sent by its expatriates in America.” Mexico seems to have no concern for the fact that cash is free to send home because many illegal immigrants receive entitlements from states and the federal government. Hanson also wrote that Mexico is happy to send its poorest people to the U.S.

Hanson explained that Mexico does not drop the hammer on the criminal cartels running Mexico because the cartels add billions of dollars to the Mexican economy.

If the Biden administration, Mexico, and the criminal cartels want an open border, how can it be closed. Hanson had an answer for that problem also.

Polls continue to show that the American people support measured, diverse, legal, and meritocratic immigration as much as they oppose mass illegal immigration into their country and the subsequent loss of American sovereignty on the border.

They understand what the Biden administration does not: No nation in history has survived once its borders were destroyed, once its citizenship was rendered no different from mere residence, and once its neighbors with impunity undermined its sovereignty.

Ending illegal immigration now depends solely on the American people overriding the corrupt special interests and leaders who profit from the current chaos and human misery.

Hanson indicated that ending illegal immigration depends only on We The People. We must take control of Congress by electing representatives that will write laws to give us a workable immigration program that will provide funding for sufficient border control officers. We must elect representatives who will write laws to fund and build a barrier on the border that will slow down and stop the hordes of people crossing our borders. We must elect representatives who will stop the practice of giving citizenship to anyone born on American soil by writing sufficient legislation OR by amending the Fourteen Amendment.

In addition, We The People must insist that our government stops providing enticements to bring people into America. In addition, we must safely and humanly export as many people who have entered the nation illegally as possible. Any people who have entered the U.S. illegally should be barred from ever receiving citizenship – them and their posterity.

If Americans do not get tough, we will lose our country!

What Is Simply Beautiful and Beautifully Simple?

My Come Follow Me lesson for this week took me to 2 Corinthians 8-13 in a lesson titled “God Loveth a Cheerful Giver.” The lesson was preceded by this counsel: “Recording spiritual impressions will help you remember what you learn during scripture study. You might write in a study journal, make notes in the margins of your scriptures, add notes in your Gospel Library app, or make an audio recording of your thoughts.” The lesson was introduced with this paragraph: 

What would you do if you heard that congregation of Saints in another area was struggling in poverty? This was the situation that Paul described to the Corinthian Saints in 2 Corinthians 8-9. He hoped to persuade the Corinthian Saints to donate some of their abundance to Saints in need. But beyond a request for donations, Paul’s words also contain profound truths about giving: “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). In our day, there are still Saints throughout the world who are in need of help. Sometimes the most we can do for them is to fast and donate fast offerings. In other cases, our giving can be more direct and personal. Whatever forms our sacrifices take, it’s worth examining our motivations for giving. Are our sacrifices expressions of love? After all, it’s love that makes a giver cheerful.

The principle for this post is found in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 “We should focus on ‘the simplicity that is in Christ.’” The verses are as follow:

1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

            We are most interested in verse 3 where Paul speaks of “the simplicity that is in Christ.”  President Matthew Cowley was quoted as saying many times, “The gospel of Jesus Christ is simply beautiful and beautifully simple.” Yet, many members of the Church of Jesus Christ try to make the gospel more complicated than it is. They are overwhelmed with the demands of their lives as well as being Latter-day Saints. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf gave the following counsel to all who are overwhelmed with living the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Brothers and sisters, living the gospel doesn’t need to be complicated.

It is really straightforward. It could be described like this:

·         Hearing the word of God with earnest intent leads us to believe in God and to trust His promises.

·         The more we trust God, the more our hearts are filled with love for Him and for each other.

·         Because of our love for God, we desire to follow Him and bring our actions in alignment with His word.

·         Because we love God, we want to serve Him; we want to bless the lives of others and help the poor and the needy.

·         The more we walk in this path of discipleship, the more we desire to learn the word of God.

And so it goes, each step leading to the next and filling us with ever-increasing faith, hope, and charity.

It is beautifully simple, and it works beautifully.

Brothers and sisters, if you ever think that the gospel isn’t working so well for you, I invite you to step back, look at your life from a higher plane, and simplify your approach to discipleship. Focus on the basic doctrines, principles, and applications of the gospel. I promise that God will guide and bless you on your path to a fulfilling life, and the gospel will definitely work better for you (“It Works Wonderfully!,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2015, 22).

 

Why Is Obedience to Laws Important?

Strong families, communities, and nations are born when parents teach their children to obey the laws by their words and actions. Law-abiding citizens strengthen their states and nations, which then provide protection for their residents and citizens. The opposite is also true: parents who do not teach obedience to law OR teach disobedience to law will weaken families, communities, states, and nations.

A program was implemented by former President Barck Obama, terminated by former President Donald Trump, and reinstated by President Joe Biden. This week a federal district court ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is illegal. Will the Biden administration try to resurrect the program or finally let it die? The answer is unknown, but the Biden administration does not usually abide by law. Hans von Spakovsky at The Daily Signal gave the following description about how the program started. 

This unlawful assertion of executive power started when Janet Napolitano, then-secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a three-page memorandum in 2012 deferring the removal of illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 who had been in the country for at least five years prior to the date of the memo and were not above the age of 30.

They were granted access to Social Security and Medicare benefits – despite the fact that illegal aliens are barred from those government programs by federal law. By granting them access to those programs, that made them eligible for certain state benefit programs that depend on whether someone is “lawfully present” in the U.S., which was the label given to them by DHS. (Emphasis added.)

The program implemented by Obama and reinstated by Biden is a slap in the face for law-abiding people but came about because of compassion. When parents illegally crossed into the United States and brought their young children with them, they taught their children to break the immigration laws of the United States. In doing so, they made life much more difficult for their children.

Even though the families lived in the United States with all the freedoms and blessings of America, they were never legally eligible to do so. Therefore, they hid in the shadows for many years as the children became Americanized. Many of the children do not know of their previous homes, and they know of no other country than America. If they are deported, they would be deported to an unknown place.

Many of the “children” in the DACA program have waited years to realize their dreams of being in America legally. Now, a court has ruled the program to be illegal. This means that the “children” could be tagged for deportation at any time. Imagine how they must feel to know that their lives could be upended at any time!

Other parental words and actions may not be so impactful as those of the DACA parents. However, some parents really mess up the lives of their children, just as bad or worse than the DACA parents. God will hold such parents accountable. Parents must teach obedience to laws for their children to reap the blessings of those laws and to strengthen their communities, states, and nations.

Is Joe Biden An Enemy of the United States?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the growing problem of illegal immigration. The way that the Biden administration has handled illegal immigration gives cause for alarm. The results of Biden policies show that he is continuing Barack Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform” the United States.

Mark Levin claims that Democrats hate the United States because Biden policies are destroying America as we know it. Jarrett Stepman at The Daily Signal says that the Biden administration is trying to “transform the United States into a poorly managed economic zone” and that “the latest mayhem at the southern border” is the evidence. What we are seeing at this time is a worse situation than at any point during the past two and a half years.

Even though the numbers of immigrants cross the border illegal dipped during the hot months of the summer, they are surging this week. Stepman wrote the following: 

As Fox News border reporter Bill Melugin said, it’s a “free-for-all” in Eagle Pass, Texas, right now as thousands of Venezuelans are crossing the border en masse.

The numbers are truly astounding.

The Biden administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it’s not only fine with that, but it will also do anything to ensure that the situation continues.

The White House created a visa program for illegal immigrants that allows them to stay in the country if they find a “sponsor” to support them. But the sponsor can be another illegal alien. Yes, really.

That’s why it’s fair to say that we have a completely open border. Even in the case where illegal immigrants are apprehended, the administration has pulled the plug on every tool that would allow the government to quickly deport them.

[Emphasis added.]

The Biden administration has done everything possible to stop the states from doing anything to halt the immigrants from crossing illegally. The federal government forced Arizona to take down the “fence” made of shipping containers. Texas authorities put up a barrier made of razor wire at the border near Eagle Point, Texas. The Border Patrol – obviously under Biden’s direction – cut down the wire. Texas put up fences, but Border Patrol opened the gates to let illegal immigrants to enter America. Texas put a barrier down the middle of the river, but the Biden administration sued Texas to remove it.

Stepman noted that the Biden administration motto must be “15 months to end America as we know it.” He concluded his article by comparing the decline of America to that of the Roman Empire and the fall of other great civilizations.

Lora Ries at The Daily Signal reported that Congress has been called to defund the open-border operations of the Biden administration. She explained that the House may attach “most of the Secure the Border Act to a continuing resolution package to fund the government.” The bill was passed by the House in May and was nearly passed by the Senate in June. “Now, Sen. Ted Cruz is leading 26 original Republican co-sponsors to introduce the Senate companion of the House bill.” 

The Senate bill is also called the Secure the Border Act and “combines closing known loopholes that illegal aliens, cartels, and the Biden administration exploit.” The Senate bill would apply “consequences for illegal immigration with previously successful policies; [increase] Customs and Border Protection resources for true border security and enforcement; and [authorize] the defunding of the nongovernmental organization industrial complex that the Biden administration pays to receive, process, transport, shelter, counsel, and give social services to the millions of illegal aliens coming to the U.S.”

Virginia Allen at The Daily Signal reported that the Biden administration expanded its efforts to bring illegal immigrants into America. 

Not all illegal aliens are entering the U.S. along the southern or northern border, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

Over the past year, “more than 200,000 people from four countries” used a direct-flight parole program to enter the United States illegally, says Todd Bensman, senior national security fellow at the Washington-based think tank devoted to researching immigration issues. Those 221,456 illegal aliens are form Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, Bensman writes in a report published Thursday.

Allen also reported that Bensman learned of the federal government’s “CBP One” mobile application parole program. This program “permits inadmissible aliens to make an appointment to fly directly to airports in the interior of the United States, bypassing the border altogether.” Biden said that the purpose of the program was to form “lawful pathways” for people to enter the United States illegally. This program has decreased the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border between ports of entry because illegal migrants are “presenting themselves at the ports of entry within the interior of the country.”

The fact is that Biden’s policies brought five to ten million immigrants illegally into the United States in less than three years. The illegal immigrants are overwhelming small towns, large cities, and states all across America. If Biden were an enemy of America trying to destroy the government of the United States, what would he have done differently than he has done as President of the United States? 

What Did Garland Have to Say to the House Judiciary Committee?

Attorney General Merrick Garland was interrogated by the House Judiciary Committee today. He declined to answer many questions. He could not remember if he spoke with FBI personnel about the investigation of Hunter Biden. He did not know the number of confidential informants who entered th4e Capitol on January 6, 2021. He had to be forced to answer if Catholics are “violent extremists.” Fred Lucas shared seven takeaways from the hearing in his article in The Daily Signal. 

1. ‘Traditional Catholics Are Violent Extremists? Yes or No?’

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., brought up the January memo out of the FBI field office in Richmond, Virginia, detailing plans to spy on American Catholics. The leaked memo said, “radical traditionalist Catholics” had the potential to become “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.” …

Van Drew again asked: “Are they extremists or not, Attorney General?”

Garland responded: “Everything in that memo is appalling.”

[Notice how he could not answer a yes or no question?]

2. ‘Don’t Recollect’ Personal Contact

Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., asked about who the attorney general has talked to regarding his department’s investigation of Hunter Biden for failing to file income tax returns reflecting all his overseas business dealings, including in China and Ukraine, and for drug-related gun offenses. That probe began in 2018, during the Trump administration.

“Has anyone from the White House provided direction at any time to you personally or to senior officials at the DOJ regarding how the Hunter Biden investigation was to be carried out?” Johnson asked.

Garland answered, “No.”

From there, the attorney general’s answer became sketchier….

3. ‘Defunding the FBI’ Would Be ‘Catastrophic’

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, brought up the fact that some Republican lawmakers had called for shutting down the FBI. They did so in protest of what they saw as unequal treatment of Americans under the law, including the FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s Florida home in August 2022.

“What would be the impact on America of defunding the FBI?” Nadler asked Garland.

The attorney general sounded alarms about such a move.

“Defunding the FBI would leave the United States naked to the maligned influence of the Chinese Communist Party, the attacks by Iranians on American citizens, attempts to assassinate former officials, up to Russian aggression, to North Korea cyberattacks, to violent crime in the United States, which the FBI helps to fight against,” Garland said….

4. About Weiss: ‘What Changed?’

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, noted that Weiss at one point wanted to bring charges against Hunter Biden in the District of Columbia, but U.S. Attorney for D.C. Matthew Graves declined to cooperate….

Jordan also asked, “What changed?” in the time between the July 10 letter to Graham in which Weiss said he didn’t ask to be named a special counsel and Garland’s Aug. 11 announcement appointing Weiss as special counsel.

“Several days before my announcement, Mr. Weiss had asked to become special counsel,” Garland testified. “He explained that he had reached the stage in his investigation where he thought that appropriate.”

Jordan sarcastically referenced the launch of the Hunter Biden investigation in 2018.

“After five years, what stage are we in?” the Ohio Republican asked. “Are we in the beginning stage, the middle stage, the end stage, the keep-hiding-the-ball stage?”

Garland responded: “This one I would go back to the videotape, where I said I’m not permitted to discuss ongoing investigations.”

Jordan retorted: “Isn’t that convenient.”

“Something changed in 31 to 32 days from July 10 to Aug. 11,” Jordan added. “I think it’s two brave whistleblowers came forward and a judge called BS on the plea deal….”

5. ‘People Don’t Pay Bribes to Not Get Something’

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., suggested that the Biden Justice Department’s decision to close the Trump administration’s China Initiative, which since 2018 had investigated Chinese espionage in the U.S., correlated with millions of dollars from Chinese sources going to the Biden family.

Gaetz asked the attorney general: “What was the China Initiative dissolved?”

Garland replied that China isn’t the only source of espionage and other attacks.

“We face attacks from four nation-states: North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran, and we need to focus our attention on the broad range of these attacks,” Garland said. 

[Question: Why is America doing business with the four nation-states?]

Gaetz seemed to scoff.

“Are you saying that North Korea has the same malign influence risk to the United States as the Chinese Communist Party?” Gaetz asked the attorney general. “Because here’s what it looks like. It looks like the Chinese gave all this money to the Bidens and then you guys came in and got rid of the China Initiative….”

“It’s like you’re looking the other way on purpose, because everybody knows this stuff is happening. But people don’t pay bribes to not get something in return,” Gaetz told Garland.

“The China Initiative resulted in the convictions of a Harvard professor, of someone at Monsanto,” the Florida Republican said. “So we were working against the Chinese. They paid the Bidens. Now you are sitting here telling me that North Korea is the big threat?”

6. ‘Agents and Assets’ at Capitol Riot? ‘Don’t Know’

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., asked Garland whether any confidential informants were involved in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

“How many agents or assets of the government were present on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6 and agitating in the crowd to go into the Capitol, and how many went into the Capitol?” Massie asked. “Can you answer that now?”

Garland replied: “I don’t know the answer to that question.”

Massie then asked: “You don’t know how many there were, or there were none?” Garland affirmed his lack of knowledge….

Massie said he didn’t believe the attorney general.

“I think you may have just perjured yourself [by saying] that you don’t know that there were any,” the Kentucky Republican said. “Do you want to say that again, that you don’t know there were any? …

On Tuesday, a federal grand jury indicted Ray Epps, a man seen on video telling protesters to enter the Capitol before the riot, on charges of disorderly or disruptive conduct on restricted grounds.

Some politicians and pundits have questioned why Epps had not been charged earlier, and whether he was a confidential informant….

Massie continued:

You are putting people away for 20 years for merely filming [during the Capitol riot]. Some people weren’t even there yet. You’ve got the guy on video who is saying, ‘Go into the Capitol.’ He’s directing people to the Capitol before [Trump’s] speech ends. He’s at the site of the first breach. You’ve got all the goods on him. And it’s an indictment for a misdemeanor? The American public isn’t buying it.

7. ‘That Goes Right to the White House’

Jordan pressed Garland on why Justice Department prosecutors investigating Hunter Biden allowed the statute of limitations to expire for tax charges.

Such charges would have stretched back to the younger Biden’s time on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that paid him $50,000 a month while his father was vice president.

As vice president, Biden oversaw the Obama administration’s policy on Ukraine. “They made an intentional decision to say we’re going to let the statute of limitations lapse,” Jordan told Garland. “I want to know who decided that and why they did it.

Garland punted the answer to Weiss….

Jordan responded that everyone knows the answer.

“Those tax years involved the president. It’s one thing to have a gun charge in Delaware. That doesn’t involve the president of the United States,” Jordan said. “But Burisma, oh my, that goes right to the White House. We can’t have that.”