Are American Children Being Educated Appropriately?

Families, communities, states, and nations are stronger when the rising generation receives proper education. The National Report Card shows that American children are not receiving appropriate education. According to an article by Virginia Allen, Kristen Eichamer, and Crystal Bonham published in The Daily Signal, “The latest National Report Card from the National Assessment of Educational Progress paints an abysmal picture of education across the U.S.”

The report card is published every two years and assesses the average reading and math scores for fourth and eighth graders. The report showed significant declines for students when it was published in 2022, but the decline was somewhat expected in the wake of school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. But the assessment completed in 2024 and published Wednesday shows little to no improvement in students’ math and reading proficiency.

In 2024, just 39% of fourth grade students performed at or above the proficient math level that is set by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. That’s 3 percentage points higher compared with 2022, but 2 percentage points lower than in 2019.

Eighth grade math scores are at 28% proficiency, about the same as 2022 scores, but 8 points lower compared to 2019.

Reading scores showed an even greater decline than those for math.

In 2024, 31% of fourth grade students performed at or above the proficient level on the reading assessment. That’s a 2 percentage point decline compared to 2022 and 4 percentage points lower than 2019, according to the report card.

And 30% of eighth grade students performed at or above the proficient level in 2024, which was not significantly different from 2022, but lower compared with 2019.

The above figures from the National Report Card show that reading scores and math scores of children today are lower than those of 2019. That is terrible because the 2019 math score for fourth graders was only 41% and the 2019 math score for eighth graders was only 36%. Reading scores were worse. The reading score for fourth graders in 2019 was only 35%, and the reading score for eighth graders of 30% for 2024, which was about the same as in 2022 but lower in 2019.

Why is anyone satisfied with such low scores in essential skills like reading and math? In my opinion, no score under 60% should be accepted for anyone. Our children and youth must be able to read and do simple math in order to graduate from high school, and a high school diploma is essential to stay out of poverty.

American education must do better for the rising generation. This report card is good evidence to show that current educational practices are not working. Since education begins in homes, we must strengthen families and homes and then concentrate on properly educating the rising generation. We must have educated citizens for strong families, communities, states, and nations.

Why Is Trump Concerned About the Panama Canal?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the Panama Canal. Most Americans were caught off guard when President Donald Trump first called to take back control of the Panama Canal. Since his first mention of it, more information emerged for his reasoning. The main reason for Trump’s concern about the Panama Canal is national security. China is making inroads at the Panama Canal.

George Caldwell reported that the U.S. Senate is now working on the matter. On Tuesday, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee began discussing the rivalry between America and China at the Panama Canal. Trump warned that there is heavy Chinese activity in the canal area, and he has not ruled out using military force to take back control. 

Sen. Ted Cruz opened the hearing by warning of increasing Chinese control of the canal – in his view, a violation of the United States’ 1977 agreement with Panama that returned control of the canal to the Central American nation at the end of 1999, as well as an economic and national security risk.

“Chinese companies are building a bridge across the canal – at a slow pace so as to take nearly a decade – and control container ports at either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability to block the canal without warning, and the ports give China ready observation posts to time that action. This situation poses acute risks to U.S. national security,” said Cruz.

“We cannot afford to let American shippers be extorted,” Cruz said. “We cannot turn a blind eye if Panama exploits an asset of vital commercial and military importance. And we cannot stay idle while China is on the march in our hemisphere.”

Four experts were invited to speak to the committee. All four experts “have expertise on the Panama Canal and the international economy.”

The first expert listed was Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor at George Mason University. He told the committee that the activities of the Chinese companies in Panama look like business dealings but “are likely to also [be] strategic military maneuvers.

“Modern warfare has seen belligerent powers seek to evade international legal limitations by disguising their actions in civilian garb,” said Kontorovich. “Bad actors seek to exploit the fact that international treaties focus on sovereign actors. Many of China’s manmade islands in the South China Sea began as ostensibly civilian projects before being militarized.”

Kontorovich also contended that the treaty between then-President Jimmy Carter and Panama provided both sides the ability to use military force to defend their interests in the canal.

“It was clear that the treaty was understood as giving both sides separately the right to resort to use armed force to enforce the provisions of the treaty … Panama agreed that the United States could enforce this regime of neutrality by force,” he said.

The second expert was Daniel Maffei, the chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission. He suggested that he did not know of any Chinese spies trying to shut down the Panama Canal but that they could do so.

“It’s not hard to close off a waterway,” said Maffei. “The Panama Canal is actually quite vulnerable in terms of infrastructure. This is not a fort or a military enforced location.”

Both Republican and Democrat senators recognized the need to secure the interests of America in the Panama Canal. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) gave a written statement to The Daily Statement about her concern about giving national security priority to protecting waterways.

“Chinese Communist Party’s influence on the operations of Chinese companies at the Panama Canal is a huge national security concern,” she said. “The United States should consider conditioning the billions of dollars we invest in Panama on keeping Communist China out of essential canal operations.”

Will Republican Congress Fund Removable of 20,000 Illegal Aliens?

What will it take to deport the 20 million illegal aliens allowed into the United States by the Biden administration? According to Tom Gantert at The Daily Signal, Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, gave the following numbers in an op-ed published Monday in Fox News: “12,000 more agents, 4,000 more attorneys, 1,000 more judges, and 1,000 more support staff” and funding on a “historic scale.” 

“Americans need our leaders to act with the urgency that this moment demands. The safety and security of Americans must be placed first,” Roberts wrote. “The number one priority for Congress right now must be to ensure that every illegal alien who has invaded our country is detained and deported or leaves quickly on their own accord.”

Tom Homan and ICE agents, supported by Marines and other military offices as well as other federal agents have already deported several thousand illegal aliens in the first week of the second Trump term. The Air Force is assisting in removing them by hauling them out in cargo planes. However, with 20 million illegal aliens to remove from the United States, a few thousand are just a drop in the bucket.

Roberts wants Congress to “act swiftly in allocating funds for the “largest deportation operation in American history.” He recognized that the budget reconciliation process is a good way to deliver quick results. He “even advocated a new law requiring money transfer services to demand proof of legal status or face a 50% tax on any outgoing transfers.” Such money could be used to fund “enhanced deportation operations. 

Another sure way to cut down on the number of people entering the United States illegally is to “prevent aliens from accessing America’s welfare benefits.” He accused Republicans in Congress as loving “to beat the drum for border security and mass deportation” when it brought in money on the campaign trail. Now, they need to put America and Americans first.

In a Monday appearance on “The Will Cain Podcast,” Roberts shared an experience when he was chided for using the word invasion to describe the hordes of people crossing into the United States illegally. He did not mince words in showing how he felt about it.

“Somehow, we can’t call a spade a spade,” Roberts said. “All of these Americans in these thousands of communities that have been upended by these illegal aliens, some of them  committing horrific murders … that somehow, we have to be careful about what we call them and we can’t call it an invasion because it “quote-unquote degrades language.”

Roberts said Trump’s genius was calling it like it is.

“Ultimately, what we have arrived at, as Trump said a week ago today … is a revolution of common sense,” Roberts said.

Do Latter-Day Saints Have the Solution to Civic Discord?

Jonathan Rauch is a non-believer, but he recently spoke at Brigham Young University (BYU) at Provo. In doing so, he lauded the approach of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to civic theology, suggesting that it is an example for American Christianity. Tad Walch covers religion with a focus on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and reported on Rauch’s speech at BYU. 

In a remarkable address at Brigham Young University, a nationally respected public policy expert and journalist said that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has developed a modern civic theology desperately needed in American Christianity in an age of secularization, polarization and dechurching.

Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, believes strongly enough in what Latter-day Saint leaders are teaching that he, an atheist in a same-sex marriage, spent the past week in Utah asking church leaders and BYU students to amplify the message that he gleaned from the church itself.

“One of the reasons that I’m here,” Rauch said, “is that in all of Christian America, I can only think of one church that has worked out an articulated civic theology of how Christians should address politics and the public world, and you heard it here (Tuesday) from Elder (Gary E.) Stevenson” during a BYU devotional.

Elder Stevenson called on BYU students to take up the flags of peacemaking and understanding others. It was built on landmark talks by church President Russell M. Nelson (“Peacemakers Needed”) and his first counselor, President Dallin H. Oaks (“Going Forward with Religious Freedom and Nondiscrimination”).

“I believe that the discipleship that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has embarked on has national civic implications,” said Rauch, from Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and author of eight books. “I believe that it deserves an audience outside of the church, not just inside the church. I believe the work that it is doing is to articulate not just the conclusion, which is ‘be peacemakers,’ but how you reach the conclusion, why that’s what God wants.

Walch’s article has too many good quotes from Rauch to include in my essay. Rauch makes many good points about how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be good examples of how people with differing political views can have peaceful relationships. Peacemakers are needed in a nation that is so torn politically that family members refuse to share Thanksgiving or Christmas traditions with other family members with differing political views.

Who Is Pete Hegseth?

My VIP for this week is Pete Hegseth, President Donald Trump’s nominee and now Senate-confirmed Defense Secretary. Late Friday night, the Senate voted 50-50 for Hegseth, so Vice President J.D. Vance broke the tie. This confirmation battle can only be described as “contentious.” George Caldwell wrote the following about the Hegseth nomination and vote. 

Hegseth, an Army veteran and former Fox News anchor, is the epitome of Donald Trump’s campaign to dethrone the established elites from their seats of power, as he does not come from a high-ranking position in the armed forces.

Hegseth faced a salvo of accusations related to his relationships with alcohol and women, and whether he had the professional credentials to run the Defense Department. He pledged to refrain from drinking alcohol if confirmed and denied an allegation of sexual assault.

In December, Trump praised Hegseth as possessing a “Military state of mind,” and noted his degrees from Princeton University and Harvard University.

“He will be a fantastic, high energy, Secretary of Defense … one who leads with charisma and skill. Peter is a WINNER, and there is nothing that can be done to change that!!!” Trump added in a Truth Social post.

As the confirmation process went on, Hegseth began to consolidate support, especially after a strong performance in his confirmation hearing.

I apologize to all Americans for the non-vote of Alaska’s senior Senator Lisa Murkowski because she refused to vote for Hegseth. Conservative Republican Alaskans tried to vote her out of office in the 2022 election, but Democrats sided with less-conservative Republicans to keep her in office. She would not have won or even made it past the Primary if Alaska got rid of “ranked-choice voting” and returned to a Primary system.

It would be better if she switched her party affiliation to Democrat. Republicans would lose one vote – but she usually votes with Democrats any way. If she were a Democrat, no one would get up their hope that she will vote like a Republican. By switching her party affiliation, she would show her true colors and would be voted out of office. This is the only reason for her to remain a Republican – even if it is only in name only.

How Many Errors Should Be Allowed?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is birthright citizenship. One of many executive orders signed by newly inaugurated President Donald Trump was his order on birthright citizenship. According to Amy Swearer at The Daily Signal, Trump’s order “directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents for children born in the United States unless at least one parent was a citizen or lawful permanent resident” at the time the child is born.” A second probe came from the U.S. House of Representatives where a bill was introduced calling for an end to birthright citizenship. 

At least 18-22 states plus two large cities filed lawsuits against Trump’s executive order, and a judge in Washington called the order unconstitutional and shut it down temporarily. Everyone expects the Trump administration to take the case to a higher court.

Meanwhile, Swearer authored an article claiming that she and her colleagues “have long argued” that “such a move is not only perfectly consistent with the original public meaning of the 14 Amendment’s citizenship clause, but is an important and necessary course-correction in federal immigration policy.” She claims that the lawsuits filed by Democrat-controlled states in federal court were expected but “largely terrible.” She then proceeded to share “four of the most erroneous things they assert in their lawsuit.”

Error #1: The citizenship clause merely adopted the pre-Dred Scott common law rule that everyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen.

In 1856, the Supreme Court held in the infamous case of Dred Scott v. Sandford that the U.S.-born descendants of African slaves were not and could never become citizens, even though under the traditional common law rule, a person automatically became a citizen of the nation on whose soil he or she was born. The plaintiffs contend that the 14^th Amendment’s citizenship clause was intended to restore this earlier common law rule of universal birthright citizenship….

While it’s true that Congress sought to override Dred Scott, this doesn’t mean it sought to adopt the pre-Dred Scott common law rule.

It's clear from the unedited context and a comprehensive reading of the legislative history that when Howard referred to the “law of the land already,” he wasn’t referring to the pre-Dred Scott common law rule of universal birthright citizenship. That common law rule, after all, had been largely abrogated by the Dred Scott decision.

Instead, Howard was referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was valid federal law. That act was Congress’s first attempt to override Dred Scott, and statutorily defined birthright citizenship for the first time in American history: “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Far from being an adoption of common law universal birthright citizenship, the Civil Rights Act intended to bestow birthright citizenship only on the children of those who, like the newly freed slaves, owed complete allegiance to the United States and were subject to the fullest extent of its political jurisdiction….

Error #2: This is an unprecedented action – the executive branch has long recognized that it can’t deny citizenship to children based on the immigration or citizenship status of their parents.

This assertion is only true if history begins in the first half of the 20^th century. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, it doesn’t. In the decades following the ratification of the 14 Amendment, the federal government regularly articulated a view of the citizenship clause that’s remarkably similar to that espoused in Trump’s order, and the executive branch issued citizenship documents accordingly.

For example, in 1885, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard instructed federal officials not to consider a U.S.-born man to be a U.S. citizen because his German parents were never permanent U.S. residents and returned with the child to Germany when he was 2-years old. He was, therefore, at the time of his birth, “subject to a foreign power” and not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Earlier that year, then-Secretary Frederick Frelinghuysen similarly instructed officials to deny a man a U.S. passport despite his birth on U.S. soil, because his German father brought him back to Germany as an infant and raised him there. He wrote that “the fact of birth [in the United States], under circumstances implying alien subjection, establishes of itself no right of citizenship.”

And in 1890, the secretary of the treasury issued an opinion denying citizenship for the child of a would-be immigrant who was being held on a ship in New York Harbor while awaiting immigration approval. The mother had been allowed to give birth and receive treatment at a New York hospital. Nonetheless, they were deported as noncitizens, and the opinion distinguished this case from that of an immigrant mother who’d “resided in this country a considerable time before her child was born.”

Error #3: The Supreme Court confirmed in Wong Kim Ark that the citizenship clause automatically bestows citizenship on the U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents.

Contrary to popular assertions, this is not what the Supreme Court held in the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark v. United States. The question decided by the court in that case was far narrower: whether a child born in the U.S. to lawfully present and permanently domiciled immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen. And the court concluded that, indeed, the U.S.-born child of this narrow and specific subset of noncitizen parents is a citizen.

Importantly, at the time, the Chinese Exclusion Acts effectively prohibited Chinese immigration and prevented those Chinese immigrants already lawfully residing in the U.S. (like Wong Kim Ark’s parents) from becoming naturalized citizens. The court was assessing a situation where federal law created a permanent race-based barrier to citizenship, that resulted in a class of lawful permanent residents being relegated to perpetual alienage throughout subsequent generations. This was an almost identical scenario to the situation of the U.S.-born descendants of African slaves after Dred Scott, which Congress was specifically trying to rectify with the Civil Rights Act and 14^th Amendment.

But Wong Kim Ark does not stand for the premise that all U.S.-born children of all immigrants under all circumstances are automatically citizens. Nor does it mean that the Supreme Court definitively held that the 14^th Amendment adopted the full scope of the common law’s universal birthright citizenship. In fact, the court repeatedly emphasized the lawful and permanent domicile of Wong Kim Ark’s parents, factors that are utterly irrelevant under the common law. A true common law opinion would have said, “He was born on U.S. soil, his parents aren’t diplomats or part of some invading army, so therefore he is a citizen.”

This is also why, for decades after Wong Kim Ark, leading constitutional law scholars continued to articulate a distinction between American birthright citizenship under English common law, which applied even to temporary sojourners.

Error #4: The president’s order will leave many children deportable and stateless.

It would rarely, if ever, be true that a U.S.-born child of illegal or nonpermanent resident aliens would be left stateless simply because he or she isn’t automatically granted U.S. citizenship. Virtually every nation (including the United States) recognizes some manner of citizenship “by blood,” under which a child is automatically eligible for citizenship when one or both parents are citizens, even if that child is born abroad….

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, don’t bother articulating a single set of circumstances under which a U.S.-born child of foreign nationals would ever be completely ineligible for – or disqualified from – citizenship or nationality in every other country [in] the world due to a confluence of legal technicalities and the fact of his or her birth on U.S. soil.

After discussing the four errors made by the plaintiffs, Swearer pointed out the obvious: “It’s clear from this lawsuit that proponents of universal birthright citizenship are far more interested in obtaining their desired outcome than they are interested in discerning what the 14^th Amendment actually meant to the people who drafted and ratified it.”

What Happened When Joseph Smith Saw God and Jesus Christ?

For my Come Follow Me studies this week, I studied the experience of Joseph Smith when he saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I was asked to speak in sacrament meeting tomorrow about the First Vision, and I feel prompted to share this draft of my talk with my readers.

My mother died on May 5, 1979, nearly 46 years ago when I was only 34 years old. My family and I were living in the Anchorage Sixth Ward in the Jewel Lake area at that time. Her death had an interesting effect on me that I can only explain in this way: I felt like a young child who had lost their security blanket.

I took my four small children (ages 7 years to 17 months) and traveled to Salt Lake City for my mother’s funeral. I gained comfort and strength by being with my father and eleven siblings, but my siblings went home or back to their lives once the funeral was over. I stayed with my father for another week or so before traveling back to Alaska.

I was still deep in my grief and fighting depression when I attended sacrament meeting on my first Sunday back in Alaska. My family and I were sitting on the back row of the center section of pews in the Brayton building, and I was doing okay until we started to sing the closing hymn.

I sang, “Sweet hour of prayer! Sweet hour of prayer! That calls me from a world of care And bids me at my Father’s throne Make all my wants and wishes known.” (“Sweet Hour of Prayer,” Hymns, 142).

That was as far as I could go in singing that hymn because I started to cry. At that time the Holy Ghost taught me a lesson in a language that I could understand. When I sang “And bids me at my Father’s throne Make all my wants and wishes known,” my mind went back to those days following my mother’s death, particularly the last evening that we were all together.

Soon after her death, my father had a dream about my mother standing by a gate waiting for him, and he assumed that he would soon follow her in death. Therefore, he decided to give away everything in the house except those things that he would need for his daily life. This meant that he was giving away everything that belonged to my mother, any extra furniture, any family heirlooms, and such. In reality, my father lived another 16 years, but he did not yet know how long his life would be.

Dad wanted each of his children to make a list of those items that we would like to have and then give the lists to him. So, we each went around the house, made our lists, and handed them to Dad. As it turned out, most of us had some of the same things on our lists. Dad took the lists and studied them to make his decisions.

 

We met together with Dad on that last evening before everyone went their separate ways. I can still picture him sitting in his living room with his twelve children surrounding him – granting as many of our wishes and wants as he could.

That picture came back to me during that sacrament meeting on that first Sunday back in Alaska. The message that came from the Holy Ghost at the same time is that my Heavenly Father loves me even more than my earthly father loves me. This heavenly message took only a few seconds to be delivered, but its impact on my life was huge.

I had previously known with my mind that Heavenly Father loves me. I had sung “I Am a Child of God” from the time that I was a Primary child. However, this message of love sunk deep into my heart, and I knew with every fiber of my being that Heavenly Father loves me. I knew that I was no longer alone because Heavenly Father loves me. Although I continued to mourn for my mother, I also grew stronger with each day. Where I had previously been battling depression, I could see sunshine again in my life.

I am sharing this story with you because the Holy Ghost brought it back to my mind early one morning about 10 days ago as I studied the scriptures, and He indicated that I should start this talk with it.

The message from God that came to me 46 years ago had such an impact on my life that it still brings tears to my eyes whenever I think about it. If those few seconds of the presence of the Holy Ghost had such a huge impact on my life, imagine the impact that the First Vision had on fourteen-year-old Joseph Smith.

Joseph saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. They knew his name, and They spoke to him in a language that he could understand. They answered his questions and gave him other information. The impact on him was so strong that it changed his life, and it changed the lives of millions of other people.

So what are the lessons to be learned from the First Vision of Joseph Smith. Here are some of them as found in Joseph Smith – History 1:15-20.

1. Satan is real, he is powerful, he works in darkness, and he opposes the work of God. Joseph wrote that an unseen being bound his tongue so he could not speak. Darkness surrounded him, and he thought that he would be destroyed. Satan tried to stop the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ at its very beginning, and he will do everything in his power to stop its restoration in our lives.

2. The power of Satan can be overcome through prayer. Joseph exerted all his power to call upon God for help, and God delivered him from the power of Satan. Like Joseph, prayer can deliver us from the power of Satan. Brigham Young taught, “If we do not feel like [praying], we should pray till we do” (DBY, 44).

3. The light and glory emanating from Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ dispelled the darkness and delivered Joseph Smith from the enemy who held him bound. The light of the gospel of Jesus Christ can bring answers to our questions and solutions to our problems - questions and problems that keep us from gaining or strengthening our testimonies and conversions.

4. Joseph Smith “saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description.” They were standing in the air above him. One of them called Joseph by name, pointed to the other one, and said, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”

The First Vision showed Joseph Smith that God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ were two separate Beings – something that was the exact opposite of what was being taught in the churches of his day. The Nicene Creed states: “We believe in one God in three Persons. We do not believe in three gods.” The Nicene Creed: Explained! - Catholic-Link Even today, people claim that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not real Christians because we believe in a different kind of Jesus.

On April 2, 1843, at Ramus, Illinois, Joseph Smith gave some “Items of instruction,” and these instructions now comprise D&C 130. In verse 22, Joseph taught the following:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Joseph used the word tangible instead of physical. Tangible is defined as “perceptible by touch.” We know that there are physical things, such as wind, that cannot be touched – although it sometimes touches us in powerful ways.

As far as I know, we do not know how Joseph Smith received this knowledge about tangible bodies. Did he learn it during the First Vision or later? He said that the two Personages stood above him in the air. Did they stay in the air, or did they come down to touch him? We do not know, but we accept that both the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, while the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit.

5. We learn that all the churches on earth at that time were wrong. They had a form of godliness, but they did not have proper authority from Jesus Christ.

6. We learn that Jesus Christ shared “many other things” that Joseph could not write at that time.

In the Lectures on Faith, we are taught that there are three things that are necessary for any of us to exercise enough faith in God to obtain salvation. The three things are: (1) the idea that God actually exists, (2) a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes, and (3) an actual knowledge that our life – the way we are living -- is acceptable to God.

 

When God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, They showed him that his life was acceptable to Them. We do not need to have visits from the Father and/or the Son to know that our lives are acceptable to Them. In the section of the Come Follow Me manual titled “Conversion Is Our Goal,” the last paragraph states the following:

… We should seek after whatever invites the influence of the Spirit and reject whatever drives that influence away—for we know that if we can be worthy of the presence of the Holy Ghost, we can also be worthy to live in the presence of Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.

I hope and pray that we will each seek the presence of the Holy Ghost in our lives that we may know of our acceptance to Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I know that They love us, and I know this with every fiber of my being.

 

Do You Have a Favorite Child?

Families, communities, states, and nations are stronger when parents do not have “favorite” children. I was drawn to an article by Lois M. Collins about favoritism because my children always gave me trouble about having a favorite child. I could never understand their claims because I tried to treat them equally even though it was not the same. Besides, they have all had their times of trying my patience and making me proud of them. None of them are exempt from either extreme because I love them all and always try to meet their needs and wants. 

Collins discussed a BYU review of studies that “shows parents are apt to favor kids who fall in certain categories.” She made the statement that parental preference “impacts a child’s well-being” and can “influence a child’s life well beyond childhood.”

New research from Brigham Young University finds there’s risk in the rivalry and perceptions of favoritism. And there are factors that give some of the siblings a head start in pursuit of mom’s or dad’s affection.

The study by Alex Jensen, an associate professor in the BYU School of Family Life, just published in the journal Psychological Bulletin, finds that daughters, the “baby of the family” and those who are conscientious and responsible are a bit more likely to wear the parent’s pet crown.

Jensen’s findings came from “data for about 19,469 participants” found in “30 peer-reviewed journal articles and dissertations, as well as 14 databases.”

The data shows that “parents tend to favor girls slightly more than boys,” but the girls did not feel favored, and the boys did not feel slighted. Another group of children that are “favored” are those who are conscientious and agreeable. Don’t we all favor people who are conscientious and agreeable? However, favoritism has lasting consequences.

But favoring one child over another has consequences not only in terms of the children’s relationships with each other, but also in terms of how the children fare – potentially both positive and negative for the favored child.

For example, siblings who receive favored parental treatment might have better mental health than the child who wasn’t favored, as well as more academic success and better relationships, per the study.

The inverse is true for the child who wasn’t favored, including the potential for worse mental health, less academic success and worse relationships with family members. Jensen said they are more likely to engage in substance use.

According to Jensen, “some studies have looked at how much inequality there is.” Some families have just a bit of favoritism, while other families have much more. The children who are obviously favored are more likely to have worse outcomes, worse mental health, and worse relationships as well as get into more trouble.

The study itself notes the differences aren’t just about parental favoritism, but being parented differently. It adds that children’s characteristics can draw out or encourage different types of parenting. “Our findings specifically suggest that within families, some children may be easier to parent than others.”

The study also finds that “parents tend to be less controlling of or grant more autonomy to older siblings,” who are generally more capable than their younger siblings. The problem is, that different levels of control, whether developmentally appropriate or not, “has been linked to lower self-worth and more problem behaviors among the less-favored children, who likely don’t consider it fair,” per the research.

The researchers also said that children and parents don’t necessarily perceive things the same way. Parents and children can experience the same relationships and see and understand them differently.

So, what is a parent to do? According to Jensen, parents should “watch for signs that a child thinks something is unfair.” They should not brush off a child’s claim of unfairness. As an example, Jensen shared an experience from his own family. He noticed that his six-year-old  daughter was struggling with her perceived imbalance of fairness.

After some probing, he discovered that she was upset because a younger sister had the most dresses. He asked some questions about where the dresses came from. When she realized that both girls got new dresses from the store but the sister got hand-me-down dresses from her, the girl realized that it was not favoritism that caused her to have fewer dresses.

Paying attention and probing may help a mother, a father, or a set of parents to see that a difference in parenting is needed. Children do not need to be treated exactly the same way. If one child needs new shoes and the other does not, then it is perfectly okay to get new shoes for the child who needs them. However, when the other child needs new shoes, they should get them.

The bottom line? Because favoritism can shape both sibling relationships and child well-being, parents should be mindful and if they see problematic patterns, they can only strengthen their families by correcting those patterns.

There is always something – a study, a comment, or whatever – that will come along and make a parent feel guilty or like a failure. Parents should be patient with themselves and their children, and they should always try to be the best parent possible within their ability. God will help us in our parenting, and we can strengthen our families, communities, states, and nations as we rely upon Him. 

Does the Fourteenth Amendment Apply to All Births in U.S.?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns birthright citizenship. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added.)

According to Jon Guze, a Senior Fellow at Legal Studies of the John Lock Foundation, the Fourteenth Amendment “was ratified 150 years ago – on July 9, 1868. It was one of the ‘reconstruction amendments’ that were passed after the Civil War to fully and permanently abolish slavery and protect the rights of freed slaves….” 

Many people read the first part of “the citizenship clause” – “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” – and pass over the last part of the clause – “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The first part is often discussed, but little attention is given to the second part. This situation may soon change.

In kicking off his second term as President of the United States, Trump signed dozens of Executive Orders, one of which applies to this discussion. Candace Hathaway at The Blaze provided information on the order. 

The executive order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” argued that “the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States” if those individuals’ parents were illegally in the country or not lawful permanent residents at the time of their birth.

Soon after Trump signed the executive order, “the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the administration, arguing that the action was unconstitutional. In addition, “attorneys general from 18 states sued Trump to block the executive order. San Francisco and Washington, D.C., also joined the legal action against the president.”

The citizenship clause has never been challenged in a case involving an illegal immigrant. Many people use the case of 20-year-old Wong Kim Ark to show that the “anchor babies” of illegal immigrants should be given U.S. citizenship. However, Wong was born to immigrant parents who were in the United States legally. U.S. birthright citizenship established by 1898 San Francisco case involving Chinatown resident - CBS San Francisco

Wong was born in the United States, and he was living in San Francisco when he made a trip to China. Upon his return to the United States, he was denied reentry on the basis of the Chinese Exclusionary Act.  He sued the government and said that he was guaranteed citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment. He won the case.

Trump and many other Americans, including me, believe that the current understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment is wrong. We believe that the guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to babies born to parents who are in the United States legally. Trump obviously wants the Supreme Court to rule on the matter, and the lawsuits by ACLU and eighteen states are helping to move it along. Hathaway gave the following information. 

Trump’s order seeks to clarify the 14^th Amendment, stating that it “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” Instead, the action asserts that children with noncitizen parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.

The Trump administration anticipated legal challenges concerning the executive order.

Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press secretary, told Fox News Digital, “Radical leftists can either choose to swim against the tide and reject the overwhelming will of the people, or they can get on board and work with President Trump to advance his wildly popular agenda.”

“These lawsuits are nothing more than an extension of the left’s resistance – and the Trump administration is ready to face them in court,” Fields said.

Long time readers of this blog know that I have railed about birthright citizenship many times over the past fifteen years. I hope that this case does go to the Supreme Court, and I hope that I am proven correct in my opinion. 

What Did Trump Say in His Inaugural Address?

It is morning in America after a dark four-year Biden administration. Once again, Trump has a Democrat-created mess to clean up before he can start healing America and moving our nation forward. To Trump, Monday was the beginning of a golden era.

Trump delivered his second inaugural address inside the Capitol Rotunda because the weather was frigid in Washington, D.C. In his address, he vowed to “restore integrity and efficiency to the federal government.”

Even though Trump won a decisive Electoral College victory and the popular vote, he desires to heal and unify America. Trump invoked Martin Luther King Jr. and asserted, “Impossible is what we do best.” Fred Lucas shared eight takeaways from Trump’s address. 

1. ‘Stars and Stripes on the Planet Mars’

Among the newer policies Trump spoke of was putting a man on Mars.

“We will pursue our Manifest Destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars,” Trump said….

2. ‘Saved for a Reason’

Trump referenced the attempt on his life on July 13 in Pennsylvania when a would-be assassin shot Trump in the ear and killed a supporter in the crowd….

“From this moment on, America’s decline is over. Our liberties and our nation’s glorious destiny will no longer be denied, and we will immediately restore the integrity, competency, and loyalty of America’s government,” Trump said.

“… Just a few months ago in a beautiful Pennsylvania field an assassin’s bullet ripped through my ear. But I felt then, and believe even more so now, that my life was saved for a reason. I was saved by God to make America great again.” …

3. ‘Weaponization … Will End’

Minutes before leaving office, former President Joe Biden pardoned several family members who had been under congressional investigation for possible influence-peddling, and hours after similar preemptive pardons of political allies.

Early in his speech, Trump vowed to restored integrity to the U.S. justice system, after facing multiple investigations from the Biden Justice Department.

“Our sovereignty will be reclaimed,” Trump said. “Our safety will be restored. The scales of justice will be rebalanced. The vicious, violent, and unfair weaponization of the Justice Department and our government will end.”

4. ‘Liberation Day’ and Honoring MLK

Trump said that Jan. 20, 2025, should be regarded as “Liberation Day.” …

Trump referenced the growing support among constituencies that haven’t often supported Republican candidates, as he noted that he was sworn into office on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

“To the black and Hispanic communities, I want to thank you for the tremendous outpouring of love and trust you showed me with your vote,” Trump said. “Today is Martin Luther King Day, and in his honor, this will be a great honor, in his honor, we will strive together to make his dream a reality. We will make his dream come true.”

5. ‘Only Two Genders’

Trump also called for ending government social engineering on race and gender.

“This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life. We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based,” Trump said. “As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.”

6. ‘External Revenue Service’

While the Internal Revenue Service is the Treasury Department agency charged with tax collection from Americans, Trump announced plans for what he dubbed the “External Revenue Service” to fund the government with revenues from foreign countries.

“I will immediately begin the overhaul of our trade system to protect American workers and families,” he said. “Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens.”

He added: “For this purpose, we are establishing the External Revenue Service, to collect all tariffs, duties, and revenues….”

7. ‘National Emergency at Our Southern Border’

Trump said protecting the southern border would be a major priority, and announced numerous executive orders.

“I will declare a national emergency at our southern border,” Trump said. “All illegal entry will immediately be halted, and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came.”

“We will reinstate my ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy. I will end the process of catch-and-release. And I will send troops to the southern border to stop the disastrous invasion of our country,” Trump said.

He added that Mexican cartels will be designated foreign terrorist organizations….

8. ‘National Energy Emergency’

Trump also vowed to roll back the energy policies of the Biden administration.

“The inflation crisis was caused by massive overspending and escalating energy prices. That is why today, I will also declare a national energy emergency,” he said. “We will drill, baby drill.” …

What Was Biden Thinking?

Former President Joe Biden claimed just before leaving office that the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified and is part of the U.S. Constitution. He has been wrong on a lot of matters, but this statement shows that he really is senile. Thomas Jipping at the Heritage Center shared his thoughts on the former President’s statement. 

Here, for the umpteenth time, are the facts. The Constitution provides that Congress, by a two-thirds vote, may propose an amendment to the Constitution and that it becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by three-fourths of the states (38) in the manner Congress requires.

Rep. Martha Griffiths, D-Mich., introduced House Joint Resolution 208 in 1971 to propose this language: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

As Congress had done 10 previous times, it included a seven-year deadline for state ratification in her resolution. The women’s groups baking the ERA supported doing so, and everyone knew that the deadline was binding.

Congress passed Griffiths’ resolution and sent it to the states on March 22, 1972. As the March 1979 deadline approached, 35 states had ratified the ERA, but five of those had pulled their support. Even after Congress (in a move later found unconstitutional) added 39 months to the process, that’s where the tally stood. The amendment failed to get the support of 38 states. The ERA was dead….

The Congressional Research Service says that the 1972 ERA “formally died on June 30, 1982.”

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission, in a report authored by none other than future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that the 1972 ERA had to be ratified by its deadline to become part of the Constitution. It’s not part of the Constitution because it wasn’t ratified by the deadline.

So, what on earth is Biden talking about? Well, three states – Nevada in 2017, Illinois in 2019, and Virginia in 2020 – passed resolutions “ratifying” the 1972 ERA decades after it expired.

Here’s some fantasy math for you: Start with the 35 states that passed ratifying resolutions, ignore the five states that withdrew their support before the deadline, and add the three states that pretended to ratify after the deadline and … wait for it … there are your 38 states! There might [be] a universe where that makes sense, but it’s not this one.

Only two issues are relevant here. First, did Congress have authority to set a ratification deadline when it proposed the 1972 ERA? Yes. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this authority in 1921. The Justice Department, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, has repeatedly greed. I examined the arguments in detail … and came to the same conclusion. I explained that conclusion to a House Judiciary Subcommittee in September 2023.

Second, had at least 38 states ratified the 1972 ERA by the deadline? The answer is no, whether you include or exclude the rescinding states. I don’t mean to sound condescending, but 35 and 30 are both less than 38. But don’t listen to me, take it from Ginsburg. In 2020, she said that the ERA should “start over” because “there’s too much controversy about latecomers.”

A stronger proponent of the ERA should be difficult to find, yet she asked the crucial question: “If you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard states that said, ‘We’ve changed our minds’?” Indeed.

So, we can assume that Biden was in La-La-Land once again and did not know what he was saying. All Americans should be grateful that Biden is no longer POTUS!