Will Trump’s Firing of Lisa Cook End Quickly?

 The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the power of the President of the United States to fire appointed members of the Executive Branch. This includes the power to fire members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors (Fed) for “cause.”

Recently, William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency referred Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, to the Department of Justice for allegedly committing mortgage fraud “by lying about her principal place of residence for purposes of securing more favorable interest rates – and then failed to report her rental income from the properties, to boot.”

Since Cook was hired to enforce mortgage laws and prevent mortgage fraud, President Donald Trump suggested that Cook should resign from the Fed and threatened to fire her if she did not resign. She did not resign, and Trump fired her – the first POTUS to ever try to “fire a fed governor for cause.”

Trump’s detractors immediate criticized him for violating “institutional norms,” but Josh Hammer claims that Trump “acted appropriately” and “fully within his constitutional and statutorily delegated authority … -- whether for ‘cause’ or not.” He suggests that we “return to first principles.” 

The modern administrative state operates as a fourth branch of government, unmoored from direct political accountability….

Article II of the Constitution vests the entirety of the “executive power” in the hands of the president of the United States….

… Members of the Fed’s board of governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They exercise significant policymaking authority, affecting the economy, interest rates and the value of the dollar. That is executive power under any reasonable understanding of the term.

Even more to the point, if the Fed is not part of the executive branch such that the president is able to wield plenary removal power, then where exactly is it? Surely, the Fed is not part of Congress or the judiciary….

Ultimately, Trump must be able to fire members of the Fed’s board of the governors – or else the Fed is structured in an unconstitutional manner. There is no tenable middle ground here.

What about the relevant authorizing statute? The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which brought the Fed into existence, sets staggered 14-year terms for governors and doesn’t expressly provide for at-will removal. But it also doesn’t specify what constitutes a legitimate “cause” for a governor’s removal. Congress could have specified that “cause” requires, as Cook’s counsel Abbe Lowell now argues, a Fed governor to first be indicted or convicted of a crime. But Congress didn’t specify that.

“Cause” absent such specification is an inherently subjective criterion. And what could be more legitimate of a cause for removing a governor of the nation’s central bank – which is, among other things, the lender of last resort to the country’s financial institutions – than the alleged defrauding of financial institutions? The allegations raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of the Fed. It is in the national interest to preserve that legitimacy.

Let’s also not forget: Term length does not equal tenure protection. Saying governors serve “for 14 years” is not the same as saying they cannot be removed within that time period. Courts have made this distinction plenty of times before – consider, for instance, the (legitimate) 2017 dismissal of James Comey, who was less than four years into what was to have been a 10-year tenure as FBI director.

The lawsuits will come anyway. So be it. Those fights are worth having. Trump’s first term was plagued by internal sabotage from bureaucrats and agency officers who fancied themselves a coequal branch of government. It is imperative that Trump’s second term not repeat that tragic mistake. And the first for-cause removal of a sitting Fed governor sends an unmistakable message: The American people, through their elected president, will once again take the reins of government.

How Do We Receive of the Father’s Fulness?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 93 in a lesson titled “Receive of His Fulness.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

“When you climb up a ladder,” Joseph Smith taught, “you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

Sometimes that ladder of exaltation seems impossibly high, but we were born to climb to the top with the Savior’s constant help. Whatever limitations we may see in ourselves, Heavenly Father and His Son see something glorious in us, something godlike. Just as Jesus Christ “was in the beginning with the Father,” so “ye were also” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:21, 23). Just as He “continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness,” so also “you shall receive grace for grace” (verses 13, 20). The restored gospel teaches about the true nature of God, and so it also teaches about your true nature and destiny. You are a literal child of God with the potential to “in due time receive of his fulness” (verse 19).

The scripture block includes the following principles: (1) Like Jesus Christ, I can be glorified and receive God’s “fulness” (Doctrine and Covenants 93, (2) The glory of God is light and truth (Doctrine and Covenants 93:1-39), and (3) “Set in order your own house” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:40-50).

This essay will discuss the third principle. We will first look at the applicable verses. 

40 But I have commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth.

41 But verily I say unto you, my servant Frederick G. Williams, you have continued under this condemnation;

42 You have not taught your children light and truth, according to the commandments; and that wicked one hath power, as yet, over you, and this is the cause of your affliction.

43 And now a commandment I give unto you—if you will be delivered you shall set in order your own house, for there are many things that are not right in your house.

44 Verily, I say unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, that in some things he hath not kept the commandments concerning his children; therefore, first set in order thy house.

45 Verily, I say unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., or in other words, I will call you friends, for you are my friends, and ye shall have an inheritance with me—

46 I called you servants for the world’s sake, and ye are their servants for my sake—

47 And now, verily I say unto Joseph Smith, Jun.—You have not kept the commandments, and must needs stand rebuked before the Lord;

48 Your family must needs repent and forsake some things, and give more earnest heed unto your sayings, or be removed out of their place.

49 What I say unto one I say unto all; pray always lest that wicked one have power in you, and remove you out of your place.

50 My servant Newel K. Whitney also, a bishop of my church, hath need to be chastened, and set in order his family, and see that they are more diligent and concerned at home, and pray always, or they shall be removed out of their place.

The above instructions were given to the First Presidency and the Bishop in Kirtland – the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ. To me, the fact that Joseph Smith included this information in the Doctrine and Covenants shows that he is a true prophet. If he were a false prophet, he certainly would not have pointed out his personal faults.

The command to “set in order your own house” (verse 43) isn’t about organizing cupboards and closets but about teaching and learning “light and truth” (verse 42). It is easy to see where other people need to improve and more difficult to see where we personally need to improve. The Lord wanted his leaders to set a good example for all the members, including how they teach and learn in their own homes. Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught this principle as follows:

“In my office is a beautiful painting of a wheat field. The painting is a vast collection of individual brushstrokes—none of which in isolation is very interesting or impressive. In fact, if you stand close to the canvas, all you can see is a mass of seemingly unrelated and unattractive streaks of yellow and gold and brown paint. However, as you gradually move away from the canvas, all of the individual brushstrokes combine together and produce a magnificent landscape of a wheat field. Many ordinary, individual brushstrokes work together to create a captivating and beautiful painting.

“Each family prayer, each episode of family scripture study, and each family home evening is a brushstroke on the canvas of our souls. No one event may appear to be very impressive or memorable. But just as the yellow and gold and brown strokes of paint complement each other and produce an impressive masterpiece, so our consistency in doing seemingly small things can lead to significant spiritual results. ‘Wherefore, be not weary in well-doing, for ye are laying the foundation of a great work. And out of small things proceedeth that which is great’ [Doctrine and Covenants 64:33]. Consistency is a key principle as we lay the foundation of a great work in our individual lives and as we become more diligent and concerned in our own homes” (“More Diligent and Concerned at Home,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2009, 19–20). 

How Important Is the Mother-Baby Dyad?

Families, communities, states, and nations are strengthened when adults put the needs of babies ahead of their own selfish interests. Valerie Hudson, a university distinguished professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, authored an article about this topic that was published at The Deseret News. She began her article with the following introduction. 

In this age of pervasive alienation and loneliness, it is worth remembering the root of all human connection and the template for human love: that is, the mother-child dyad. [ChatGPT defines dyad as follows: A dyad is defined as a group or pair of two individuals or units that are regarded as a pair. In sociology, it specifically refers to two individuals maintaining a significant relationship, such as a husband and wife. In psychology, it is considered the smallest social group possible. Additionally, in biology, dyad can refer to a pair of homologous chromosomes. Overall, the term encompasses various contexts where two entities interact or relate to each other.] 

That connection begins in the womb, and modern science has brought to light the many different forms in which the in utero connection manifests itself, whether in epigenetics, microchimerism or a dozen other ways. Newborns come into the world recognizing their mother’s voice and scent, and the hormones of attachment produced in both the mother and the neonate cement the bond built over nine months of pregnancy.

Arguably, all human social connections are derived, one way or the other, from this original connection of mother and baby. The dyad is, if you will, the very first human society we join. When this foundational attachment is rendered weak or insecure, or is severed, lasting damage to the child’s ability to form relationships with others may result.

That damage, in turn, may affect societal levels of trust, cooperation and fidelity, as well as societal levels of alienation, loneliness and anomie. In a sense, we – as individuals and as societies – depend on mothers to make us fit for human society.

Of course, sometimes tragic circumstances do not permit the unfolding of the mother-baby relationship, such as when the mother dies in or after childbirth. There may be other situations, such as heavy drug use by the mother, that necessitate deviation. But in general, society is founded upon healthy mother-baby attachment, and we truck with that relationship at our peril.

Hudson gives several circumstances where mothers are routinely separated from their babies. The first circumstance is mothers who give birth in prison. She describes how some nations separate mothers in prison from their babies, while other nations have special units where mothers and babies can stay together.

Hudson’s second circumstance is adoption where the mother-child bond is jettisoned when “new, amended birth certificates on which only the names of the adoptive parents are inscribed.” She describes this action as erasing the birth mother from the child’s life “as an issue of privacy, … not a necessity” and writes that it would be easy to provide “an additional line that bears her name.” She explains that some organizations quote “Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child asserts that children have the right to know who their biological parents are or were, and that every individual born should be afforded that right  under their country’s laws.”

Hudson’s third circumstance is surrogacy. She claims that “it is in the matter of surrogacy that the worst excesses of a system that devalues the mother-child bond occur.” She is a foe of surrogacy but recognizes that “there is no longer any U.S. state that bans the practice, although four states – Arizona, Michigan, Nebraska and Louisiana – thankfully have severe limitations on it.

Most other states have taken a laissez-faire approach to surrogacy, which has created mind-boggling mischief that offends even the most basic common sense. For example, obtaining a child through surrogacy has none of the guardrails and safety precautions of adoption. If you wish to adopt a child in the United States, you and every member of your household will undergo a thorough background check, and it will be required that a social worker make several home visits to evaluate the situation into which the child will be placed.

None of these checks are required in surrogacy. Predictably, convicted sex offenders and pedophiles, who would never in a million years be allowed to adopt or foster a child, are perfectly free to obtain a child through surrogacy.

Hudson discussed a case in Pennsylvania where a registered sex offender obtained a child through surrogacy. The County District Attorney recognized that there is a loophole in the law, which is “an issue ripe for review and remedy” in the state legislature. Florida legislature is considering a law to close such loopholes, but every state should raise the bar for surrogacy. However, Hudson sees a larger problem in surrogacy.

In addition to all of these serious concerns, consider also that in the Mitchell case, the mother who carried the child was completely erased; her name was not even on the state’s original birth certificate for the child….

Policy-wise, we have it all upside down: the mother of the child – the woman who carried and delivered the child – should never have been erased, and she should have had the right to demand that there be a background check of the intended parents.

The exchange of money doesn’t trump a mother’s responsibility for her child, and neither do genes. The woman who carried the child has established the child’s humanity, and her right to safeguard the child on the basis of this real, tangible relationship should be preserved, as should her right to be named on the original birth certificate as the mother of the child.

As University of Colorado law professor Jennifer Hendricks explains: “The person who gives birth to a child is that child’s initial family. She is therefore also the person who should make initial decisions about who else should join that family…. Genes alone are not enough [to] claim connection with a child.”

Neither is money sufficient to claim connection, as in the case of surrogacy. Surrogacy contracts should be made legally unenforceable, and the relinquishment of a child in surrogacy must be placed under the same legal framework as adoption….

There is no safe or ethical form of surrogacy which could be delivered by ‘better regulation’: “we need a global ban on surrogacy for all and we need it now. Children must come first.”

And it’s important to get these policy choices straight now.

Consider that Chinese scientists are hoping to create a pregnancy robot, which will carry around your pod baby and speak to it, in a simulacrum of a mother’s body and voice. There would be no mother-baby dyad at all in that case, no human connection at the beginning of life, and the erasure of the child’s mother would be effected in full. Is this really in the baby’s best interest?

A secure mother-child dyad can prevent many future problems and strengthen families, communities, states, and nations.

Why Do Companies Continue to Go Woke?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is that woke-ism is not supported by most Americans, but companies continue to “go woke” even though other companies almost “went broke” while doing so.

Bud Light (along with numerous other companies such as Target, Nike, and Chick-fil-A) went woke in 2023. The company nearly went broke after sending one can of Bud Light to trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney with her face on it. It did not help that a company officer insulted its male customers. The best-selling beer in the United States became the second best-selling beer when it faced significant boycotts as well as declining sales. Americans are finished with “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” demands and refuse to support companies who go woke.

Cracker Barrel must not have been paying much attention to the circus surrounding Bud Light because Cracker Barrel is now facing a backlash for redesigning its logo this month. The recent change in the company logo removed the “old timer” sitting on a chair next to a barrel and replaced it with a plain “Cracker Barrel” logo.

Cracker Barrel may be a faster learner than Bud Light was, but only time will tell. Andrew Chapados authored an article about Cracker Barrel with the following information published by The Blaze. 

Cracker Barrel has changed its diversity page at least three times this month as it deals with backlash from the redesign.

Love for the franchise tanked when customers saw the company had changed its recognizable logo into a shadow of its former self, removing the “old-timer” known as Uncle Herschel sitting on a chair next to a barrel.

Also gone was the barrel itself, along with the text “Old Country Store,” leaving just black “Cracker Barrel” text on a yellow background. The new menus, website, and interior design of Cracker Barrel locations also angered consumers, leaving the company to apologize for the errors.

The company does not appear to be returning to be returning to the old logo and design, however, and is seemingly digging itself a deeper hole by trying to mask its progressive leanings.

In an attempt to invoke old Uncle Herschel without actually showing him, Cracker Barrel has featured “the Herschel Way” on its web page dedicated to “culture and belonging.”

Were the Raids on John Bolton’s Home and Office Justified?

Last week, the FBI raided the home and office of John Bolton, former national security advisor during the first administration of Donald Trump. Documents – possibly classified ones – were taken, but Bolton was not arrested or indicted. People on the Left and “Never Trump” claim that Trump is seeking revenge tour because John Brennan, James Clapper, and James Comey are under investigation. Threats are made about going after Anthony Fauci.

In an article published at The Daily Signal, Victor Davis Hanson claim that there is “more to the story.” Bolton’s “story” began in 2019 when Trump fired Bolton as national security adviser. At the time, Bolton was writing a “book on the premise that he had been in the room.” 

So, he was supposed to be this anti-Trump, high-level appointee and famous in the conservative circles as a war hawk and interventionist. But he had intimate knowledge about how Donald Trump functioned abroad with major allies and enemies and rivals and neutrals and how he was at home. And he wrote this damning book, memoir about Trump.

The Trump DOJ said, “He’s just trying to write this right during the campaign season. And he’s a surrogate for the Biden campaign, in his bitterness. He’s angry. But more importantly, he is using this classified information through the filter of the notes he took and he is going to hurt U.S. national security.”

So, [the DOJ filed] a motion to stop the publication.

The book was almost out. A federal judge, Royce Lamberth, looked at it and he thought – he basically said, “Well, I can’t really stop the book. It’s gonna be released in a few days.” But in kind of a rare excursus, he said, “John Bolton, you’re doing something wrong. You are violating, likely national security laws. And if you don’t stop, you’ll be subject, at some point, to criminal prosecution.” And then he let it rest.

Then the DOJ kept investigating. Donald Trump lost the election. During the [Biden] transition, they looked at it…. When President Joe Biden came into office, they dropped it by June. Six months.

So now the question is, did they go in to get these documents last week because they were on a revenge tour? Retribution against Bolton because he’s been all over left-wing cable news … blasting Donald Trump on everything…. And therefore, he made himself a target….

There [are] two things to watch to see whether Bolton is accurate. But I would … [talk] about those two criteria. I will say that when Donald Trump’s home was raided on Aug. 9, 2022, John Bolton spoke out [saying to not jump to conclusions, but] he’s probably guilty….

So, he was very critical of anybody who objected to what he thought was an FBI-legitimate raid on Mar-a-Lago.

Now it’s ironic. We’ll see if he uses the same tropes and themes to protect himself in the way that he blasted Trump for a similar raid. But what we’re looking at is to see if it was justified or whether it was vengeful … but a federal judge said, “You know what? There’s something there,” but it was dropped, to go back and rehash that I don’t think is gonna be worth it.

And maybe it was a vengeful shot across the bow to Bolton. He probably wouldn’t be charged. But also, to other people like Comey and Clapper and Brennan, Fauci, Mark Milley: “All of you, be careful. You’ve done something wrong and we’re gonna investigate you. And that’s gonna cost you a lot of money for legal counsel.” That would not be good, it that were true.

But here’s why I don’t think it’s quite like that. To get the FBI’s permission to go into the Bolton home, you had to have two different federal judges examine the request – the permission to enter the Bolton home and office. And they did give it. And they’re disinterested third parties.

Second, why did the Biden administration drop this investigation? They never even told us….

And third, … there were leaks, rumors that the FBI went in there not to examine the old charges of his notes that were used improperly to write his critical anti-Trump book, but because there had been allegations, for a long time, that John Bolton transferred classified information. That doesn’t mean he downloaded attachments, necessarily – CIA or FBI analyses or national security assessments. It just meant that he was trying to transfer some information that he should not to his family, as if he could evade surveillance by intelligence authorities of any impropriety.

If he did that … – as some of the rumors say – then it’s a different story. That would be new information.

And that would mean that John Bolton – maybe to write his notes, maybe to enhance his career s a consultant, or think tanker, or as an author, or just  gadfly – was going back and looking at things that transpired during his first-term service …. But nevertheless, to chronicle it, he didn’t just write it down in his notebook, which could be found and subpoenaed, but he sent emails to particular people, namely his family, to memorialize that. If that’s true, he has legal jeopardy.

So it’s either … a vengeful tour, revenge, retribution, payback. I think, more likely, there’s something there or two – … – two federal judges would not have given permission to look. And if he did transfer files that were classified, the penalties fall under the Espionage Act. And they can be over 10 to 20 years in imprisonment.

So, we’ll see what’s going to happen. But meanwhile, the Left is alleging retribution. And the Trump DOJ and FBI said, “Just hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Wait till you read the actual request for an intervention or so-called raid. And let’s see what we found and then make an assessment.”

 

Why Should We Read for Pleasure?

This site reported that “Fewer Americans are reading for fun.” They based their statement on a “new study finding a “concerning” decline in the number of readers over the last 20 years. “Only 16% of Americans reported reading for fun on a given day in 2023, according to the study, which was published Wednesday in the journal iScience – a 40% drop from a high point of 28% in 2004.” 

The article continued that this is “a sustained, steady decline of about 3% per year,” according to Jill Sonke, one of the authors of the study and co-director of the EpiArts Lab at the University of Florida, in a news release. “It’s significant, and it’s deeply concerning.”

Why Is There a Decline in Reading?

Between 2003 and 2023, researchers conducting the study analyzed more than 230,000 surveys of Americans age 15 and older. Researchers offered some possible reasons for the decline in reading.

One of the most obvious potential culprits is the rise in time spent online, whether on streaming services or social media.

“There’s a correlation between time spent on digital media and reductions in reading time,” Sonke said, according to ABC News. “It does seem logical that the ways in which digital media compete for our time would be a factor in these declines in reading.”

But digital media isn’t the only possible factor. In the news release, Sonke also pointed to “structural issues,” including “limited access to reading materials, economic insecurity and a national decline in leisure time.”

The study noted that highly educated and high-income people were more likely to read than the least educated and low-income individuals in 2023, according to The New York Times.

According to Daisy Fancourt, a co-author of the study and a professor of psychobiology and epidemiology at University College London, “Potentially the people who could benefit the most for their health – so people from disadvantaged groups – are actually benefiting the least,” per the Times.

Why Is Reading Important?

The article stated, “there are a number of benefits that come from reading.” The most important reason given is that “reading for pleasure is actually a health promoting activity” according to Sonke.

“We know that participating in the arts is a health behavior because it statistically results in improved health outcomes including well-being, social cohesion, mental health.”

Reading can reduce stress and promote relaxation, Sonke said, according to CNN. It can also help develop empathy and connection with others.

“Even though reading is often thought of as more of an individual activity, when we read stories, we actually form connections with characters,” Fancourt said, per the Times. “The empathy that we feel for the is actually real, and these connections with characters can be ways that we can feel less alone, that we can feel socially and emotionally validated.”

There are also lots of benefits to children who read with parents or other adults in their lives, including boosting kids’ academic skills. However, the study found that while the number of those who read with children did not change during the 20-year period, it was much less common than reading for pleasure.

“Reading has historically been a low-barrier, high-impact way to engage creatively and improve quality of life,” Sonke said in the news release. “When we lose one of the simplest tools in our public health toolkit, it’s a serious loss.”

The most important reason for reading for pleasure is for health benefits. The second most important reason for adults to read for pleasure is to set a good example for children. Beginning as toddlers, children are great imitators. If they see their parents on their cell phones, they will want to imitate them and do so with all kinds of objects. However, children who see their parents reading for pleasure – either to themselves or to their children, they will pick up books and imitate reading.

How do I know? I am the mother of six children and the grandmother of nineteen grandchildren. My children were small before cell phones were created, so they did not have an opportunity to watch me focus on a cell phone. However, they did see me reading for pleasure as well as for knowledge. Books became important to them at young ages, and all six of them read for pleasure in adulthood. They each received a book for Christmas as children and teens, and they still receive a book from me as adults. Most of their children enjoy reading for pleasure, and some of them are seldom seen without a book in their hands.

This site gives five reasons why reading is critical for academic success. “The American Pediatrics Association reports that reading when young – even infants being read to by their parents – increases academic success down the road.” 

According to the article, “many children enter kindergarten without the skills needed to read well.” Therefore, trained elementary school teachers are critical in “the development of young minds in this vital area.” Student literacy impacts a child’s mind in the following ways:

·         Self Esteem

This might be the most important area of all. The sooner students develop reading skills, the more they gain ground in the areas listed below. That leads to more assurance in how they speak and write, as well as giving them the confidence of an expanded knowledge base. When students start at an early age to read about diverse people, distant places, and historical events, they become more creative and open. Also, those who have read a lot will naturally be asked to answer more questions – another confidence builder for a young student.

·         Improved Concentration

An emphasis on reading and student literacy helps develop higher levels of focus and concentration. It also forces the reader to sort things out in their own mind – including topic that might not be familiar to them at all (Paris at the end of World War II, for example, or another planet in a science fiction novel). This type of concentration on one topic – rather than trying to do many things at once – leads to better focus even after the book is put down.

·         Critical and Analytical Thinking Skills

The classic here is when a young reader becomes absorbed with a mystery book – Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew were examples for generations of Americans – and manages to solve the mystery in her head before the books reveal it. That’s a simple example of how reading helps students develop better critical and analytical skills, something that carries over even after they have put the book down.

 

 

·         Stronger Memory Skills

Think about reading. Even an elementary age child with a relatively simple book must keep in mind a group of characters, the setting, and past actions. Reading helps to strengthen memory retention skills. That’s a powerful tool for young students – and older adults, as well.

·         Expanded Vocabulary

How many times do we all search for just the right word to express what we’re trying to say? Readers do that less. They have a larger vocabulary, and the words that young readers learn in a book will eventually make their way into their speech.

How to Read More Books

Since reading is so important to adults as well as children, what are some effective ways to start reading more? The article on the study made the following suggestions. 

·         Set a goal to read for a certain number of minutes per day. Start with five, ten, or twenty-five minutes every day to form a new habit.

·         Track your reading in an app like Goodreads or in “a reading journal where you can record your thoughts.”

·         Try a new genre. Switch from fiction to nonfiction or read a thriller instead of a romance to “reboot your excitement for reading.”

·         Join a book club. Reading with a group can bring “a greater sense of accountability.”

·         Don’t be afraid to quit. If you do not enjoy reading a chosen book, put it away for a time and read another book.

  

Who Is Andrew Bailey?

My VIP for this week is Andrew Bailey, Republican, former attorney general for Missouri and current co-deputy director of the FBI. According to an article written by Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell and published at The Daily Signal, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the following about Bailey: 

He has served as a distinguished attorney general for Missouri and is a decorated war veteran, bringing expertise and dedication to service…. His leadership and commitment to country will be a tremendous asset as we work together to advance President Trump’s mission. While we know this is undoubtedly a great loss for Missouri, it is a tremendous gain for America.

Bailey said the following about his appointment: “My life has been defined by a call to service, and I am once again answering that call this time, at the national level.”

Mitchell shared the following five things that Americans should know about Bailey’s time as attorney general for Missouri:

Protecting Kids From Gender Ideology

Bailey won a lawsuit in April to compel Planned Parenthood to produce documents related to the “gender transition” of minors in Missouri….

Bailey started investigating the use of “transgender” hormones, puberty blockers, and surgeries for minors in the state in March 2023 after a former caseworker at the Washington University Transgender Center said the center rushed children into treatment….

Protecting the Unborn

In January 2023, abortion activists filed suit seeking to dismantle Missouri’s pro-life law, which protects life starting at conception.

Bailey responded by filing a motion to dismiss the legal challenge.

In June 2023, the St. Louis Circuit Court dismissed 10 of the 11 challenges brought by the activists. The following October, the court dismissed the 11^th count and granted Bailey’s motion to dismiss….

This July, Bailey filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for allegedly deceiving women about the safety and efficacy of the abortion pill. The petition seeks more than $1.8 million in civil penalties for daily violations of Missouri law and up to $1,000 in damages or restitution for every Missouri woman Planned Parenthood provided abortion pills to in the past five years.

Securing the Border

In November 2024, Bailey and 16 other state attorneys general obtained a court order throwing out the Biden-Harris administration’s “parole in place” rule that allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain permanent residency in the U.S….

The “parole in place” program would have allowed aliens who had been unlawfully present in the United States for 10 or more years to receive a grant of “parole.” Aliens married to a citizen or the stepchild of a citizen would not have been required to leave the country.

Bailey also filed a lawsuit in July 2024 against the Biden administration for reportedly flying illegal aliens to the Show Me State to try to settle them there.

Holding China Accountable

This March, Bailey won a $24 billion judgment in federal court against the Chinese Communist Party for “unleashing the COVID-19 pandemic.” …

The federal court ruled that Missouri “has established this claim of damages through evidence satisfactory to the court,” proving that China caused and exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bailey announced Missouri would collect the $24 billion judgment and, if necessary, work with the Trump administration to identify and seize Chinese-owned assets in the state.

Deregulating Energy

In 2023, Bailey successfully blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to impose regulations that he said would increase the price of energy for Missourians.

The order prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing the regulations during the appeals process….

What Is Racism?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is racism. An online definition for racism is as follows: “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

In his article about racism published at The Daily Signal, Victor Davis Hanson discussed “challenges to big multiracial democracies like the United States, India, and Brazil.” He said that India and Brazil do not “do very well because they accentuate a caste or a racial or an ethic spoils system.” However, the “United States is the only one in history that has bene somewhat successful, very successful.” Then he added a crucial point: “But it depends on everybody looking at their own identity as incidental to being an American, rather than essential.” He continued his article with this explanation. 

So, why am I talking about this? Recently, Joy Reid, who was an anchorwoman at MSNBC and let go, I think, not for any other reasons, because of poor ratings, but she has a podcast and she blasted, collectively, white people. And she said that “they can’t invent anything.” And then she went into a diatribe about American music, that it was solely the domain of black people.

But what I’m getting at is, we’re getting very dangerous in this DEI movement, as it starts to emit its death throes, as it’s challenged for being racist, which it is. It’s racial essentialism. People who defend it double down, and they double down in a way that’s very injurious for the rest of the country.

So, Joy Reid is basically saying that black people are cognitively superior to other people. I wish this was an isolated incident. But remember, we’ve had this controversy before, about the president of Sacramento State, Luke Wood, who, in his past, was an African American intellectual activist, as he self-describes himself. And he said he want to “eliminate” – that’s a bad word to use, given the history of it in the 20^th century – “eliminate whiteness.” Again, no repercussions.

Lately, a major writer for The New Yorker magazine …, she said some things that prompted people to look at her social media account. And a few years ago, she posted, quite regularly, about white people.

What was very disturbing was she said she’d hated them. She didn’t like them, collectively. And then she started to get into some bizarre, pseudoscientific stereotypes about white people. She said they were, basically, “dirty” and they’re “responsible for plagues” in history. And she said it seemed like everywhere they were, they brought disease.

We know that has a bad history in the 20^th century, claiming that one particular group brings disease. We know who did that in the Third Reich….

… So, she just seems to be as well historically ignorant.

She seems to think that white people have all these advantages in this world, 65 years after the onset of the civil rights movement. But as I said before, if you look at income, so-called white people are about eighth. Ethnic groups, other than whites, are doing better. If you look at hourly wages, it is true that on average, white males make more than black males, but Asian males make far more than white males.

So, what am I getting at? We have zero tolerance when racists, who are white, say such things about other groups. But in a truly multiracial, tolerant society, people who not only attack a group, collectively, and stereotype it, but they do so from positions of influence and power – like The New Yorker magazine or a former MSNBC anchor – they can do a great deal of damage, unless they’re called out for it.

And if we’re gonna make it as a society, everybody has to drop this idea of ethnic and racial chauvinism. And just because a person declares themselves a historical victim of past oppression does not give them a free hand in indulging in the utter and most vile forms of racism, which is collectively demonizing a whole group of people on the basis of their superficial appearance.

Some people claim that black people cannot be racist. However, the definition of racism located at the top of this essay does not list any race or ethnicity. It merely states that racism is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism” by any individual or group against any other individual or group on the basis of race or ethnicity. To me, Joy Reid, Luke Wood, and the writer at The New Yorker magazine sound like racists. There is a common saying that if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. If a person sounds like a racist, they must be a racist.

The truth is that there are people of every race who are intelligent, talented, and every other positive attribute. Each person is a beloved child of God who loves every single one of His children. 

How Could the Word of Wisdom Bless Your Life?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 89-92 in a lesson titled “A Principle with Promise.” The lesson was introduced by the following information.

In the School of the Prophets, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the elders of Israel about building God’s kingdom on earth. They discussed spiritual truths, prayed together, fasted, and prepared to preach the gospel. But there was something about the atmosphere that might seem odd to us today, and it didn’t seem right to Emma Smith either. During the meetings, the men smoked and chewed tobacco, which wasn’t unusual for the time, but it stained the wood floors black and left a strong odor in the air. Emma shared her concerns with Joseph, and Joseph asked the Lord. His response was a revelation that went far beyond smoke and tobacco stains. It gave the Saints, for generations to come, “a principle with promise”—promises of physical health, “wisdom,” and “great treasures of knowledge” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:3, 19). 

The scripture block for this lesson includes the following principles: (1) The Lord gave me the Word of Wisdom to help me be healthy in body and spirit (Doctrine and Covenants 89), (2) The First Presidency holds the “keys of the kingdom” (Doctrine and Covenants 90:1-17), (3) “All things shall work together for [my] good” (Doctrine and Covenants 90:24), (4) Who is Vienna Jaques? (Doctrine and Covenants 90:28-31), and (5) “The Spirit manifesteth truth” (Doctrine and Covenants 91). This essay will discuss principle #1, “The Lord gave me the Word of Wisdom to help me be healthy in body and spirit.”

When the elders in the School of the Prophets first heard Joseph Smith read the Word of Wisdom, they immediately “tossed their pipes and plugs of chewing tobacco into the fire” (Saints, 1:168), They wanted to show their willingness to obey the Lord. Perhaps you have already “tossed” from your life the substances warned against by the Word of Wisdom, but there is more that we can learn from this revelation.

·         This revelation is known as the Word of Wisdom AND “a principle with promise” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:3).

1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

The revelation was first given as a word of wisdom that even the weakest of Saints could obey; however, it later was voted upon by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be a commandment.

·         The promise is given in the closing verses, Doctrine and Covenants 89:18-21.

18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;

19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;

20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.

21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.

I have lived according to the Word of Wisdom for my entire life and have received numerous blessings for doing so. The most important blessing is that I enjoy the frequent companionship of the Holy Ghost and worthily hold a temple recommend. Other blessings include (1) never smelling like tobacco smoke or having teeth yellowed by tobacco use, (2) never being addicted to tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, or drugs, and (3) good health, and (4) knowledge of God and His mysteries.

President Thomas S. Monson shared the following story about a young man who lived the Word of Wisdom and how he was blessed with health and necessary strength when needed (“Principles and Promises,” October 2016). Principles and Promises

Recently I read the true account of a dramatic manifestation concerning these promises. A faithful member of the Church, John A. Larsen, served during World War II in the United States Coast Guard on the ship USS Cambria. During a battle in the Philippines, word came of an approaching squadron of bombers and kamikaze fighter planes. Orders were given for immediate evacuation. Since the USS Cambria was already gone, John and three companions gathered their gear and hurried to the beach, hoping for a lift out to one of the departing ships. Fortunately, a landing craft picked them up and sped toward the last ship leaving the bay. The men on that departing ship, in an effort to evacuate as quickly as possible, were busy on deck and had time only to throw ropes to the four men, that they might hopefully be able to climb to the deck.

John, with a heavy radio strapped to his back, found himself dangling at the end of a 40-foot (12 m) rope, at the side of a ship headed out to the open sea. He began pulling himself up, hand over hand, knowing that if he lost his grip, he would almost certainly perish. After climbing only a third of the way, he felt his arms burning with pain. He had become so weak that he felt he could no longer hold on.

With his strength depleted, as he grimly contemplated his fate, John silently cried unto God, telling Him that he had always kept the Word of Wisdom and had lived a clean life—and he now desperately needed the promised blessings.

John later said that as he finished his prayer, he felt a great surge of strength. He began climbing once again and fairly flew up the rope. When he reached the deck, his breathing was normal and not the least bit labored. The blessings of added health and stamina promised in the Word of Wisdom had been his. He gave thanks to his Heavenly Father then, and throughout the remainder of his life, for the answer to his desperate prayer for help.

Should Parents Be Involved with Teacher Contract Negotiations?

When parents are involved with the education of their children, families, communities, states, and nations are stronger. One way that parents can help their children is to pay attention to contract negotiations between school districts and teachers unions.

According to Paul Runko, the director of strategic initiatives in K-12 programming for Defending Education, parents across America are “reading the fine print” in proposed contracts “increasingly alarmed.” They have discovered that “many collective bargaining agreements – which should be focused on wages, working conditions, and student achievement – are instead being used to embed divisive ideology and sidestep parental rights.” 

As an example, Runko wrote in his article that concerned parents in Denver sent a letter to Denver Public Schools “urging the removal of politicized diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates from its upcoming union contract.” He added other concerns, such as race-based mentoring programs, mandatory ideological training for staff, and other initiatives that prioritize identity politics over academic outcomes.”

Runko explained that the above issues “are not minor provisions” because they “represent a broader trend of using labor contracts as vehicles to secure activist agendas in schools. He continued his explanation by stating that it is not enough to criticize. A better action is to “articulate what a better contract could look like.” Such a contract is “one that affirms educational excellence, respects parents, and upholds the law.” He suggested the following “three constructive priorities that should be included in future collective bargaining agreements.”

1. Affirm Federal Title IX Law as Originally Written

Title IX was passed to protect students and staff from sex-based discrimination in education. It is a civil rights landmark – designed to ensure that girls and boys alike have equal access to academic and scholastic athletic opportunities. But in recent years, this statute has been stretched far beyond its original meaning.

Teachers union contracts should affirm a clear and accurate interpretation of Title IX. That means protecting all students from harassment while also safeguarding the integrity of women’s sports and the rights of students to maintain sex-separated spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms.

The Biden administration’s attempted redefinition of sex to include gender identity…. Unions should do a complete 180 on this issue and assert Title IX as it was written and originally intended.

2. Respect the Right of Parents to Opt Out of Gender and Sexuality Content

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, parents challenged a school district over its refusal to let families op out of instruction related to gender identity and sexual orientation in elementary classrooms. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of religious parents’ right to opt their children out of such controversial instruction.

Future collective bargaining agreements should affirm this simple principle: Religious parents have the right to opt their children out of age-inappropriate or controversial instructional materials – especially those related to LGBTQ+ ideology in grades K-5.

That’s not discrimination. It’s respecting parental authority to direct the education and upbringing of their children….

3. Guarantee Parental Notification and Opt-Out Rights for Student Surveys

Too often, schools administer invasive surveys to students with questions on sexual activity, drug use, mental health, and religious beliefs – without ever informing parents. This violates federal law (namely the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment) and erodes trust between families and schools….

A better contract is not only possible – it’s necessary. Let’s start writing it.

Wise parents can no longer sit back and let other people determine the policies for their schools. These parents must be involved to ensure that their children are taught acceptable material and not have their freedoms infringed. By doing so, wise parents can strengthen their family, community, state, and nation.