Is This War Just About Iran, or Is There More to the Equation?

Iran has been threatening and/or attacking America and Americans for nearly fifty years. Every U.S. President from Jimmy Carter to Joe Biden drew red lines and then allowed Iran to cross them. Now they have formed an axis with Russia, China, and North Korea.

After trying to negotiate with Iran for months, President Donald Trump recognized that Iran was using the negotiations to stall the US while using the time to build more ballistic missiles. Trump said, “no more,” and then approved “a decisive military strike last weekend that targeted hundreds of sites and eliminated key figures in Iran’s top leadership.”

Glenn Beck and Jack Carr, former Navy SEAL and bestselling author, unpacked “what this pivotal moment truly means for the region and beyond.” A portion of the discussion is below, but you can link for more information here. 

When he first heard the news that the U.S. and Israel had launched a joint military attack on Iran, Carr’s initial reaction was one of “sadness.”

“It made me sad because diplomacy had failed,” he says, arguing that Trump’s maximum-pressure campaign against Iran was doomed to fail because acquiescence to any of the three non-negotiables – no nuclear weapons, no ballistic missiles, and no supporting terrorist proxies – would make the Iranian regime look “weak,” something it cannot suffer if it wants to stay in power.

“Any covert action we’d attempted over the last year or in previous administrations over the past decades, that has failed also, and now we’re in a full-scale military engagement with Iran,” he laments.

Glenn agrees wholeheartedly: “Jimmy Carter said, ‘This can’t stand.’ … Ronald Reagan said, ‘They got to stop.’ … H.W. Bush, ‘It’s got to stop. They got to get to the negotiating table.’ Clinton said that, W. Bush said that, Obama said that, Trump said that in the first term, Biden said that.”

“I mean, at some point you’re like, this is insane. We’ve tried giving them billions of dollars; we’ve tried holding money back; we’ve tried carrots and sticks, and nothing works,” he continues, calling Trump “the first one to say, ‘I’m not kicking the can down to the next president. It’s over.’”

“Some of [those former presidents] actually helped Iran get either more powerful or gave them more options when it came to building up these different weapons  programs, to crushing any popular uprising or protests. So I’m not surprised that we got to this point,” Carr says.

“When people declare war on you and tell you that they want to destroy you, you probably don’t want that person to have a nuclear weapon or to have options that can lead to your demise,” he adds.

But Glenn thinks this military operation against Iran is “much bigger” than preventing the terrorist regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“This is about Trump redesigning the entire world and going after CRINK,” he says, arguing that Trump is aiming to “take the I” out of CRINK, “which hurts oil for China, hurts money through oil for Russia,” and weakens Iran’s supply of drones to Russia.

“To look at this just as Iran, I think you’ll never understand why we did this. Do you believe that’s true, or am I wrong?” he asks.

“You’re absolutely right,” Carr says.

He explains that Trump’s military strike on Iran disrupts China’s crucial economic and technological lifeline to the regime. China buys huge amounts of discounted Iranian oil to evade U.S. sanctions and has committed $400 billion over 25 years to Iran – including selling advanced surveillance technology that helps the Iranian government monitor and suppress its own people.

By weakening or breaking this support, the U.S. not only destabilizes Iran’s regime but also frees up American attention and resources to address bigger long-term threats – confronting China over Taiwan (the island China clams as its own) and the tiny but vital computer chips known as semiconductors (the essential “brains” powering phones, computers, cars, AI systems, and military equipment), most of which are produced in Taiwan – while also handling threats from Russia.

“So you’re exactly right. This is not just about Iran,” he says.

What Is the Weapon of Surprise Being Used Against Iran?

In a strange twist of fate, Iran is getting a taste of its own medicine. Iran provided Russia with drones in Ukraine, and the United States reversed engineered them to use in Iran. Carlos Garcia reported the following in his article published at The Blaze. 

The Pentagon said that Iran is getting pummeled by suicide drones using technology that Iran itself developed and used against U.S. allies, including Ukraine.

The U.S. attacked leaders and commanders of the Iranian regime in a joint operation with Israeli forces beginning Saturday morning. President Donald Trump said Monday that the operation was planned to last four weeks but that the military was prepared to continue “for as long as necessary.”

“CENTCOM’s Task Fore Scorpion Strike – for the first time in history – is using one-way attack drones in combat during Operation Epic Fury. These low-cost drones, modeled after Iran’s Shahed drones, are now delivering American-made retribution,” reads a statement from U.S. Central Command.

The LUCAS drone was developed by Arizona-based SpektreWorks and costs about $35,000 each, which is significantly less than other options.

Who Are the Heroes in the Iran War?

My VIPs for this week are the men and women who put themselves between their home country and the people who threaten to destroy their nations. At this particular time, it is the airmen and the sailors, along with all their support personnel, who are in harm’s way as they drop bombs and shoot down missiles and drones.

On Saturday, February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched strikes against Iran in Operation Epic Fury. The purpose is to destroy their ballistic missiles and make it impossible for Iran to continue their reign of terror with nuclear power.

This is not the start of a new war because Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. Their favorite refrain is “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” They call the US the “Big Satan” and Israel the “Little Satan.” The US hopes to end the 47-year war in this operation.

Within the opening minutes of the attack, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed along with 48 of the top Iranian leaders. They were gathered for a meeting in person because they did not trust electronic meetings. Six US personnel have died during the operation.

According to an article by Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell, the Iranian people will choose their new leader. President Donald Trump’s key objective for the operation is to ensure that Iran never gains the ability to have a nuclear weapon. He also wants the Iranian people to have an opportunity to shape the destiny of their country.

The USA and Israel were alone in the attack until Iran shot missiles into neighboring countries. Following the initiation of the operation by the US and Israel, multiple nations have joined the effort. 

… The United States has used military bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and possibly Israel to support its air campaign against Iranian targets, with bases in all these targets having come under attack….

Iranian ballistic missile strikes have been responded to with intense missile defence operations by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, which have employed their own air defence systems to protect U.S. bases and other targets from Iranian strikes, making them direct participants in the war effort….

In addition to the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait, the United Kingdom and France have joined the war effort. Spain has refused to allow US fighter jets to use air bases there.

Should Religious Leaders Be Involved in Birthright Citizenship Decision?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is President Donald Trump’s executive order rescinding American citizenship to anyone born on American soil and the recent action by the Conference of Catholic Bishops inserting themselves into the Supreme Court decision. Could this be a case of a religion stepping over the line between Church and State?

Steve Cortes, president of the League of American Workers and advisor to CatholicVote, shared his thoughts about the bishops willingly inserting themselves into the decision. He wrote that they “have downgraded themselves from their historic leadership role as bishops to the subservient position of mere pawns.” He believes that they have allowed “themselves to be manipulated by leftists pushing secular humanist, globalist ideologies,” specifically on the birthright citizenship issue. 

The Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an “amicus” brief to the Supreme Court, which will soon rule on President Donald Trump’s executive order to rescind the long-debated precedent of American citizenship by birthright.

Does every birth occurring on U.S. soil mean automatic citizenship, even if the parents trespassed into America as illegal aliens?

Here is the crux of the bishops’ misbegotten argument:

“Birthright citizenship aligns with the Church’s teaching that humans were created as social beings and that political authority is morally bound to affirm and protect the inherent dignity of every human person in the community.”

Of course, the inherent logical flaw here contends that the human dignity of every person can only be ratified by virtue of conferring U.S. citizenship. Given this absurd line of thinking, the United States is then bound to grant American citizenship to every single human on the planet, since they all possess clear human dignity as sons and daughters of the eternal Creator.

Kelsey Reinhardt, president of CatholicVote, correctly deconstructs the actual philosophical danger with this clearly politicized tactic, masked within the language of pastoral teaching:

“That argument does not strengthen the Church’s moral witness – it weakens it. By tying dignity to civil status, the bishops inadvertently echo the logic of the abortion industry: rights exist because the state recognizes them.”

After all, legitimate civil authority is validated by God himself precisely because it intrinsically leads to human flourishing. Societies can only succeed – and only seek the will of God freely – when governed by the rule of law. As such, prudential judgment about identifying the qualifications for citizenship lies with civil authorities who must prioritize the common good of existing citizens before admitting newcomers, especially at a massive scale.

These principles have been taught by the Church for time immemorial and were perhaps best elucidated by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Aquinas weighed the prerogatives of citizens against any arguments for indiscriminate openness. His Thomistic vision flowed form the timeless maxim that “charity begins at home.”

As such, Aquinas even argued that full citizenship for immigrants should not be granted until the second or third generation….

Moreover, looking at the realities of birthright citizenship today, in an era of global travel and trade, the bishops seem to willfully ignore some very unpleasant abuses of America’s generosity.

First, “birth tourism” has exploded. It is simply routine now for expectant mothers who live near the U.S. southern border to legally cross into America s visitors for the express purpose of having a U.S.-born child with full citizenship.

For the wealthy of the world, an entire industry now exists to purchase U.S. holidays that include giving birth.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on Chinese moguls effectively “renting” American women and their wombs to have dozes of U.S.-citizen babies per father … a grave violation of Catholic teaching regarding family life and procreation.

So, clearly the bishops overstepped by inserting the authority of the Church into a partisan legal matter. Honest people and sincere Catholics can disagree on this important issue. But by framing it in such lofty moral terms, these men acted far more like activists than like shepherds of Christ’s flock.

Over time, such actions diminish the authority earned by the Catholic Church over the years as a pillar of American society.

 

How Can We Develop Faith Like Unto That of Abraham?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Genesis 18-23 in a lesson titled “Is Any Thing Too Hard for the Lord?” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Abraham and Sarah’s life, filled with events both heartbreaking and heartwarming, is evidence of a truth Abraham learned in a vision—that we are on earth to be proven, “to see if [we] will do all things whatsoever the Lord [our] God shall command” (Abraham 3:25). Would Abraham and Sarah prove faithful? Would they continue to have faith in God’s promise of a large posterity, even when they were still childless in their old age? And once Isaac was born, would their faith endure the unthinkable—a command to sacrifice the very son through whom God had promised to fulfill that covenant?

Abraham and Sarah trusted God, and He trusted them (see Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3). In Genesis 18-23, we find stories from the lives of Abraham, Sarah, and others that can prompt us to think about our own willingness to believe God’s promises, to flee wickedness and never look back, and to trust God regardless of the sacrifice. In proving us, God also improves us.

This scripture block contains numerous principles, including: (1) The Lord fulfills His promises in His own time (Genesis 18:9-14; 21:1-7); (2) The Lord commands me to flee wickedness and not look back (Genesis 19:12-29); (3) What did Lot’s wife do wrong? (Genesis 19:26); (4) Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac is a similitude of God (Genesis 22:1-19). This essay will discuss principle #4 about Abraham’s sacrifice.

We do not know all the reasons that God commanded Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, but we know it was to test Abraham’s faith in God. We also know that it was “a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son” (Jacob 4:5). There are numerous symbols or similarities between Abraham’s offering of Isaac and the Father’s offering of His Son, Jesus Christ. You might consider making a chart like the one below as you study Genesis 22:1-19.

 

Abraham and Isaac                                             Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ

Isaac was the only begotten son of Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 22:2; see also Hebrews 11:17).	Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father (John 3:16).
Isaac was to be offered in place of a lamb (Genesis 22:7-9).	Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

 

In your studies, you could look for symbols or similarities to the Savior’s atoning sacrifice that you find most meaningful. You might sing or review the lyrics of a hymn that shows Heavenly Father’s love for us, such as “God Loved Us, So He Sent His Son,” Hymns,  no. 187. You might record your feelings about Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and the sacrifice that They made for you and me. Here is a link to a video about Abraham’s sacrifice. 

President Jeffrey R. Holland’s message “Behold the Lamb of God” (Ensign or Liahona, May 2019, 44-46) will add to our study about the sacrifice of the Savior. 

Brothers and sisters, this hour ordained of the Lord is the most sacred hour of our week. By commandment, we gather for the most universally received ordinance in the Church. It is in memory of Him who asked if the cup He was about to drink could pass, only to press on because He knew that for our sake it could not pass. It will help us if we remember that a symbol of that cup is slowly making its way down the row toward us at the hand of an 11- or 12-year-old deacon.

When the sacred hour comes to present our sacrificial gift to the Lord, we do have our own sins and shortcomings to resolve; that’s why we’re there. But we might be more successful in such contrition if we are mindful of the other broken hearts and sorrowing spirits that surround us. Seated not far away are some who may have wept—outwardly or inwardly—through the entire sacramental hymn and the prayers of those priests. Might we silently take note of that and offer our little crust of comfort and our tiny cup of compassion—might we dedicate it to them? or to the weeping, struggling member who is not in the service and, except for some redemptive ministering on our part, won’t be there next week either? or to our brothers and sisters who are not members of the Church at all but are our brothers and sisters? There is no shortage of suffering in this world, inside the Church and out, so look in any direction and you will find someone whose pain seems too heavy to bear and whose heartache seems never to end. One way to “always remember him” would be to join the Great Physician in His never-ending task of lifting the load from those who are burdened and relieving the pain of those who are distraught.

How Can We Prepare to Escape in Time of Emergency?

Families are stronger when they are prepared to act quickly in times of emergency, and strong families make communities, states, and nations stronger. There are numerous types of emergencies, such as house fires, floods, or wars, when families are forced to leave their house with little notice. Those who are prepared in advance can act quickly.

The U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem told their nonessential staff to leave TODAY. Individuals and families were warned that airline seats would be in high demand. “Focus on getting a seat to anyplace from which you can then continue travel to DC, but the first priority will be getting expeditiously out of country.” 

This is obviously a “first come first served” situation, similar to Afghanistan and Vietnam. Most of us can remember the flights out of Afghanistan with crowds of people trying to get on the few remaining airplanes. Older individuals can remember the fall of Vietnam and people climbing on the roofs of buildings, hoping to get into a helicopter to safety.

Not all emergencies fall into this category. Most emergencies may cover a large area, such as a wildfire or a flood, but individuals are basically on their own to get out.

Preparation is key to survival in many of the emergencies – physical survival first and then moving forward into future life. So how can one prepare for such an emergency?

This site gave valuable insight into how to “Be Prepared in Case You Need to Evacuate.” It gave “some key steps to consider” when preparing for a quick escape in case of an emergency. 

·         Create an emergency kit: Include essentials like water, non-perishable food, medications, and important documents [and information]. [Include communication devices and anything critical to life after the escape.]

·         Plan multiple evacuation routes: Ensure everyone in your household knows where to go and how to get there. [Identify exits to use and how to communicate with each other.]

·         Stay informed: Sign up for alerts from local emergency management agencies and the National Weather Service.

·         Practice evacuation routes: Walk or drive along each road at different times of day to spot potential obstacles.

·         Designate a meeting spot: Choose a primary location everyone can see from a distance to gather after leaving the house.

·         [Be aware of your surroundings and understand potential or real risks in the area, such as wildfires, flooding, or downed electrical wires.]

The site almost guarantees success: “By following these steps, you can ensure a quick and safe escape in case of an emergency. Remember to keep your emergency kit updated and to stay informed about local conditions.”

Why Is Greenlandic Security Essential to America?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns national security. With Russia and China venturing into the Arctic, America would be wise to install deterrents as quickly as possible. President Donald Trump recognized the threat to America and said that America needed to acquire Greenland. There were discussions, and the United States came away with the ability to own certain parts of Greenland, which would be sovereign territory to the U.S., on which to build military bases.

These discussions brought to forefront “the issue of Chinese and Russian threats to the forefront, particularly as it relates to their growing interest in the arctic,” according to an article by Robert Peters, senior research fellow for Strategic Deterrence at The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security.

As noted elsewhere, China seeks to establish economic presence in the Arctic – and almost assuredly, long-term options for military operations in the region, to include “space and satellite warfare to strategic positioning of nuclear-armed submarines.”

Russia similarly has increased its air and maritime operations in the Arctic and may bring its gray zone activities into the region as a means to disrupt NATO activities.

Indeed, the prospect for America’s adversaries to fire missile salvos at the United States is so grave that it prompted one retired Air Force general to write, “Nowhere is America’s exposure to attack more acute than from its Arctic approaches – the most direct corridor through which both Russia and China could strike the United States.” What then should be done about Greenlandic security, given the emerging threat to the Arctic, as well as North America and Europe?

To begin with, the United States and Denmark should increase their joint military presence in Greenland so that they can better monitor air and maritime threats within the region.

Such efforts should include ground forces trained in arctic or alpine combat stationed at key points along Greenland’s northern coast.

Indeed, Greenland would be an ideal location for NATO militaries to engage in arctic training operations – which not only benefits military members engaged in such exercises but helps establish a military presence.

In addition, the U.S. and Denmark should work with other NATO allies, such as Finland and Canada, to station icebreakers along the northernmost settlements, such as Qaanaaq and Ittoqqortoormiit. Such icebreakers would enable allied ships to operate in the Arctic year-round, which could enable allied navies to engage in effective combat operations even in winter, but are also important when it comes to sovereignty claims. Russia’s icebreaker fleet, the largest in the world, enables Moscow to deploy naval assets to the Arctic, regardless of ice coverage.

Also, the United States should rotate Army units capable of carrying medium- and intermediate-range fires to Greenland so that they can engage and, if necessary, destroy sea and air threats that may transit arctic air or maritime space.

Perhaps most importantly, Greenland is an ideal place in which the U.S. can station sensors and radars that would be critically important to building the Golden Dome missile defense architecture….

If Denmark proposes such concrete steps to Washington, wherein both countries could cooperate to shore up Greenlandic security, both nations’ legitimate security concerns could be address. At the same time, they would be able to mitigate Russian and Chinese threats to North America, Europe, and the Arctic.

 

 

What Is Best – Common Sense or Crazy?

President Donald Trump gave his first State of the Union address for his second term of office. According to Jarrett Stepman at The Daily Signal, “the central theme of the speech [was] common sense versus crazy.” 

Stepman began by saying that “one of President Trump’s signature lines” was “These people are crazy. I’m telling you, they’re crazy.” He continued as follows:

Despite the decade-long attempt to portray him as a deranged and illegitimate shock to the system, it’s Trump who is bring back normalcy as Democrats descend into madness.

On point after point, Trump delivered factual assessments about where the country is compared to a few years ago. He noted that crime and inflation are down, American savings accounts are up, and our enemies are on their back heels as opposed to being on the march.

At every turn, as Trump point out, Democrats have punted in their responsibilities to protect and represent the American people.

On no set of issues was that clearer than his record on immigration and border enforcement. And that’s where Trump landed his biggest blow.

Trump rightly pointed out that since returning to office the border crisis has all but dissolved.

“In the past nine months, zero illegal aliens have been admitted to the United States,” Trump said. “The flow of deadly fentanyl across our border is down by a record 56%... And last year, the murder rate saw its single largest decline in recorded history … the lowest number in over 125 years.”

By the reaction of Democrats in attendance, you would have guessed this is all terrible news.

And maybe from their perspective, it is. They appear to have been counting on former President Joe Biden’s border crisis to go on indefinitely, for their constellation of NGOs to continue getting government support to fan its flames, and for taxpayer dollars to keep flowing to their new, imported voters.

Democrats clearly no longer care if immigration happens legally or not, so why should they care if taxpayer dollars are going to legitimate sources as long as their supporters get paid, right?

One of the great lines of the night was when Trump blasted the massive and shameful fraud that occurred under the averted eye of Gov. Tim Walz and the entire Minnesota Democrat political establishment.

“The Somali pirates who ransacked Minnesota remind us that there are large parts of the world where bribery, corruption, and lawlessness are the norm, not the exception,” Trump said. “Importing these cultures through unrestricted immigration and open borders brings those problems right here, to the USA – and it is the American people who pay the price, in higher medical bills, car insurance rates, rent, taxes, and perhaps most importantly, crime.” …

Trump effectively laid out that he was, unlike his opposition, going to prioritize American citizens. He was going to take commonsense, level-headed positions that most Americans still believe in.

Trump also made it clear that if his opponents on the left retake federal power, they will immediately return to the ruinous open borders and many other terrible policies that Americans voted against in 2024.

In a sense, it was the way Democrats acted Tuesday night that said nearly as much as

Trump’s speech. House Speaker Mike Johnson said it well when he noted that it was “good” for the American people to see just how “shameful” and out of touch the opposition had really become….

What Did the Supreme Court Decide on These Cases?

 According to Fred Lucas, chief news correspondent for The Daily Signal, the Supreme Court announced that it will release opinions o February 20, 24, 25. Anticipated decisions would affect “the future of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, new congressional maps, and an expected strike at the ‘deep State.’” 

Among the most anticipated rulings is on Trump’s tariffs, imposed last year without authorization from Congress. Tariffs are a core element of his economic agenda….

At issue is whether the president exceeded his executive branch authority by imposing tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is intended to address emergencies only. Normally, trade policy, including tariffs, is enacted through legislation in Congress and signed by the president….

The case marks uncharted waters for the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on how far the International Emergency Economic Powers Act extends.

[The fact that the United States was dying economically after the failed Biden administration might be considered an emergency.]

Another major case could involve justices issuing an opinion that strikes a blow against the federal bureaucracy in Washington.

This specific case of Slaughter v. Trump regards Trump’s ouster of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. But the court’s ruling will affect other federal boards and commissions with members appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents.

The members, in theory, operate without political concerns. They serve for a set term until it expires….

The high court, in the 1935 precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, ruled Congress could enact laws limiting the power of a president to fire executive officials of an independent agency.

In oral arguments, a majority of justices seemed near certain to scrap the 90-year-old precedent, which has protected the federal bureaucracy.

In another case that could be ruled on in the coming days, the high court also heard arguments in a redistricting case in October that could affect which party controls the House of Representatives.

A majority of justices seemed inclined to uphold the congressional and legislative maps in Louisiana.

Liberal groups have sounded the alarm that the forthcoming ruling in Louisiana v. Callais could net Republicans up to 19 new sets nationwide in the U.S. House of Representatives, as the decision could impact parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The dispute began after the 2020 census when Louisiana redrew six congressional districts with just one majority-black congressional district.

The NAACP and others sued, alleging the new map resulting from the 2020 census violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans race-based gerrymandering of districts.

The state had one majority-black district from the 2010 census, but NAACP and others contend that the state’s black population shifted and grew, resulting in the need for a second district.

In 2022, U.S. District Chief Judge Shelly Dick sided with the NAACP and ordered the state to redraw the map with two majority-black districts.

After the state created a new map, other state voters sued, asserting the new map violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14^th Amendment, since the boundary lines of the second district had been drawn based on race. The 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the new map.

Yet another high-profile case involves campaign finance law. Justices heard arguments in December in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, and a majority seemed inclined to further roll back campaign finance limits.

If the Supreme Court sides with the Republicans in the case, it would mean candidates can accept funding directly from a political party and also discuss with party officials how to use the funds.

The case emerged in 2022, when plaintiffs, including then-U.S. Senate candidate JD Vance, now vice president, as well as then-Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, sued the Federal Election Commission. The plaintiffs contend that coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.

Who Is God and Why Should We Sacrifice for Him?

My VIP for this week is God. February 18 marked the beginning of Lent, so Catholics across the world went to Mass to “receive burned ashes on their forehead in the sign of the cross.” Lent is “the holiest season of the year” and leads “to the commemoration of Jesus’ betrayal, suffering, death, and resurrection during Holy Week.

For those people, like me, who are not Catholic, an article by Tom Griffin, chair of the religion department at a Catholic high school on Long Island, can increase our understanding of our friends, the Catholics. 

Griffin quoted Martin Luther King Jr. as saying, “If a man has not discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” Then he asked what or who we would make the ultimate sacrifice for or “resides at the center of our lives” Catholics receive ashes on their forehead to show that they are a witness, and there are three parts to this witness.

First, it reminds us that we came from nothing and that we will deteriorate into ashes. Life is fragile and life is short. Therefore, Lent serves as a launchpad for Catholics to consider what they are really living for? …

Second, the ashes act as our first opportunity to consider how I am being called to sacrifice more for God and others in my life. The ashes on our heads were produced through the bringing of palm branches. These branches were used in the celebration of Palm Sunday the previous year. This is the commemoration of Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem the week of his death.

The ashes on our heads are cause to consider our death, but also cause to consider the suffering, beating, and humiliation that Jesus endured for love of you and me.

In light of his sacrifice, what can I sacrifice to grow closer to him? The word sacrifice literally means to give up something good for something greater….

Finally, the ashes force us to think about our own brokenness and sinfulness.

The concept of Catholic guilt is a common understanding in our culture. The truth of Catholic guilt is that we are all sinners.

Christianity only makes sense if we admit that we are sinners in need of a savior….

The call of Lent is to be more honest with ourselves about our need for God. Yes, because we are sinners but also because we are not meant to go through life alone. Our God became one of us so that we would know that He is always with us drawing us closer to Himself. Even more so, we are invited to not only spend more time with God in prayer this Lent but to allow our time with Him to transform us to become like Him.

The Lenten season can become a transformation when we realize that God is worth everything. That He is worth dying for, yes, but even more – He is worth living for. That is why, above everything else, the ashes truly matter.

Not being Catholic, I did not receive ashes on my forehead today. However, I like the idea of the Lenten season as a time to recognize that I have been given much and that I have much to give to other people. It is also a time that I can prepare more fully to commemorate the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Savior, even Jesus Christ.

How Can Statements Like That of Billie Eilish Be Proven Dangerous?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the need for public education systems to teach correct history. For individuals to love their country, they must be taught the good parts of history, particularly in the younger grades. Older students can be taught the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of America’s history.

One example of incorrect teaching took place at this year’s Grammy Awards when pop artist Billie Eilish made her statement that “no one is illegal on stolen land.” A previous essay discussed the obvious things wrong with the statement: 

“no one is illegal” would mean that “immigration laws have no moral authority,” so we should just allow anyone and everyone into our nation.

“on stolen land” would mean returning the land to its original inhabitants: “Let’s give the Southwest back to Mexico, then back to Spain, then back to the Aztecs, and then back to the people the Aztecs slew and enslaved. Let’s give the Northeast back to the Iroquois, and then back to the Native Americans the Iroquois slew and replaced. Let’s give Florida back to the Seminoles, and then back to the people the Seminoles slew and replaced.”

The statement by Billie Eilish may become a “gift that keeps on giving” for conservatives because there are so many different ways that the message can be attacked. Paul Runko, senior director of Strategic Initiatives, K-12 Programs for Defending Education, criticized the statement from the education angle. Runko shared his thoughts about Eilish’s statement in an article published at The Daily Signal. 

This comment echoed two familiar positions of modern, progressive left-wing ideology: first, that the United States should allow unrestricted immigration and, second, that Americans are living on land illegitimately taken from Native Americans.

While it may be tempting to dismiss such rhetoric as another example of celebrity activism at an awards show, doing so would miss a more troubling reality. The idea that America is fundamentally “stolen land” is not confined to award show stages, it has become increasingly embedded into the schools that teach America’s children.

In 2024, Defending Education released a report revealing that 155 school districts, representing more than 2.7 million students, have adopted so-called land acknowledgements.

These are formal statements intended to recognize Indigenous or Native peoples as the original inhabitants or stewards of the land a school district, staff, and students occupy.

On the surface, land acknowledgments may appear benign or even respectful.

In practice, however, they function as a form of virtue signaling by institutions and leadership. Students are often asked or told to recite these statements, seeding the belief in young students’ minds that they occupy “stolen land” that is morally illegitimate and does not rightfully belong to the United States, but to Indigenous tribes.

Consider the land acknowledgment used by Frances C. Richmond Middle School in Hanover, New Hampshire: “We, the RMS community, would like to acknowledge that our school is built upon the unceded land of the Abenaki and Pennacook people. The land was stolen.”

For a young student, this is not a neutral historical observation. Imagine hearing this as an elementary or middle school student. What conclusions are they expected to draw about their families, their neighbors, or their town?

Rather than learning history, students are pushed toward a moral judgment that their community, their country, and even their family bear collective guilt simply for existing where they do.

For a child who trusts the public school system to teach facts, not an ideologically skewed version of the past, this can be deeply troubling. Instead of fostering civic understanding, these statements frame American history primarily through grievance and condemnation.

This messaging is not limited to land acknowledgments alone.

Another example comes from District of Columbia Public Schools that in 2021 sent a message to families ahead of Thanksgiving encouraging them to “Decolonize your Thanksgiving” by not “sugarcoat[ing] the past.”

They advised parent[s] to use terms like “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “stolen land,” and “forced removal” when discussing the American history of the holiday.

While older students should be exposed to both the proud and the dark side of our nation’s history, language such as “stolen land” means schools have replaced education with ideological indoctrination.

The messaging extends beyond words to art and images in classrooms as well.

In one Los Angeles Unified School District high school, a poster was displayed reading, “Make Israel Palestine again and Make Amerikkka Turtle Island Again.”

Such imagery does not invite critical thinking or intellectual diversity to play out. It asserts, as fact, that nations such as the United States and Israel are illegitimate occupiers whose existence should be undone.

A student exposed to these messages repeatedly could reasonably conclude that the United States has no rightful claim to its own territory. Over time, this worldview cements students’ belief in a far-left orthodoxy where law enforcement, people who express traditional views, and eve our fundamental and treasured American institutions can no longer be allowed to exist.

Parents and other adults should understand that the words spoken by Eilish are not just the words of a pop artist receiving an award. “… they are not isolated or inconsequential.” In fact, “They reflect a broader ideological worldview that has overtaken public education….” They are part of the vast number of people and organizations who are striving to overthrow the government of the United States.

How Was Abraham a Blessing to Others Because of His Covenant with God?

My Come Follow Me Studies for this week took me to Genesis 12-17 and Abraham 1-2 in a lesson titled “To Be a Greater Follower of Righteousness.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

Because of the covenant God made with him, Abraham has been called “the father of the faithful” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:41) and “the Friend of God” (James 2:23). Millions today honor him as their direct ancestor, and others have been adopted into his family through conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet Abraham himself came from a troubled family—his father, who had abandoned the true worship of God, tried to have Abraham sacrificed to false gods. In spite of this, Abraham’s desire was “to be a greater follower of righteousness” (Abraham 1:2), and the account of his life shows that God honored his desire. Abraham’s life stands as a testimony that no matter what a person’s family history has been, the future can be filled with hope.

The scripture block teaches numerous principles, including (1) God will bless me for my faith and righteous desires (Abraham 1:1-19); (2) God wants me to make and keep covenants with Him (Genesis 12:1-3; 13:15-16; 15:1-6; 17:1-8, 15-22; Abraham 2:6-11); (3) “Melchizedek was a man of faith” (Genesis 14:18-19; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 14:25-40); (4) Abraham paid tithing (Genesis 14:18-24; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 14:36-40), and (5) God hears me (Genesis 16). This essay will discuss making and keeping covenants with God.

God wants me – and you – to make and keep covenants with Him. It is important for us to know about the covenant God made with Abraham because God wants to make a similar covenant with you. God promised that this covenant would continue in Abraham’s posterity, or “seed,” and that “as many as receive this Gospel shall be … accounted thy seed” (see Abraham 2:10-11). In other words, the covenant continues in you – when you are baptized and more completely when you make covenants in the temple (see Galatians 3:26-29; Doctrine and Covenants 132:30-32).

For that reason, we should desire to study Abraham 2:6-11 and make a list of exactly what God promised Abraham and Sarah (see also Genesis 12:1-3; 13:15-16; 15:1-6; 17:1-8, 15-22). Consider how these blessings might apply to you.

The following ideas were part of a special section in the February Come Follow Me lessons. It is called “Thoughts to Keep in Mind: The Covenant.” 

God’s covenant with Abraham promised wonderful blessings: an inheritance of land, a large posterity, access to priesthood ordinances, and a name that would be honored for generations to come. But the focus of this covenant was not just on the blessings Abraham and his family would receive but also on the blessing they would be to the rest of God’s children. “Thou shalt be a blessing,” God declared, “and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:2-3).

Did this covenant give Abraham, Sarah, and their descendants a privileged status among God’s children? Only in the sense that it is a privilege to bless others. The family of Abraham were to “bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations,” sharing “the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal” (Abraham 2:9, 11). Being God’s covenant people didn’t mean they were better than others; it meant they had a duty to help others be better.

 

Why Do Children Need a Father and a Mother?

The strongest families have both a father and a mother. A single parent can create a strong family that sticks together and supports each other, but children need both a mother and a father.

Delano Squires (Director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Human Flourishing), Ellie Carson (a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation), and Jesse Castrinos (a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation) authored an article titled “Why Children Need Both a Mother and Father, According to Research.” 

… there is never a bad time for Americans to be reminded that strong families thrive when men and women commit to one another in holy matrimony before bringing children into the world.

It is no secret to conservatives that children raised by their married mother and father are more likely to succeed in school, avoid harmful behaviors, and enjoy better long-term mental health than those raised in a single-parent home.

Yet in a culture that has rejected the reality of biological sex and redefined the meaning of marriage, it can be difficult to explain why the natural family is the best structure for children’s long-term outcomes.

The differences between how men and women interact with their children are seen every time a dad throws a baby in the air – much to the child’s delight and often to mom’s distress. The complementary parenting styles of men and women are observed in everyday life, but they are also backed by research.

According to research from the Journal of Child and Family Studies, when it comes to raising children, mothers are generally more emotionally available, self-controlled, and responsive to their children, attributes that help children feel accepted and supported. Moms also tend to be more lenient with their children than dads.

Fathers, on the other hand, are generally more inclined toward discipline and structure than mothers.

That does not mean dads don’t enjoy time with their children. In fact, research shows that fathers are more likely to initiate active play time with their children and keep them physically active as time goes on.

Yes, fathers may show less affection as their children grow older when compared to moms, but they are more likely to grant the type of autonomy that launches teens into adulthood.

Researchers have found that fathers also push their children to take chances and overcome limits.

While these traits are not universal, they clearly point to the difference in how mothers and fathers approach parenting. Yet despite these seemingly contradictory attributes, studies find that most couples acknowledge and appreciate the balance men and women bring to the home.

Children don’t just need two parents. They need the care and affection of their mother and father.

Unfortunately, whenever you remove children from the traditional family structure, they are far more likely to experience poverty, abuse, and unstable relationships themselves.

Furthermore, children are much safer from abuse and neglect when they are raised by both of their biological parents.

One study found that children living with an unrelated adult were 50 times more likely to die from inflicted injuries than children living with their biological parents.

This reality is one reason The Heritage Foundation’s policy paper titled “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years” treats restoring the family home as a matter of justice, driven by two truths.

The first truth is that all children have a right to the affection and protection of the man and woman who created them. The second is that the ideal environment in which to exercise this right is in a loving and stable home with their married biological parents….

Marriage creates a special lifelong bond between a man and woman, but it is also the foundation for the best environment for raising happy and healthy children.

 

 

Why Do Democrats Oppose Proof of Citizenship and Photo ID to Vote?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns election integrity and the SAVE America Act that the House of Representatives passed a week ago with unanimous Republican support and even one Democrat. This “bill would put in place basic election integrity requirements like providing proof of citizenship and photo ID to register and vote in federal elections.” The bill is currently in the U.S. Senate, where Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) is leading the effort to get the bill passed and on President Donald Trump’s desk to sign.

Democrats partially shut down the government -- again -- and left our nation because they do not want secure elections. They put forth numerous claims – “mischaracterizations and even flat-out lies” – about the SAVE America Act, and Rebeka Zeljko debunks three of them. 

            1. ‘It’s already illegal!’

The SAVE America Act aims to protect ballots from election fraud, particularly from illegal aliens and noncitizens. Democrats are quick to point out that it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections, and those Democrats who are willing to admit that noncitizens voting does occasionally happen insist it takes place at a negligible rate.

This is partially true. It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in American elections, and when it does happen, estimates show it occurs less than 1% of the time. But even if the rate is extremely low, it’s not zero. And while many elections are decisive victories, some are decided by razor-thin margins, making every ballot count….

2. ‘Jim Crow 2.0’

Democrats are no stranger to playing the race card, claiming that requiring photo ID somehow unfairly affects minorities. Perhaps most notable of them all is Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, who unabashedly likened the SAVE Act to Jim Crow-era rules.

“I have said it before and I’ll say it again, the SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow type laws to the entire country and is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Schumer said in a statement earlier this month. “It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to. If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown.”

Apart from Schumer’s soft bigotry of low expectations, his claim is simply inaccurate. The SAVE America Act offers a wide range of acceptable documents to prove citizenship, including a valid U.S. passport, a REAL ID that indicates citizenship, a U.S. military identification card that shows birthplace in the U.S., a birth certificate or other equivalent naturalization documents, and even some tribal IDs like the American Indian card.

Presenting a photo ID is also already a requirement to vote in some states as well as for countless other activities and purchases, including boarding a plane and casting a vote as a member of Congress….

3. ‘It’s an attack on women!’

Another claim Democrats have repeatedly made is that the new requirements disproportionately impact women who have changed their names after marriage. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said that the name change “creates a real problem” for her, implying that the legislation is the GOP’s latest attempt to suppress women’s votes.

The absurdity of Warren’s claim is self-evident. Married women often obtain documentation with their new names for other processes that require identification, such as purchasing alcohol or opening a bank account. In additional, women are not limited to producing birth certificates, but also may provide other forms of acceptable ID, such as a passport or a REAL ID.

Even in the rare case that a woman’s ID is not updated with her new legal name, the SAVE America Act explicitly allows for name changes in documentation. The legislation requires states to establish fallback procedures for voters who have changed their names due to marriage, divorce, adoption, or another reason.

            The reality is that none of the proposed requirements are novel or restrictive. They are simply                 common sense. 

What Is the Moorer-Radford Espionage Affair?

Blaze TV host Liz Wheeler interviewed Newsmax chief Washington correspondent James Rosen, “the investigative journalist who blew the lid off the deep state’s secret spying operation against Richard Nixon.” You can watch the interview at this site. 

President Donald Trump has often condemned the “deep state” and the “swamp” and drew only wrath from the general public. Many people considered the idea of the “deep state” to be a conspiracy theory. According to Wheeler, “seven recently declassified documents from Richard Nixon’s 1975 grand jury testimony are evidence that the deep state doesn’t just exist – it’s been forcefully active for decades.”

For clarification purposes, the article by the Blaze TV Staff defined the “deep state” as “the hidden network of unelected bureaucrats, intelligence officials, military leaders, and other insiders who secretly control government policy regardless of who is elected.”

Rosen … has been digging into this story for over 30 years. He explains that the seven newly unsealed pages from Nixon’s secret 1975 grand jury testimony finally confirm one of the most explosive (and deliberately buried) scandals of the Nixon era: the Moorer-Radford espionage affair.

Back in 1971, top military leaders felt ignored by President Nixon and his adviser Henry Kissinger. They were upset that big foreign-policy decisions were being made without them.

In response, the Joint Chiefs of Staff launched a secret spying operation inside the White House. They used a young Navy yeoman named Charles Radford to steal thousands of top-secret documents.

“He took a copy of every document that came across his vision. What he couldn’t copy, he memorized. He dove through waste baskets and burn bags. He literally rifled the briefcases of Henry Kissinger while he slept on overnight flights,” says Rosen.

“It’s estimated that this yeoman stole 5,000 classified documents from the National Security Council over a year’s time, 1970 to ’71, in wartime, and delivered those documents to the Joint Chiefs of Staff through the admirals,” he adds.

When these ultra-sensitive documents Radford had stolen started appearing in newspaper columns just days after high-level meetings, Nixon’s “plumbers” – which Rosen describes as a White House “special investigative unit” – quickly traced the leaks back to Radford and the Pentagon spy ring.

The White House was stunned to discover that the U.S. military had been running an espionage operation against its own commander in chief during wartime.

“[The Senate Armed Services Committee] held classified closed-door hearings, but everybody involved had good reason to want to let the matter drop, and ultimately nothing was done,” says Rosen.

For starters, Nixon didn’t want to publicly “vilify” the military during the Vietnam era, when returning veterans were already facing widespread scorn and being labeled “baby killers,” Rosen explains. Further, Attorney General John Mitchell reminded Nixon of his own administration’s secret operations, making a full-blown scandal risky for everyone.

So the affair was hushed up. Radford and the involved admirals were quietly reassigned to remote posts; the Pentagon liaison office was dissolved; and no charges were filed. Brief classified Senate hearings in 1974 fizzled out amid the Watergate storm.

Rosen, who first detailed this from Nixon’s 1971 White House tapes in his 2002 Atlantic article “Nixon and the Chiefs,” says these seven newly declassified pages from Nixon’s 1975 grand jury testimony add the former president’s own sworn account of the betrayal.

It shows unelected military leaders actively undermining an elected president over policy disagreements – proof, he argues, that the deep state isn’t a modern myth but a decades-old “beast.”

Why Should Young Adults Marry and Have Families?

It is no secret that all nations in the world are shrinking in population and are below the replacement rate with births. Soon after his inauguration to his second term, “President Trump signed an executive order directing his administration to develop policy recommendations to protect access to in-vitro fertilization, expand its availability, and lower its cost to patients,” according to an article by Aaron Kheriaty published at The Blaze. 

In October [2025], the administration announced additional measures to lower costs for IVF and common fertility drugs and explore pathways like expanded employer benefits or excepted benefit categories for assisted reproductive technologies. While this included joint efforts across federal agencies to make this costly intervention more affordable, the administration stopped short of imposing broad new federal mandates for insurance coverage or direct government funding of IVF….

The problem of below-replacement fertility rates in the United States – which poses serious demographic, social, and economic challenges – has gained some political attention since the last election.

As of 2024, the fertility rate in the U.S. stands at a record low of 1.6 births per woman of childbearing age, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. This drop continues a downward trend that began in the early 2000s and accelerated after the 2008 recession.

Kheriaty thinks the idea that more access to IVF will solve the “fertility crisis is pure fantasy” for two reasons: (1) It “will prove cost-prohibitive” and (2) “the success rates tend to be low.” “Instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, we need a capacious approach to supporting fertility that does more to address the root causes of infertility and, whenever possible, restores reproductive function the way nature intended.” There are also ethical reasons to try a unique way to improve fertility.

President Trump is not the only leader who is concerned about the declining birth rate. In his October 2025 General Conference address, then-President of the Quorum of the Twelve and now President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dallin H. Oaks gave the following counsel. 

The family proclamation, announced 30 years ago, declares that “the family is ordained of God” and “is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” It also declares “that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” And “we further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” As then-Elder Russell M. Nelson taught a Brigham Young University audience, the family is “pivotal to God’s plan…. In fact, a purpose of the plan is to exalt the family.” 

The Church of Jesus Christ is sometimes known as a family-centered church. It is! Our relationship to God and the purpose of our mortal life are explained in terms of the family. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the plan of our Heavenly Father for the benefit of His spirit children. We can truly say that the gospel plan was first taught to us in the council of an eternal family, it is implemented through our mortal families, and its intended destiny is to exalt the children of God in eternal families.

Despite that doctrinal context, there is opposition. In the United States we are suffering from a deterioration in marriage and childbearing. For nearly a hundred years the proportion of households headed by married couples has declined, and so has the birthrate. The marriages and birthrates of our Church members are much more positive, but they have also declined significantly. It is vital that Latter-day Saints do not lose their understanding of the purpose of marriage and the value of children. That is the future for which we strive. “Exaltation is a family affair,” President Nelson has taught us. “Only through the saving ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ can families be exalted.”

The national declines in marriage and childbearing are understandable for historic reasons, but Latter-day Saint values and practices should improve – not follow – those trends.