What are the Articles of Faith?

I am aware that there are numerous bits of information flying around on the internet about what Latter-day Saints believe. Therefore, I feel prompted to start a weekly series about the basic beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. The most basic list of LDS beliefs is found in a document known as the Articles of Faith, located in the Pearl of Great Price.

Historical Context

Joseph Smith, the prophet through whom Jesus Christ restored His gospel and organized His Church – even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – was asked by a newspaper editor named John Wentworth what the early Saints believed. Joseph answered the question in a letter to Wentworth, which is simply known as the Wentworth letter. A summary of the basic beliefs of the Latter-day Saints accompanied the letter. The Articles of Faith were first published on March 1, 1842, in the Times and Seasons newspaper.

Content and Significance

The Articles of Faith are contained in thirteen concise statements, each of which clearly states a fundamental Latter-day Saint belief. They are a summary of the doctrines, principles, and ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ. They are also an excellent introduction to interested friends of the Church. Each Article of Faith except one begins with the words “We believe,” and the exception begins with the words “We claim.”

Development and Publication

Joseph Smith authored the Articles of Faith, which were published in 1842. However, four other Church leaders had previously written similar summaries. It is likely that Joseph drew from their outlines. In 1880, they were canonized as part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the standard works of the Church of Jesus Christ. 

The Articles of Faith are not considered to be a formal creed, but they are a vital resource to members of the Church. They are a summary of the teachings and principles of the Church.

I will include the Articles of Faith in this essay, but I plan to expound more on each article in later essays. 

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Why Is America the Great Nation That It Is Today?

This week being the week of Memorial Day, I thought that I would share some ideas presented by Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. He gives numbers of Americans who died for the United States of America and encourages us to teach this information to our children, teens, and young adults as well as people who have legally immigrated into America. 

This Monday was Memorial Day. It commemorated all the Americans who died on behalf of the United States from its beginning to the present. It started out as Decoration Day. It was a phenomenon that grew out of the horrific Civil War in which 650,000 to 700,000 Americans, North and South, died.

And people in that postwar era felt that their graves should be commemorated. And once people started to decorate the graves or put flowers on them or flags, that custom spread to the North, and each state then started to commemorate it. And it was finally federalized as an official holiday not until 1971….

How many people have died fighting for America? About 1.2 million, and that includes 20,000 to 25,000 in the Revolutionary War if we count disease as well, maybe 20,000 in the War of 1812.

The Mexican War, 1848, there were probably 5,000…. 650,000 to 700,000 in the Civil War….

And then, of course, there was the Spanish-American War, World War I, where 117,000 died….

And then, of course, World War II, where somewhere between 405,000 to 450,000 died, depending on how we count those who were sick, whether it was battle-related or whether they were in the United States or overseas….

And then, of course, Korea with another 35,000, and then we had 58,000 in Vietnam and 7,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan and on, and on.

The singularity, though, we commemorate or are depressed by or awed by the numbers in two wars, the 430,000 that died in World War II and the 650,000 or 700,000 – that is almost a million Americans who died….

We are now a country – we have never been on this frontier before in terms of percentages or the actual numbers of foreign-born. We have about 53 million Americans who were not born in the United States, and that is about 16.2% of the current population.

That is a huge number. And unfortunately, those large influxes occur at a time when we have lost confidence in the American system or experiment because we do not have civic education anymore. We do not have classes from K-12, much less in university, where people know about the iconic events, what the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is, what caused the Civil War, what was Iwo Jima, what was Pearl Harbor.

Nobody seems to have any reference, any knowledge of that. And so, what we need to do is to – one of the ways, the best way, I think, to assimilate legal immigrants is to remind them that they wanted to come to this country. We did not force them to come. In most cases, we did not invite them to come.

They chose to come here because they felt, in terms of security, personal freedom, and economic viability, they would be better off than they were in their home countries.

So, when they arrived in this fully developed 250^th year of America this year, they should ask themselves, and we should help them understand why this was such a prosperous, great nation, why it is the oldest constitutional republic in the world today, and why it has been so successful.

And the answer is that from time to time in its 250-year history, it has called on young people 18, 19, 20 [years old] to go far overseas in almost every case except the Civil War, the Revolutionary, and the War of 1812, and fight enemies, whether they were German militarists or Austro-Hungarian militarists or Nazism in Germany or fascism in Italy or Japanese militarism or during the Cold War in Korea to stop communist aggression in Vietnam, same thing.

But they were uprooted from a very comfortable existence, and they gave their lives so that the United States today would be what it is. And if we do not tell people that, there is no appreciation that they came late to a country in which 1.2 million people had died to make it the attractive nation that enticed them to come in the first place.

And it is not just legal immigrants that need to relearn the lesson of American sacrifice, it is our own youth. They grow up with iPhones, they grow up with sophisticated automobiles, they grow up as beneficiaries of 21^st-century medicine. All of that is a result, a dividend, of the sacrifice of people that we do not even know anymore.

And sometimes we do not even know the places or the circumstances in which they gave their fullest and their last sacrifice. And they were all young, and they never had a chance, as the rest of us did, to mature. So, on Memorial Day, think of the dead and what they did for us, and try to commemorate it.

Did You Lose a Friend or Loved One While in Military Uniform?

 My VIPs for this week are the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for America, those in military uniforms who died while fighting or preparing to fight for this nation. Memorial Day is a day to commemorate their sacrifice.

I cannot think of any relative or friend who died while in military uniform – not a son or daughter, spouse, parent or grandparent, uncle, aunt, or cousin, or even a friend or classmate. I consider myself to be well blessed, especially since I know many who served in World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, recent wars, or are currently serving. I recognize that the families of all who serve sacrifice much whether a loved one dies or not.

Memorial Day 2026 is winding down as I draft this essay, so I want to share information from an opinion piece written by the editorial board at the Deseret News. 

Exact figures are elusive, but a variety of sources put the number of people who have given their lives in American military conflicts from the beginning of the revolution until the most recent fighting in Iran at more than 1.2 million.

That includes those who died in direct combat and those who died in accidents, by diseases or in any other way related to military service. The distinction really doesn’t matter. All gave their lives while serving their country.

That is a staggering number to contemplate as the nation prepares to observe its 250^th birthday in July. It becomes more staggering when one considers that the largest single share of those, 620,000, died in the Civil War. Noteworthy is also the cost of war in other countries, including the Soviet Union, with losses during World War II that reached tens of millions of soldiers and civilians.

Passionate patriots

Americans have always been passionate about defining freedom and amending laws in order to reflect an ideal definition of it. Unfortunately, sometimes they will come to blows over these definitions, as in the Civil War.

The nation’s Founders did a remarkable job of crafting a Constitution that keeps power in check while protecting basic freedoms and liberties, and yet the execution of those ideals has often been less than perfect. It is a testament to the beauty and inspired nature of that document that it endures and Americans continue to try to uphold its standards to this day.

Monday is Memorial Day. People sometimes joke it is the only holiday on the calendar that is not profitable to greeting card companies. That doesn’t mean it has been above trivialization. Many view it as the unofficial first day of summer; a time for barbecues and family gatherings. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, and yet it is important to devote at least part of the day toward the memory of those who have passed, and the debt a free and prosperous nation owes to their sacrifice. It is especially important that some of this time is devoted toward teaching these things to children, and toward teaching them that war is a last resort that all too often becomes necessary.

Born in Battle

This day should be a fitting prelude to the 250^th birthday celebration. It is not meant to be relentlessly sad or tragic. It is, however, a time to contemplate how the nation was born in battle, and how the hearts of many American men and women have always prized liberty enough to die for it.

 

Should Babies Born to Illegal Aliens Be Granted U.S. Citizenship?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is birthright citizenship. As a reminder, President Donald Trump, just hours after taking his oath of office on January 20, 2025, signed 26 executive orders. One of those orders was written to end birthright citizenship as it is currently known. That order prompted immediate worldwide backlash because it was meant to change what is considered a right enshrined in the Constitution. The Trump administration obviously believes it is not a constitutional right for a foreigner to enter the United, have a baby, and claim U.S. citizenship for such a baby. I agree with Trump.

The first lawsuit was filed less than two hours after Trump signed the order. According to an article written by Natalia Galicza and published in the Deseret News, “attorneys general from 22 states sued to block it.” 

Opponents decry the president’s move as inhumane and in direct violation of the 14^th Amendment, which has legally granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. since 1868. Proponents say ending so-called birthright citizenship would decrease illegal immigration rates, limit “birth tourism” and protect the value of American citizenship.

Courts have interpreted birthright citizenship in the constitution to mean that those born in the United States are citizens, regardless of whether their parents are citizens. Trump’s executive order would effectively change that to mean a baby born stateside would not have American citizenship if the father is not a citizen or legal permanent resident (also known as a green card holder) and the mother is undocumented or has legal temporary status.

While it’s not the first time the principle of birthright citizenship has faced scrutiny, the current legal battle marks the most ambitious attempt yet to redefine it. “There’s been some chatter at various times about whether birthright citizenship makes sense. But no president has sought to restrict…..

At least six federal courts thus far have sided with opponents to Trump’s order….

For both sides, the stakes go beyond the ongoing immigration debate and contest to build up or break down obstacles to citizenship….

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments weeks or even months ago, and their decision on the case should come down before the end of June. According to Galicza:

… it would affect anyone born on or after 1 February 2025. A key factor that differentiates this moment from past challenges is that it isn’t just targeting immigrants living in the country illegally. The executive order would also deny citizenship to some children of “temporary legal residents.” That includes parents with student, work, family, tourist and humanitarian visas. People who have opted for legal pathways…

State-issued birth certificates would no longer count as final proof of citizenship. Instead, citizenship could only be proven by verifying the parents’ immigration status at the time of the child’s birth. With about 10,000 children born nationwide every day – or more than 3.6 million – the shift would require hospital and state workers to take on screening new parents about their citizenship status, requiring proof of immigration status or their own birth certificates and naturalization documents – would cost immigrant parents $600 per child in government fees and anywhere from $600 to $1,000 in associated legal fees….

Supporters of the executive order contend that children of immigrants living in the country illegally cannot express allegiance or take an oath to renounce foreign ties, and that heritage tied to other countries implies they owe allegiance abroad. In other words, they would not be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States….

Who or What Do You Choose to Serve?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to the book of Joshua in the Old Testament and a lesson titled “Be Strong and of a Good Courage.” The following information introduced the lesson. 

It had taken several generations, but the Lord’s promise was about to be fulfilled: the children of Israel were finally going to inherit the promised land. But in their way stood the Jordan River, the walls of Jericho, and a mighty people who had rejected the Lord (see 1 Nephi 17:35). And they would have to face all of that without their beloved leader Moses. The situation may have made some Israelites feel weak and fearful, but the Lord said, “Be strong and of a good courage.” What reason did they have to be courageous.” What reason did they have to be courageous? It wasn’t because of their own strength – or even Moses’s or Joshua’s – but because “the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest” (Joshua 1:9). When we have our own rivers to cross and walls to bring down, wonderful things can happen in our lives because “the Lord will do wonders among [us]” (Joshua 3:5).

This scripture block teaches the following principles: (1) God will be with me as I strive to be faithful to Him; (2) The word of God can make my way prosperous (Joshua 1:8); (3) Both faith and works are necessary for salvation (Joshua 2); (4) With faith in Jesus Christ, I can experience God’s “wonders” (Joshua 3-4); (5) Obedience invites God’s power into my life (Joshua 6-8);

(6) “Choose you this day whom ye will serve” (Joshua 23-24).

I feel prompted to discuss the last principle about the wise use of agency, the choice to choose to serve God. Joshua’s teachings are contained in twenty-four chapters, and the first twenty-two chapters exhort the Israelites to “be courageous, keep the commandments, love the Lord, and neither marry among nor cleave unto the remnants of the Canaanites who remain in the land.”

The final two chapters (23-24) teach important warnings, counsel, and promised blessings. Joshua’s final words include the following verses.

14 ¶ Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods;

Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke on the topic of “Choose You This Day” in the October 2018 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He taught the following important concept. 

Our Heavenly Father’s goal in parenting is not to have His children do what is right; it is to have His children choose to do what is right and ultimately become like Him. If He simply wanted us to be obedient, He would use immediate rewards and punishments to influence our behaviors.

But God is not interested in His children just becoming trained and obedient “pets” who will not chew on His slippers in the celestial living room. No, God wants His children to grow up spiritually and join Him in the family business.

How Will You Commemorate Memorial Day?

Families, communities, states, and nations are stronger when individuals commemorate Memorial Day. It is commemorated by visiting cemeteries, memorials, participating in parades, and gathering with family members. It is a federal holiday that unofficially marks the first day of summer.

According to this site, Memorial Day was established to celebrate and honor the men and women who lost their lives during combat while serving in the United States military. Once held on May 30 every year, since 1971 it has been held on the last Monday of May annually. 

Memorial Day is a federal holiday that celebrates and honors the men and women who died while serving in the U.S. military. Observed every year on the last Monday of May, Memorial Day was originally called Decoration Day in a nod to the tradition of placing flowers, or other decorative displays at gravesites.

The origins of Memorial Day date back to the Civil War, which claimed the lives of some 620,000 soldiers. In the aftermath, devastated communities sought to honor its dead. The commemoration caught on across the nation, eventually expanding to honor fallen soldiers from all wars, but it wasn’t until 1971 that Memorial Day became a federal holiday….

Whereas Memorial Day commemorates deceased U.S. soldiers, Veterans Day honors all former members of the military with an emphasis on living veterans. [Armed Forces Day honors all men and women currently serving in the military.] ….

The Civil War, which ended in the spring of 1865, claimed more lives than any conflict in U.S. history and required the establishment of the country’s first national cemeteries. By the late 1860s, Americans in various towns and cities had begun holding springtime tributes to these countless fallen soldiers, decorating their graves with flowers and reciting prayers.

It is unclear exactly where this tradition originated; numerous different communities might have independently initiated the memorial gatherings. Some records show that a group of formerly enslaved people in Charleston, South Carolina, organized one of the earliest Memorial Day commemorations less than a month after the Confederacy surrendered in 1865. A year earlier, three women in Pennsylvania had decorated soldiers’ graves in their town.

Nevertheless, in 1966, the federal government declared Waterloo, New York, the official birthplace of Memorial Day. Waterloo – which first celebrated the day on May 5, 1866 – was chosen because it hosted an annual, community-wide event, during which businesses closed and residents decorated the graves of soldiers with flowers and flags.

 

Which Is Best, Regular Time or Daylight Savings Time?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns time and the effects of daylight savings time. The time may come when we will no longer need to change our clocks twice each year. “Spring forward, fall back” may no longer be necessary. Moving to daylight saving time may have been an innovative idea at one time, but it may no longer be one.

According to Jennifer Galardi at The Daily Signal, few people enjoy the biannual shift in time. Most of us enjoy having longer daylight hours in the evening, but other people do not like to get up in the dark mornings. Her article contains other interesting tidbits previously unknown to me. 

It is this lack of consensus, as well as significant pushback from health experts, that has stalled the Sunshine Protection Act (HR 139) in the House Energy and commerce Committee since the beginning of 2025. The broader effort to pass similar versions of the bill has been ongoing since 2018.

Now, it looks as if the sun will rise again on an amendment to make DST permanent for all states, and without much notice.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce late Tuesday night announced a markup meeting for Thursday, May 21, at 10 a.m. On the agenda was a proposal to fold the language of the Sunshine Protection Act into the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act (HR 7389).

This latest attempt would mandate permanent daylight saving time in all states that don’t self-exempt before its effective date, and it would prevent self-exemption after its effective date. The debate is not whether to stop changing the clocks every March and November. Most people, including members of Congress and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, despise the biannual switch. It’s which “version” of time to keep.

The issue doesn’t fall along traditional party lines. It’s not a Right or Left issue. It’s more of a “north vs. south” battle.

Both aforementioned politicians who want to “lock the clock” on daylight saving time are from states below the Mason-Dixon line, as are many of the supporters of the act. States such as Florida, South Carolina, and Alabama feel the warmth of the sun for more time every day in the winter months.

Although the disparity is flipped in the summer because of the Earth’s tilt, Northern states would really bear the brunt of permanent daylight savings time in winter, with the sun not rising in winter until 9 a.m. in some locations. That’s brutal for school-aged kids and anyone who does not have the luxury of sleeping in until the sun rises, and many Northern state legislatures, including Massachusetts, New York, and Alaska [news to me], oppose the change.

This is not merely a geographic issue – it is a fundamental tradeoff between public health and commercial interests.

Congress expanded daylight saving time in two phases: first in 1986, when it moved the start from late April to early April, and again in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which shifted the schedule in 2007 to run from the second Sunday in March through the first Sunday in November.

These decisions were not based on human health, grassroots demand, or even policy to save energy, as some claim. They were made as concessions to the candy and golf industries.

Both major extensions of daylight-saving time were driven by targeted lobbying. In the mid-1980s, a coalition of commercial interests – retail and Chamber of Commerce groups, outdoor recreation industries, and tourism businesses – pushed Congress to extend DST beginning earlier in April to make more money during the evening hours.

The 2005 expansion was heavily backed by the golf industry as well as retail and outdoor recreation groups. The National Confectioner’s Association also supported pushing the DST calendar past Halloween because its members stood to benefit from an extra hour of trick-or-treating – and candy consumption.

Politicians like Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., claim that it is “better for our physical and mental health” to have more sunshine in the later hours. This is consistently proven false by medical experts. In fact, the data points to the exact opposite.

Misalignment of clocks from the sun’s natural position in the sky has been estimated to decrease sleep duration by an average of 19 minutes every night throughout the duration of the DST observation, per a 2019 study. Such misalignment has been found to decrease productivity and earnings up to 4.5% per a 2015 study. Even worse, this misalignment has also been observed to increase fatal vehicular accidents significantly, by 21.8%, resulting in an average loss of $1.8 billion annually, per a 2022 study.

According to a position statement from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, permanent standard time should replace daylight savings time due to “evidence [that] supports the distinct benefits of standard time for health and safety, while also underscoring the potential harms that result from seasonal time changes to and from daylight savings time.”

Despite the testimony of experts, many in Congress have unabashedly claimed it is great for communities’ bottom line with “more business” to “boost the economy.” However, one study shows that worker productivity decreases during the transition to daylight saving time. Plus, the MAHA movement has made clear that sacrificing Americans’ health to boost consumption (particularly candy!) and line industry pockets is not a tradeoff politicians should make…..

The push to standardize what is not standard – or healthy – is a mistake, particularly for certain geographic areas that will suffer the most. Public policy should reflect the natural order – not manipulate it for profit.

Did you learn something new about time and time changes? I did. Before reading this article, I thought that permanent Daylight Savings Time would be great. Now, I lean toward full-time natural time.

 

What Does the Trump-IRS Settlement Mean?

No one can complain about President Donald Trump being unable to multi-task. While he oversees the situation in Iran, visits China, and indicts Raol Castro, he also delivers the commencement address at the United States Coast Guard Academy and agrees to withdraw the $10 billion lawsuit that he filed against the IRS for leaking his private tax documents.

Lauren Irwin reported on the settlement in her article published at the Deseret News. As part of the agreement, the Department of Justice has agreed to give “President Donald Trump, his family and his businesses immunity from ever being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service over past tax issues.” This does not say anything about current and future tax issues, but past tax issues cannot be investigated. 

This agreement is “part of a deal the DOJ made when creating a$1.8 billion fund to compensate people or organizations who were prosecuted by past administrations for what the Trump administration says were political purposes.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was grilled by lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, would not rule out the possibility that people who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol will be considered for payouts from the new fund, per The Associated Press.

The news about the IRS not being able to prosecute the Trump family and organization was quietly added to the press release and was first reported by Politico.

On Monday, it was revealed that Trump would be moving to withdraw a $10 billion lawsuit he had filed against the IRS over a leak of his old tax returns.

The suit was filed earlier this year, but as part of the nine-page settlement agreement Monday, the administration announced the creation of the billion-dollar fund to compensate allies who they say were mistreated by the Biden administration.

A one-page settlement agreement was expanded Tuesday and is an unprecedented step that the administration has taken, benefiting the president and his family directly by saying the IRS is “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing investigations into Trump, “related or affiliated individuals,” trusts and businesses related to the president and their past tax information.

The document was signed by Blanche, who made no mention of the addition when he testified before the Senate on Tuesday.

Trump filed the lawsuit against the IRS in his personal capacity and not on behalf of the federal government. His lawyers moved in April to ask the judge to pause the case while they worked to reach a settlement.

The DOJ said that Trump will receive a formal apology from the IRS over the leak of his tax records but no monetary payment of damages.

DOJ spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said in a statement to the Deseret News that it is customary for both sides of a case to have executed waivers “of a variety of claims that were or could have been brought.”

“There would be little point in settling several significant claims if either party could simply turn around and seek to initiative more adverse claims that could have been pursued previously,” she said.

Democrats hope to block ‘weaponization’ fund.

House Judiciary Democrats said on Monday they had filed a motion to block the $1.8 billion fund and asked a judge to step in and stop the administration from “engaging in collusive lawsuits.”

On Tuesday, the group of Democrats called the IRS’s exception for Trump a “super-pardon,” and said it was a “total free ride.”

Ranking members Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., said they were demanding Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Blanche and the IRS CEO “preserve records and provide answers” about the fund and the agreement given to the Trump family. The Democrats say that a president has never pursued corruption “this brazenly or on such a colossal scale.”

Two law enforcement officers who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed a lawsuit suing the Trump administration to block the implementation of the fund. Harry Dunn, a former member of the U.S. Capitol Police, and Daniel Hodges, a current member of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, say the new fund goes against the Constitution.

The officers argued the fund would fuel violent groups.

However, Trump, speaking to reporters Wednesday, said the people who would benefit from the fund were “destroyed” and went to jail, their families were ruined and they “committed suicide.”

“The Obama administration started it and the Biden administration, was horrible in terms of what they’ve done to people is incredible,” he said. “And we’re reimbursing those people for their legal fees and for their costs and for anybody involved.”

 

 

Do You Want to Learn More about the American Founding?

With 2026 being the 250^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, it is good for Americans to learn more about this historic national document. Dr. Matthew Brogdon, senior director and Miller Family Chair in the Center for Constitutional Studies at Utah Valley University, shared his opinion about the importance of the Declaration. 

The so-called Olive Branch Petition, published a year earlier as a last-ditch effort to make the colonists’ case to the crown, had been copied out in manuscript on parchment and signed by the delegates. That hand-delivered document, a personal appeal to the king – who refused to read it – can be seen today at the British National Archives.

By contrast, Congress hired a Philadelphia printer, John Dunlap, to print 200 copies of the Declaration of Independence as broadsides meant for wide public distribution. Copies were sent to each colony’s legislature and to George Washington’s Continental Army, then camped out in Manhattan awaiting a British invasion. Three copies still reside in the British National Archives, but not because Congress bothered to send them. They were collected by British officers in North America and sent to the ministry in London.

The “engrossed” – or signed – copy of the Declaration of Independence on display at the U.S National Archives actually came later, almost as an afterthought, and remained rolled up among documents possessed by federal officials for decades. No one outside that small circle of bureaucrats would have seen the engrossed copy until five decades later, when William Stone produced a copperplate engraving at the behest of the State Department, allowing the handwritten text to be readily copied and distributed.

Charles Thomason, the secretary of the Congress in 1776, even pasted a copy of the Dunlap broadside into the official journal, as if emphasizing that the declaration is a public document for dissemination, not a missive from North American subjects to the crown.

The declaration rapidly proliferated through the ordinary operation of a free press, as colonial printers churned out innumerable copies in newspapers and broadsides. Their counterparts in England and Europe followed, and by the fall of 1776, the entire reading public of Europe had encountered the declaration’s immortal words.

In America then – and in modern times – the Declaration of Independence sits at the center of civic life. It sets a high bar for good government. Our national squabbles and scrums are routinely about whether we as a people and our governments live up to that standard.

In the midst of our national crisis over slavery, and while he himself was cut off from the blessings of American citizenship by the color line, the great orator Frederick Douglass urged his audience to hold fast to the Declaration of Independence as the “ring-bolt to the chain of your nation’s destiny…. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.”

While Americans spend a great deal of time arguing over the principles of equality, representative government, and the God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we spend precious little time in our educational system learning about them.

These saving principles of our national freedom – the “ringbolt,” as Douglass termed them – did not appear out of thin air. They were and are the hard-won result of long experimentation and serious thinking. They are the fruit of Western civilization in all its complexity, building on biblical religious traditions, classical civic republicanism, natural rights political philosophy and the English legal tradition that gave us the blessings of the common law. Few Americans receive a civic and humane education sufficient to appreciate and savor this constitutional and intellectual inheritance. Indeed, few universities possess a faculty eager to teach it.

As we celebrate the semi-quincentennial of American independence, the time is ripe to recover our love of the intellectual and political tradition that bequeathed us the American Founding. And not just for those fortunate enough to find their way into a classroom where that tradition is being faithfully taught. Like the Declaration, which was sent out into the world for everyone to read, Utah Valley University’s Center for constitutional Studies is offering free master classes to anyone who wants to learn more about the Declaration and the ideas that gave birth to the American experiment in self-government.

Each class, taught by professors from UVU, BYU and the University of Oxford, will introduce viewers to the key ideas and history that animate the fundamental document of American independence….

You can find information about the Declaration classes at this site. 

Who Is Spencer Pratt?

My VIP for this week is Spencer Pratt, Republican campaigning for mayor of Los Angeles. As Brooke Brandtjen, “It is rare that mayoral campaigns receive national attention, but Spencer Pratt’s bid for mayor of Los Angeles is an exception.” 

Since his initial campaign announcement in January, Pratt has been gaining momentum and is now polling in second place behind incumbent Mayor Karen Bass (D). His campaign has primarily focused on restoring the city to its former glory, particularly in the wake of the damage from the horrific Palisades fires of 2025.

If politicians want to connect with voters, especially the next generation of voters, they will have to become good communicators online.

Two weeks ago, he uploaded his now-viral campaign ad featuring the hit song “Not Like Us,” showing the untouched properties of Mayor Bass and City Councilwoman Nithya Raman. The video then showcases the charred ruins where Pratt’s home previously stood, along with the trailer he now resides in.

Whatever the fate of Pratt’s campaign, he has hit on a messaging strategy that right-wing candidates would do well to emulate going forward if they want to be successful in the digital age.

Conservatives have had trouble breaking out of their image as out-of-touch intellectuals. Pratt’s message has more emotional impact. And his language is assertive. In the past, Republican leaders like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and Mike Pence had a cultural reputation for being passive. Pratt’s add makes him look like something out of the “John Wick” action series.

What Can You Do Against the SPLC?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the importance of an honest, law-abiding justice system that holds every individual and organization to the same standards. In particular, the topic is how to hold the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) accountable. Tyler O’Neil explained the following in excerpts from an update of his 2020 book, What You Can Do to Hold the Southern Poverty Law Center Accountable. He explains the history of SPLC, why the organization faces criminal charges, and what you and I can do against SPLC. 

Back in 2019, the SPLC smeared conservative Christian groups as “anti-LGBT hate groups,” [its education arm] Teaching Tolerance was spreading critical race theory and transgender ideology, and the SPLC was trying to convince donor-advised funds to blacklist “hate groups.”

In the intervening years, however, things only got worse….

In 2023, the SPLC released its “hat map” for 2022, and it included 702 “antigovernment extremist groups.” Prominent among these “antigovernment extremists” was the “anti-student inclusion movement.” The “hate map” featured no fewer than 230 chapters of Moms for Liberty, along with the policy group Parents Defending Education.

The next year, the SPLC added groups led by medical professionals, such as Do No Harm and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine, to the “hate map,” branding them “anti-LGBTQ hate groups” because they oppose experimental transgender “medicine” to make men appear female and vice versa. The SPLC even branded Gays Against Groomers – a group of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people who oppose the sexualization of children and transgender ideology – an “anti-LGBTQ hate group,” suggesting that their key target of hate is … themselves.

The following year, the center added Turning Point USA, the largest conservative grassroots youth organization in the country, to the map, stating that its “primary strategy is sowing and exploiting fear that white Christian supremacy is under attack.” The SPLC also added PragerU, a conservative group that makes You Tube videos to educate the public, to the map….

Despite the SPLC’s many scandals, President Joe Biden’s administration welcomed this morally bankrupt smear factory with open arms….

Documents showed that R.G. Cravens, manager of research and analysis at the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, spoke at a conference for Justice Department prosecutors on Nov. 7, 2023. A program for the event noted that Cravens would focus on “the anti-LGBTQ movement” and “help investigators and prosecutors identify potential evidence and motivations for bias crime.”

Under President Donald Trump, the FBI has officially distanced itself from the SPLC. FBI Director Kash Patel told The Daily Signal that the SPLC’s “disgraceful record makes them unfit for any FBI partnership. Even so, Democrats’ defenses of the SPLC suggest that it may return to federal influence should another Democrat follow President Trump in the White House in 2029….

Why, exactly, does the SPLC face criminal charges?

Before acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel announced the criminal charges on April 21, 2026, the SPLC put out its own statement. The SPLC announced that it faced a criminal investigation for what it described as the use of “paid confidential informants to gather credible intelligence on extremely violent groups.”

SPLC Interim CEO Bryan Fair said the informants were “necessary” to protect the SPLC from “countless credible threats.” He added that while the SPLC fed information to law enforcement, it did not “share our use of informants broadly with anyone.” He said the group no longer works with paid informants, even though they previously “saved lives.”

The indictment claims, however, that the SPLC was funding the very “hate” it claimed it exists to destroy. The indictment refers to the payees as “field sources” or “Fs.”

The list incudes F-37, “a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC.” The indictment states that this field source “made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees.” Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC allegedly paid this field source more than $270,000.

The SPLC does not face charges merely for paying members of white nationalist groups, but for defrauding donors, lying to banks, and conspiring to cover up the activity….

The indictment confirms my suspicions that the SPLC had not just been exaggerating “hate” by smearing conservatives, but also by supporting racist extremists. It also underlines the key warning of “Making Hate Pay”: that the SPLC has become a corrupt smear factory. If the SPLC lied to banks, as the indictment suggests, it will be very difficult for the center to weasel its way out of a guilty verdict….

What You Can Do Against SPLC

If you work at a company that works with [the software company] Benevity, please consider asking your employer to opt out of using the SPLC “hate map” filter.

If you notice Learning for Justice materials in your school, please speak up.

If you worked for a company that the SPLC and its allies bullied into blacklisting “hate groups,” and are willing to speak on record or anonymously, I’d love to hear from you.

If you hear someone considering giving to the SPLC, please let them know how corrupt this smear factory is.

The Trump administration and conservatives increasingly know the truth about the SPLC – we need to make it so obvious that Democrats and the Left cannot ignore it.

  

Why Does God Give Us Moral Agency or the Power to Choose?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to the book of Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 6-8; 15; 18; 29-30; 34) to Moses’ repeating what the Lord told the Israelites forty years earlier. The title of this lesson is “Beware Lest Thou Forget the Lord,” and the following information introduced the lesson. 

Moses’ earthly ministry began on a mountain, when God spoke to him from a burning bush (see Exodus 3:1-10). It also ended on a mountain, more than 40 years later, when God gave him a glimpse of the promised land from the top of Mount Nebo (see Deuteronomy 34:1-4). Moses had spent his life preparing the children of Israel to enter that promised land, and the book of Deuteronomy records his final instructions, reminders, exhortations, and pleadings with the Israelites. Reading his words makes it clear that the real object of Moses’s ministry – the preparation the people needed – wasn’t about wilderness survival, conquering enemies, or building a nation. It was about learning to love God, obey Him, and remain loyal to Him. That’s the preparation we all need to enter the promised land of eternal life. So although Moses never set foot in the “land flowing with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8), because of his faith and faithfulness, he did enter the promised land that God has prepared for all those who follow Him.

Some principles taught in this scripture block are (1) “Love the Lord thy God with all thine heart” (Deuteronomy 6:4-7; 8:2-5, 11-17; 29:18-20; 30:6-10, 14-20); (2) “Beware lest thou forget the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4-12, 20-25); (3) Helping people in need involves generous hands and willing hearts (Deuteronomy 15:1-15); (4) Moses was “like unto” Jesus Christ (Deuteronomy 18:15-19); (5) The Lord invites me to choose between good and evil (Deuteronomy 29:9; 30:15-20).

This essay will discuss principle #5 about using our agency to choose between good and evil. We will begin by looking at those scripture verses.

Deuteronomy 29:9

9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.

Deuteronomy 30:15-20

15 ¶ See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

16 In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

20 That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

These verses tell us that we will be blessed and “prosper in all that ye do” if we (1) keep the covenants that we make with God, (2) love the Lord, (3) walk in His ways, (4) keep His commandments, statutes, and judgments, (5) obey His voice, and (6) cleave unto Him.

Now we will compare the last words of Moses to the final teachings of Lehi to his family in

2 Nephi 2:26-29; 4:4.

2 Nephi 2:26-29

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

2 Nephi 4:4

4 For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.

These verses tell us that we have freedom to choose good or evil because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We can choose good or evil -- captivity and death or liberty and eternal life – because God gave us agency. He gave us the power to choose while we lived with Him in the premortal world, and He allowed us to take agency with us when we came to earth.

Lehi also taught his family that Satan (the devil) would have power to tempt us, but we have power over him if we choose righteousness. Like Moses, Lehi tells us that we will “prosper in the land” IF we keep God’s commandments.

God wants us to use our moral agency to choose righteousness because we love God. It is not enough to say and do the “correct” things. God wants us to desire to do the correct things and choose to do them because we love Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

 

Are Men to Blame for Low Marriage Rates?

Families, communities, states, and nations are stronger when parents prepare their children for marriage. Yet, marriage rates continue to fall. Liberals and progressives claim that men are to blame for the low rates of marriage, but marriage experts Maria Baer and Brad Wilcox do not agree.

It’s all men’s fault.

It’s a popular catchphrase in liberal circles generally, but especially in conversations about marriage. Whenever we at the Institute for Family Studies or the Wheatley Institute publish new research about falling marriage rates (or declining dating trends), progressive thinkers seem to instinctively rush to the defense of women, as if we’re casting all blame on them….

Believe me, we get it. We have heard from plenty of liberal and conservative young women that too many men aren’t measuring up. But pinning all the blame on working-class men leaves elite liberals free to avoid facing their own responsibility for the present cultural moment they’ve helped shape.

Consider, for example, the gutting of the Boy Scouts, one of the few institutions in America dedicated to turning boys into virtuous young men. After being pressed by left-leaning elites for decades to go coed, the organization said in 2017 that it would begin admitting girls. It filed for bankruptcy three years later.

Since the 1960s, masculinity itself has been viewed with increased skepticism, maligned in the mainstream media and the ivory tower, while in the real world, its virtues – including strength, initiative and chivalry – were still expected and demanded in the workplace and yes, even in dating….

Men and women build culture together, and the liberal thinkers and writers who place the blame for falling marriage rates squarely at the feet of today’s men ought to reckon with the norms and trends – many of which they’ve expressly had a hand in – that have brought us to this moment where too many men don’t seem marriageable. (It’s worth noting that many young men tend to agree with this assessment: our recent study found that nearly half – 46% -- of young American men ages 18-23 say they think of themselves as “a failure.”)

It is true that many more men are “failing to launch” today than in prior generations. Women now outnumber men in higher education by a ratio of almost 3 to 2. Fewer young men are working, and a rising number are stoned on the sofa. Fully 1 in 5 are living with their parents. For a young woman hoping to marry, these trends shrink the pool of available and attractive partners.

And yet progressive educators, politicians and journalists have presided over the collapse of boys’ performance in schools, a left-wing monoculture on college campuses that discourages young men from engaging in the classroom, a COVID-19 response that robbed boys of countless opportunities to develop their social skills, and the push for legalization of marijuana. They have also done their level best to demean and devalue masculinity. So, yes, some of our young men ought to be doing better, but our culture also ought to create better norms and institutions so that more young men can thrive.

Take today’s social norms around sex. It’s fascinating to note, for example, that many of the women Anna Louie Sussman references in her New York Times piece about the death of marriageable men are mothers, all lamenting not having found a spouse. Yet there is no examination of why women are agreeing to sex with men who are so utterly – by their own expressed standards – not marriage material.

The answer is norms. Marrying young – in your 20s – is no longer aspirational, let alone normal. Waiting until marriage for sex is stranger still. In many circles, particularly among the progressive elite, a more traditional sexual ethic is actively mocked.

So while it may be true that many young women still say they hope to marry and become mothers, they don’t want to marry young and few forgo sex until marriage. Yet those two habits, were they once again normalized on a cultural scale, would not only increase women’s odds of marrying but would almost certainly improve the quality of their dating pool. Men are more likely to commit and embrace mature adulthood when that is what society expects them to do.

We can lament that truth – men should grow up and commit anyway – but we must reckon with it. Men are much less likely to level up and embrace committed love when they have ready access to low-cost or no-cost sex, including internet pornography….

The social science bears it out. Thirty years ago, Nobel laureate George Akerlof studied the sexual and marriage habits of young men and women in the wake of the sexual revolution. He concluded that as out-of-wedlock births rose in that era (despite predictions that they’d fall), so-called “shotgun weddings” almost completely disappeared. In the name of sexual “liberation” (for men and women alike), we destigmatized nonmarital childbearing and deadbeat fatherhood – and, predictably, ended up with far more deadbeat dads and children born outside of wedlock. It turns out “sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships,” Akerlof wrote.

Today, we see that another form of cheap sex, internet pornography, also seems to be undermining committed love, as well as marriage. Young men (22-35) who are frequent porn users are about twice as likely to say that they avoid committing in dating relationships and 7 in 10 agree that they date in order to have sex, according to the National Dating Landscape Survey. Another study found that “heavy Internet usage generally, and use of pornography specifically” was tied to lower odds of marriage.

We have given men abundant access to precisely this kind of cheap virtual and real sex. We also have – both explicitly in pop culture, and implicitly in our laws and customs – told women that expecting commitment from men before having sex is “needy” and anti-feminist, and that to co-accept responsibility for sexual decisions is victimization. And then we’ve continued to expect commitment and maturation from men. It’s a strange world that asks men to grow up and embrace commitment while telling them sex requires no commitment at all, let alone marriage.

This inconsistency has created a tornado of cascading social ills, including generations of single mothers, kids without a dad at home and too many men who can’t seem to find a reason to grow up. As Akerlof himself noted, men are more likely to “settle down when they get married: if they fail to get married, they fail to settle down.”

The breakdown of norms, ideals and institutions – including sexual ones – that usher boys into manhood has created a large minority of young men who seem unworthy of, or uninterested in, real love, not to mention marriage. But if love and marriage is the pathway to the good life (spoiler: it is for most of us) then it’s in everyone’s interest – men and women alike – to create a healthier culture. We need a less cynical view of dating and marriage, including young marriage, among women. We should stop allowing vice (drug use, online gambling, overreliance on government assistance) to proliferate. And by creating new social sexual norms, or returning to old ones, we should encourage men to step up, communicating that we expect more from them than easy sex and suppressed masculinity.

We should expect men to embrace real love and marriage – and equip them to be worthy of both as good men. Then there would be no need for the male blame game.

 

What Is the New Candidate Law in Georgia?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the value that all candidates for office must receive equal treatment. The State of Georgia is upholding that value even though Democrats are upset about it. Joseph MacKinnon at The Blaze wrote the following about Georgia. 

Democrats are enraged over the prospect of DA candidates having to do more than brandish their party affiliation to win over voters.

Fani Willis, the Democrat district attorney in Fulton County who tried and failed to throw President Donald Trump in prison, has found a new reason to rage publicly, level groundless accusation of racism, and masquerade as a victim of opposing forces.

To the chagrin of those Democrat officials and other race hustlers who demanded its veto, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) ratified legislation on Tuesday requiring nonpartisan elections for certain offices in the Peach State’s five most populous counties – Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton – effective Jan. 1, 2028.

It’s supposedly ‘racist’ because the five district attorneys … are black female Democrats. Candidates running to become or remain county governing authorities, tax commissioners, superior court clerks, and solicitor-generals must run in nonpartisan elections. County sheriffs are exempt.

Under the law, district attorney candidates will no longer “be nominated by a political party or by a petition as a candidate of a political body or as an independent candidate.” They will also forgo a nonpartisan primary, competing only in the general election.

What Is Purpose of Trump’s Trip to China?

President Donald Trump, numerous members of his cabinet, and approximately thirty top businessmen traveled to China for historic talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Discussions about business are a big part of this trip, but “the Iran war is casting a shadow over the meeting,” according to Mehek Cooke, Senior National Security and Legal Analyst at The Daily Signal. 

China wants the world to believe it is a force for peace, open shipping lanes, stable energy markets, lower oil prices, and a responsible global power. But the truth is much uglier, and Beijing is helping to bankroll the very regime threatening the world’s most important energy choke point, the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is openly forcing China’s hypocrisy into view. It is now a test of Beijing’s role in sustaining the instability it publicly opposes. He arrives in China with leverage over a contradiction that Xi has tried to hide.

The test is critical as Iran stalls during peace talks. Trump called Iran’s most recent proposal “totally unacceptable” because it was not a peace offer; it was a list of demands to end the blockade, lift sanctions, and preserve Tehran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. Once again, we are watching a weakened regime try to bluff from a position of strength. The U.S.-Iran ceasefire is on life support, and the message is clear from Trump: If Beijing wants calmer energy markets and protected shipping lanes, it must stop underwriting a regime that threatens both. Beijing has spent years playing both sides. It wants uninterrupted access to Gulf energy, freedom of navigation, and all the economic benefits of regional order. At the same time, it treats Iran as a useful anti-American partner by helping Tehran evade U.S. sanctions, sustain its destabilizing activity across the Middle East, and, in return, secure deeply discounted Iranian oil.

While the China-Iran relationship is not a formal alliance, an official document is not required to see what the United States already knows. China is Iran’s largest trading partner and the primary purchaser of Iranian oil, accounting for roughly 90% of Iran’s exported crude and providing Tehran with billions in revenue.

China’s relationship with Tehran directly conflicts with America’s mission to restore global stability. It continues to benefit economically while the U.S. absorbs the security costs. Trump is changing that equation.

This moment is unique because Trump is directly turning Tehran into a China problem. If freedom of navigation is not restored and the Strait of Hormuz remains unstable, Beijing can no longer hide behind slogans about peace while bankrolling the regime, putting the global economy risk. China may not care about America’s interest in restoring order, but it cares about its own growth, energy security, and economic stability.

For years, Beijing enjoyed a free ride in the Middle East. The United States absorbed the terror, security, and military shocks, while China collected the economic benefits and expanded its regional influence. Trump is ending that arrangement and calculates that China will bend, given that its security is on the line. Historically, China acts when its own energy security and commercial stability are threatened. In 2008, when piracy endangered Chinese petroleum imports from the Middle East and trade routes to Europe and North Africa, Beijing deployed naval escort missions to protect shipping. The Strait of Hormuz now presents the same test on a far larger scale.

Trump’s visit to China today is also a call to policymakers in Washington to recognize that the Iran war is a broader power struggle with Beijing and not an isolated Middle East conflict. Every move China makes, from China-based entities supplying drones and missiles and satellite imagery that enabled Iranian strikes, to U.S. intelligence showing Beijing was preparing to transfer a new air-defense system during the conflict, shows the clear fight.

            If Beijing wants the benefits of stability, it must stop financing Tehran. It can either use its                    leverage over Iran to help force peace, or it will face a Trump pressure campaign that no longer             lets China profit from chaos at America’s expense. 

What Is Causing Antisemitism to Increase?

Democrats, antisemites, and other Left-wing groups have often demonized Israel and Jews. However, the antisemitism has increased in recent years. Victor Davis Hanson recently discussed this topic in a podcast, and a transcript was published at The Daily Signal. 

We’ve seen these campus protests on American universities where they have these signs, “From the river to the sea.” That’s an eliminationist slogan that Israel would be wiped off the map from the Jordan River all the way into the Mediterranean Sea and, I guess, dumped into it.

And, of course, we’ve had antisemitic incidents of students chasing Jewish students into a library and trapping them there, roughing them up on campus. Demonstrations where they get quite violent, and they’re overtly and proudly antisemitic.

And the point is, what’s behind all this? Why in America now? Because after all, there are more Jewish citizens, or at least roughly comparable, in the United States than there are in Israel, which has about 2.5 or 2 million Arabs and a number or Christians as well.

So why in the so-called bastion of Jewishness in the West, here in the United States, which has avoided the antisemitism of Europe and the Middle East, why is it starting to come out now? What’s behind this? And from people that you wouldn’t expect it from.

Well, the first is DEI. Diversity, equity, and inclusion divided the nation into a 70/30 binary. It was dreamed up by [Barack] Obama because he felt he didn’t have enough traction with the old binary of 12% blacks being victimized, which was true, they were, by the 88% whites, when, due to immigration, the country was no longer 90% white.

So, he bundled a new group and said it doesn’t matter how wealthy you are, it doesn’t matter what your class is. If you’re not white, you are a victimized, oppressed person with legitimate grievances.

What that did is it allowed people exemptions, so you didn’t question somebody’s performance on the job or how somebody was hired if it was race-based, because that would be insulting or racist.

But it also did another thing. It meant that people could express themselves in racist, biased fashion. But if they were from that protected binary, you couldn’t say anything.

Now, that had been true of the black community, unfortunately, for a long time. I can’t think of a major black leader other than Martin Luther King that didn’t voice antisemitic tropes….

The second is demography. There had traditionally been about, oh, 6% to 7% of the population was Jewish and maybe 1% was Muslim, and that has radically changed now – mostly through immigration – and the Muslim birth rate in the United States is about 2.6, and all other ethnic groups, white, black, it’s about 1.7. And that population is about 5 million, and it’s projected to increase to a number higher than the Jewish population.

But you can see the trends already.

And then you have to factor in that it’s very hard for a Muslim to be secular, agnostic, atheistic, Christian. But in the case of Jews, they’re more and more being secularized or intermarrying much more, and their support of Israel is not contingent on their being Jewish.

More importantly, we’re getting billions of dollars. The UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are among the top five donors to universities in America, and they have founded Middle East studies programs, and those are not Middle East studies programs. They’re indoctrination centers for the entire student body.

So, demography means that people feel that in states like Michigan, the future will be you have to say something critical of Israel….

The third is the Democratic Party is not democratic anymore. As I’ve said before, it has a Jacobin agenda, a French revolutionary party agenda. It’s not just that they want to tear down statues and rename buildings and change the foundational date to 1619. Those were all Jacobin trademarks.

But they have a holistic socialist agenda: open borders, illegal immigration mainstream, mass amnesties, no-case bail, critical legal theory, DEI, and massive cuts in defense, raising taxes, and more entitlements. And of course, in the Green New Deal.

But embedded in that agenda is anti-Israelism and indifference to antisemitism.

I say embedded because that’s a non-negotiable agenda. If you want to be nominated for an office in the Democratic Party, you can’t come out for pipelines or more drilling…. You can’t say we need tougher criminal prosecutions. You can’t say, “I love the wall. It’s a good idea.” You can’t say anything.

And by that same reasoning, you cannot say you support wholeheartedly Israel.

Anybody who does so in the Democratic Party, like John Fetterman, the senior senator from Pennsylvania, becomes persona non grata in his own party.

Finally, there is a sense that the institutions in the United States that bequeath laurels and mainstreaming and adulation, they’re all left-wing. All the book reviews, the major venues are left-wing. The major media is left-wing.

And a lot of people feel that they’ve been in the wilderness. They’ve been pelted with this left-wing hailstorm, and at some point they get tired, and they want to come out of the storm.

And so, we’ve seen people … who have flipped over, and now they receive adulation. [The Left likes them once they start denigrating conservatives, Jews, Israel, etc.] …

The final irony, the so-called bigot, Donald Trump, the so-called racist, Donald Trump, he has admitted he’s probably going to be the last president that wholeheartedly supports Israel. For now, he is the last dam holding back this deluge.

[Emphasis added.]