What Are Conservative Principles and Why Are They Successful?

            The conservative movement is built upon conservative principles. The election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States began the conservative movement. He was elected following the one term of Jimmy Carter. Taxes were high, the cost of energy was high, and the cost of living was high.

            When people complained that the cost of heating their homes was too high, Carter simply told people to wear sweaters in their homes. The misery index was high and was discussed in the news almost daily. What is the misery index? It is equal to the sum of the rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment. It is a measure of the economic health of America during the administration of a president. The misery index under Carter was the worst since the Great Depression, and Americans were miserable.

            In comes Reagan like a knight in shining armor riding his great steed. He cut taxes and set the economy to growing again. He stood up to Russia and faced Gorbachev down. He was instrumental in the crash of the iron curtain after he said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

            The United States had lived under liberals for decades, and the liberals held on to their power as best they could. However, Reagan showed Americans what conservative is and how it works. Rush Limbaugh became famous about the time that Reagan was in office and continued building the conservative movement. He kept it alive during some dark days in America.

            After Barack Obama was inaugurated in 2009 and started to rule the nation by executive fiats, Americans became concerned. Things were happening in the nation that had never happened previously, and the nation looked like it would be “fundamentally transformed.” Concerned conservatives gathered and created the Tea Party. The Tea Party was instrumental in electing enough Republicans to take over the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, the U.S. Senate in 2016, and the White House in 2016.

            The conservative movement grew under the leadership of Donald Trump. They recognized that Trump was bold as a lion, and that he was willing to stand between the American people and the movement to fundamentally transform America. He was rude and crude at times, but he was fearless in his love and defense of America and the American people. He was fiercely hated because he rode into office on his dazzling white steed and pledged to “drain the swamp” of all the creatures who were sucking strength from America. He was not successful in draining the swamp, but he was successful in exposing it and its creatures.

            America was thriving under the direction of Trump. So many taxes and regulations were cut that the economy went soaring to its highest point ever. He fought to build a barrier across the southern border, and he worked with under countries to stop the caravans of migrants converging at the southern border. His border policies basically stopped parents from sending their children on the journey to American with coyotes and human traffickers. The caravans stopped coming when the people realized that they would be held in Mexico while their case for asylum was investigated.

            The United States was thriving until China released COVID-19 on the world, and Democrats used the crisis to take over the federal government. Trump haters were glad to see Trump go, but most Americans are beginning to see the difference between Trump with his conservative values and Biden with his liberal/socialist ones. Wise Americans realize that conservative principles always work to make life better and more successful, while liberal/socialist ones are destructive and never work. We can see by Venezuela the destruction that comes from liberal and socialistic principles. So, what are conservative principles?

            Conservative principles are stated in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Conservatives are pro-life from conception to natural death – with few exceptions. Conservatives stand for freedoms and liberty and oppose slavery and bondage of all kinds. Conservatives believe in living on less than one makes instead of borrowing money and going into debt. Conservatives believe that debt is bad, and saving for a rainy day is good. Conservatives believe in election integrity with secure, honest, and fair elections. Conservatives support marriage between a man and a woman and believe that the family is the core unit of society. Conservatives believe in education and preparation for the future. Conservatives believe that work is essential to provide for self and family as well as for self-reliance and self-esteem.

            Conservatives believe in peace through strength and support a strong military. Conservatives below in low taxes and small government. Conservatives believe in safety nets for the most vulnerable among us, but we also believe that every American should do any much as they can to take care of themselves. Conservatives believe in God and support religion. Conservatives support the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the United States and believe in law and order.

            Conservative principles work because they are true principles. They are principles that are true and that work under many different circumstances. They work for the family, for the community, and for the nation. They bring freedom, prosperity, and happiness to the nation that practices them. 

Why Did the Biden Administration Take So Long to Admit to a Border Crisis?

             After weeks of denying that there was a crisis on the southern border of the United States, the Biden administration is finally facing the facts. At first, they called the masses of people crossing the border “a challenge.” Then they called it a “seasonal phenomenon.” Now, they are being hit in the face with facts.

            After much work and against much opposition, the Trump administration brought the illegal immigration over the southern border under control. Border agents have admitted that they have not been able to stop every person crossing the border illegally. However, the Trump policies worked – build a secure barrier along the border, remain in Mexico while seeking refuge in the United States, and work with governments in Central America to force migrants to claim asylum in the first country that they enter after leaving their home countries. The southern border was more secure than it had ever been. Then President Joe Biden signed executive orders within the first week of his administration ending the policies that worked.

            According to Kaylee Greenlee at The Daily Signal, the immigration experts at The Heritage Foundation said last Friday that Biden’s policies “undeniably contributed” to the record number of migrants arrested during March. “Customs and Border Protection reportedly encountered over 171,000 illegal migrants in March 2021, a 400% increase compared to March of 2020.” These were the preliminary numbers reported by The Washington Post. 

            Researchers at The Heritage Foundation criticized the reluctance of the Biden administration to call the flooding horde of migrants a “crisis.” Researchers Lora Ries and Mark Morgan – who happens to be the former acting director of Customs and Border Protection during the Trump administration – made the following comment in a joint statement.

We have a crisis on the border, even though the Biden administration still refuses to acknowledge it. Today’s numbers are just more evidence of this undeniable reality – and proof that President Biden’s policies are driving this crisis.

The crisis will only end when the Biden administration reinstates strong and sound immigration policies – policies that were working prior to the new administration taking office and ending most of them.      

            Greenlee included several figures in her article. The 171,000 migrants taken into custody in March 2021 is the highest number since 2006. The 19,000 unaccompanied migrant minors are several thousands more than the last high of 11,800 in May 2019. There were 53,000 migrants traveling in family units in March compared to 19,200 in the previous month. These figures were confirmed by a current Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official and a former CBP official, both of whom had reviewed them.

            Why are so many migrants coming to the United States? They are escaping violence and poverty in their nations, but they admit that they are coming because “Biden wants” them here.

Besides ending the policies listed above, the Biden administration also “ended Title 42 restrictions against allowing unaccompanied migrant minors into the U.S.” However, “the public health order is still in place for rapid expulsion of most migrant adults and some family units.”

Ries and Morgan concluded, “Today’s numbers should be a wake-up call to this administration – Biden’s border crisis is unsustainable and is drowning our Border Patrol agents in a flood of lawlessness.” Slowly, Americans are waking up to the fact that there is a crisis!

Many Americans were relieved to have the Trump policies stop because they thought they were too harsh. They thought that America needed to have more compassion on the poor migrants who made such a dangerous trip to improve their living conditions. The U.S. needed to be more humanitarian.

What I would like to know is where is the compassion in parents who send their children on such a long, dangerous journey with strangers? Why do they entrust these precious children to people who look at the children as ways to make money – or worse. I have heard reports that 60 percent to 70 percent of young girls and women – as well as some boys and young men – are raped and sexually abused by their so-called guides. Girls as young as twelve are on birth control because their “guardians” suspected that they would be raped. Where is the compassion and humanitarianism for these sexual assault victims?

There are news reports of children being used and abused. A six-month old baby was thrown in the river to distract border agents from stopping a boat full of migrants being smuggled into the U.S. Two toddlers – ages three and five -- were dropped over a fourteen-foot fence into the United States and left to fare on their own. Fortunately, Border Patrol rescued them. A nine-year-old boy was traveling with a group, got separated, and left behind. He was frightened and crying when he was found by an agent on his way home from duty. Where is the compassion and humanitarianism in the treatment of these children?

Trump haters and/or Biden supporters do not want to admit it, but President Donald Trump was right about the border. The border fence does not stop all illegal immigration, but it slows down the drug smugglers and human traffickers and allows agents to catch them. The remain in Mexico policy took away much of the incentive for people to take the journey. Parents and other guardians stopped sending children and teens to the border when they realized that they would not be admitted into the United States. The truth is that Trump was right!

There is some discussion about Biden walking back his action on the border fence. The talk is that more construction will take place to fill in the “gaps.” I suppose the gaps that are mentioned are the spaces left in the fence for construction purposes and which are being used by drug smugglers and human traffickers to bring their goods into the U.S.

Who Is Clarence Thomas?

            My VIP for this week is Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas is a trusted and true conservative on the Court, and he has been in the news several times recently. Last fall, he argued that Section 230 should be reigned in. Now he says that companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google should be regulated the same as utilities. Issie Lapowsky at Protocol posted the following information. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated a lower court ruling in finding that President Trump had acted unconstitutionally by blocking people on Twitter. That case, which the justices deemed moot, hinged on the idea that the @realdonaldtrump account was a public forum run by the president of the United States, and therefore, was constitutionally prohibited from stifling private speech. In his concurrence, Justice Thomas agrees with the decision, but argues that, in fact, Twitter's recent ban of the @realdonaldtrump account suggests that it's platforms themselves, not the government officials on them, that hold all the power.

"As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms," Thomas writes. "The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions."

            In Thomas’ view some digital platforms should be treated as common carriers like telephone companies. “A traditional telephone company laid physical wires to create a network connecting people” while “Digital platforms lay information infrastructure that can be controlled in much the same way. This sounds like a good argument to me, but Thomas had other points to make.

            Common carriers are treated differently than private companies. While private companies have First Amendment protections, common carriers do not have the “right to exclude.” Because the large tech companies have so much power, they should have the same restrictions. “If the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct, then an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked: laws that restrict the platform’s right to exclude.”

            There is little doubt that such a restriction would curb the powers of the tech giants to moderate the content on their platforms. However, big tech has friends in high places with Democrats controlling the federal government.

            Facebook’s 3 billion users and Google’s 90% market share in search shows a lot of market power as noted by Thomas. “It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information…. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.” Lapowsky concluded her article as follows. Thomas states that in order for an account like @realdonaldtrump to be truly classified as government controlled, "the power of a platform to unilaterally remove a government account" would have to be "reduced."

Thomas acknowledges that it would be up to "a legislature" to impose such a restriction and that the Twitter blocking case before the court didn't offer an opportunity to grapple with those questions. But, he writes, "We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms."

            Thomas indicated that the case before the Court was not a good vehicle to “grapple with those questions.” He also stated that Congress is the place to put such controls on big tech. With Democrats benefitting from the activities of big tech, we cannot expect any such action until Democrats are out of control. However, Thomas indicated that there is a good case for such legislation.

Why Is the Constitution Considered to Be Divinely Inspired?

             The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the divinely inspired Constitution of the United States. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been taught for nearly two hundred years that the Lord “raised up” wise men to write the Constitution and that the document is divinely inspired.

Today members of the Church of Jesus Christ and friends who listened to General Conference were taught about the Constitution by President Dallin H. Oaks. President Oaks has the distinction of serving as a law clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren at the U.S. Supreme Court, as a law professor, and as a Utah Supreme Court justice until he was called to the apostleship in 1984. Therefore, he is professionally qualified to discuss the Constitution. 

President Oaks discussed the importance of the Constitution to the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth and the Church of Jesus Christ organized less than fifty years after the Constitution was written and ratified. The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion was crucial to the Restoration.

According to President Oaks, members of the Church of Jesus Christ have a responsibility to defend, protect, and preserve the Constitution because we know that it was divinely inspired. We should also pray for the Lord to bless all nations and leaders. In addition, members must study the Constitution to learn its inspired principles and then advocate for those principles.

We should seek out and support wise and good persons who will support those principles in their public actions (Doctrine and Covenants 98:10). We should be knowledgeable citizens who are active in making our influence felt in civic affairs.

            President Oaks continued by teaching that there are at least five divinely inspired principles contained in the United States Constitution. (1) “The Constitution established a constitutional democratic republic, where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives.” (2) The delegated power is divided between the national or federal government and the sovereign states. (3) There is a separation of powers between the “independent executive, legislative and judicial powers so these three branches could exercise checks upon one another.” (4) The Bill of Rights is a cluster or collection of guarantees for individual rights and specific limits on governmental authority. (5) “The vital purpose of the entire Constitution. We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any officeholder.”

            President Oaks warned that there are “many threats that undermine the principles of the Constitution.” This is one reason why members of the Church of Jesus Christ must “be knowledgeable citizens” and “seek out wise and good persons” to represent us.

No party, platform or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then, members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy.

 

Why Is Easter Important?

             Easter is important for numerous reasons. One reason that most people can understand is that there would be no Christmas to celebrate if there had been no Easter. Put another way, if Jesus Christ were not resurrected, there would be no reason to celebrate His birth. Without His atoning sacrifice and resurrection, He would have been just another baby.

            I studied about Easter for my Come, Follow Me lesson this week with two basic principles. The first principle is “Jesus Christ lives.” This is a fact that has many witnesses. Matthew 28 tells us that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” went to the sepulcher at the end of the Sabbath. They met an angel who told them that Jesus had risen and to go tell His disciples. While they were going, “Jesus met them, saying, All hail…. Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me” (Matthew 28:9-10). Mark 16:9 tells us, “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the wee, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene…” and told her to go tell the disciples. They did not believe her.

            Mark 16:12-14 tells of other witnesses: “After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”

            At some point, the disciples went fishing and found Jesus on the shore of the sea of Tiberias. John 21:14 says, “This is the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.”

            In 1 Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul lists a number of people who saw the risen Lord:

Cephas or Peter (v. 5), the twelve (v. 5), “above 500 brethren at once” (v. 6), James, then all the apostles (v. 7), and Paul (v. 8).

            The New Testament is not the only scripture that records visits of the risen Christ. The Book of Mormon – Another Testament of Jesus Christ – records visits from the risen Savior on multiple days. Chapter 11:1-8 tells of a multitude of people gathered at the temple who saw Jesus Christ descend from heaven and heard the voice of the Father say, “Behold, my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name – hear ye him.” This chapter also says that each member of the multitude felt “the prints of the nails in [His] hands and in [His] feet” and bore witness of their experience (verses 14-17).

            In the latter days, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith the early spring of 1820. The Father introduced the Son, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (Joseph Smith – History 1:5-20). The Savior appeared to the Prophet several times, one of which took place in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836, to the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery.

1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your Advocate with the Father (Doctrine and Covenants 110:1-4).

            Jesus Christ is a real Person who lived on the earth, was crucified, and rose from the tomb on the third day. He lives! This brings me to the second principle: “Because of Jesus Christ, I will be resurrected.” Jesus Christ overcame the power of death. He laid down His life, and He took it up again. At the time of His resurrection, His spirit reentered His body, never to again be separated. Because Christ was resurrected, He made it possible for all mankind to be resurrected. Every man, woman, and child who has ever lived upon the earth will be resurrected and gain immortality.

I have not seen the risen Christ, but I know that He lives because the Holy Ghost has borne witness to me. Jesus Christ is the living Son of the living Father in Heaven. I know that They live and that They love each of us. Jesus Christ was resurrected on the first Easter morning and made it possible for all of us to be resurrected also. This is the reason why we celebrate Christmas and Easter. This is the reason why Easter is important!

Will School Choice Options Spread Across the United States?

            Families, communities, and nations are stronger when parents are involved in the schooling of their children. Teachers Unions have held children across the nation as hostages as they have refused to allow the teachers to return to the classroom for fear of COVID-19. According to Lindsey M. Burke at The Daily Signal, parents have experienced “uncertainty, inconsistency, and, in some cases, ineptitude from public schools.” After a year of many children being locked out of the classroom, parents may be changing their minds about public schools. 

The events of the last year have demonstrated to many families that public schools are not always the reliable institutions many thought they were. It also opened their eyes to just how powerful the teachers unions are, and revealed what many already suspected: that their modus operandi is not to support teachers who want to teach but to score political wins.

            Multiple state legislatures took notice about what was happening in the school districts of their state. Burke exposed one of the results from such observation is “one of the biggest expansions of school choice in history.” She noted that the following states are beginning or expanding their school choice options: West Virginia, Kentucky, South Dakota, Georgia, Florida, Arizona, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Indiana.

            Burke gave details about the actions taken by the state legislatures in these nine states. In addition, “dozens of others are considering measures to expand education freedom and opportunity to students.” She added that an “unprecedented 29 states have already introduced similar measures this year that will create or expand vouchers, tax credit scholarships, and education savings accounts….” Further, “more than 20 of those states have introduced education savings account options specifically. For families, these proposals represent lifelines to opportunities previously unavailable to them in their public school.”

            In addition to states adding and/or expanding school choice options, many parents learned that they enjoyed home schooling their children and decided not to send their children back to public schools. Teachers unions not only stood in the way of education choice for decades, but many of them stood in the way of access to education during the pandemic. The unions have been unfair to teachers, parents, and children. Hopefully, they will recognize that they are being rebuked and change their ways. Access to good educational options for children can strengthen families, communities, and nations.

Do Americans Have Freedom of Speech in College Classes?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday comes from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….” The freedom of speech has been under attack in the United States for some time. It started with the condemnation of “politically incorrect speech” and continued to the silencing of former President Donald Trump and his supporters. There are few victories for free speech, but one took place recently.

            According to Sarah Parshall Perry at The Daily Signal, a professor of philosophy won his suit against Shawnee State University. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court ruled that Professor Nicholas Meriwether could not be forced to say something that he did not believe. In his case, the university tried to force the professor to use the “preferred pronouns” used by a transgender student, and the court said no way. The court also ruled that the professor’s suit could go forward for the university’s violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

            The decision by the Sixth Court “is the first of its kind, and establishes a needed boundary against American culture’s new, brutish sexual orthodoxy. It said loud and clear that people in academia cannot be forced to say things that they do not believe.

            Perry gave some background for the suit. In 2016, the leadership at Shawnee State University sent an email to its faculty members, which directed them to use the students’ preferred pronouns when referring to them. Meriwether, as a devout Christian, went immediately to his department chair, Jennifer Pauley, to voice his concerns about the policy. Pauley was dismissive of his concerns and then became hostile to him.

Knowing Meriwether had successfully taught courses on Christian thought for decades, Pauley claimed Christians are “primarily motivated out of fear” and “should be banned from teaching courses regarding that religion.” In her view, even the “presence of religion in higher education is counterproductive.”

Meriwether was told that even if a professor had moral or religious objections to the use of preferred pronouns, the policy would still apply.

            In January 2018, Meriwether responded to a question from a male student in a political philosophy class by saying, “Yes, sir.” The student later approached the professor, “stated that he was transgender, and demanded that the professor refer to him as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns. Meriwether politely refused to use the student-preferred pronouns and offered to use the student’s last name or any other name chosen by the student. The student filed a complaint against the professor, which started a formal investigation at the Title IX office of the university.

Meriwether again offered various compromises in an attempt to protect his rights of conscience while being respectful to the transgender student, but the university rejected any arrangement other than the use of preferred pronouns or the elimination of sex-based pronouns altogether (a virtual impossibility in a scholastic setting).

            When Meriwether refused to conform, the university charged him formally with a violation of Title IX with the claim “he [had] effectively created a hostile environment” for the student. A written warning was put in Meriwether’s personnel file with the threat of “further corrective actions” if he did not conform to the groupthink of the university.

            The note and the threat were enough to move Meriwether to legal action, and he sued the Ohio university “for violation of free speech and religious liberty under the First Amendment” as well as “violation of his due process and equal protection rights” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

            Meriwether’s lawsuit was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott on February 12, 2020. In addition, the judge “held that a professor’s speech in the classroom is never protected by the First Amendment.” From there, Meriwether appealed to the Sixth Court in Meriwether v. Hartop et al. The judges recognize the attempt to stamp out debate and open dialogue by the university’s speech policy. Judge Amul Thapar wrote the opinion and was joined by Judge Joan Larsen and Senior Judge David McKeague. The opinion starts as follows:

Traditionally, American universities have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom. They have prided themselves on being forums where controversial ideas are discussed and debated. And they have tried not to stifle debate by picking sides. But Shawnee State chose a different route: It punished a professor for his speech on a hotly contested issue. And it did so despite the constitutional protections afforded by the First Amendment.

The district court dismissed the professor’s free-speech and free-exercise claims. We see things differently and reverse.

            The judge continued by clarifying “that the Supreme Court has recognized that the government may not compel a speaker to affirm a belief with which the speaker disagrees.” In addition, … “courts have recognized that the free speech clause of the Constitution applies at public universities and that ‘professors do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the [university] gate.”

            Perry summarized the decision to say that “professors at public universities retain First Amendment protections at least when engaged in core academic functions, such as teaching and scholarship.” Her reason is that classrooms at colleges and universities are different than other work settings because the students need to be able too freely exchange ideas.

            On the topic of titles and pronouns, the judge wrote that Meriwether did not agree with or want to communicate the message of the student and the university: “People can have a gender identity inconsistent with their sex at birth.”

… Meriwether took a side in that debate. Through his continued refusal to address Doe as a woman, he advanced a viewpoint on gender identity …

Shawnee State allegedly flouted [a] core principle of the First Amendment. Taking the allegations as true, and against “leftist groupthink” in academia.

According to the judge, people can think what they want about their own gender, but they do not have the right to force other people to recognize their non-reality. The judge confirmed that there is a difference between truth and opinion. The professor stood for truth, while the student and university tried to force him to acknowledge an opinion as truth. In doing so, they infringed upon the professor’s freedom of speech.