Will Joe Biden Be Impeached for Bribery?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns possible impeachment proceedings against President Joe Biden. Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

According to an article by Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal, a government whistleblower “made a legally protected disclosure to the office of Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.” The whistleblower alleges an FBI document – a FD-1023 form – “was created or modified in June 2020, about five months before Biden was elected president.” 

After the disclosure, Representative James Comer (R-KY), chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, issued a subpoena to the FBI to produce the document. The FBI has until Wednesday to produce the document. 

The suggestion was made that the whistleblower went to Grassley because he “has a long history of working with government whistleblowers.” Since Grassley does not have the power to subpoena, he went to Comer who does have the power. The committee members have confidence in the whistleblower, but they will wait until they see the document to see what it contains.

The whistleblower alleges that there was a “scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national related to an ‘exchange of money for policy decisions.’”  Biden may be vindicated, but Americans “will not know unless the FBI promptly releases the subpoenaed information.”

If the document shows the allegation to be true, Biden is guilty of bribery for influencing policy decisions. Sitting Presidents cannot be charged with crimes, so the only recourse left for Congress is to impeach Biden. Bribery is listed in the Constitution as an impeachable offense.  

How Do You Show Your Gratitude to God for Your Blessings?

My Come, Follow Me studies this week took me to Luke 12-17 and John 11 in a lesson titled “Rejoice with Me; for I Have Found My Sheep Which Was Lost.” The lesson was preceded by this counsel: “As you read Luke 12-17 and John 11, prayerfully seek what Heavenly Father wants you to know and do. Your study of these chapters can open your heart to messages meant just for you.” The lesson was then introduced with this paragraph. 

In most situations, 99 out of 100 would be considered excellent – but not when such numbers stand for beloved children of God (see Doctrine and Covenants 18:10). In that case, even one soul merits a thorough, desperate search “until [we] find it” (Luke 15:4), as the Savior taught in the parable of the lost sheep. Then the rejoicing can begin, for “joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). If that seems unfair, it’s helpful to remember that, in truth, there are none who “need no repentance.” We all need rescuing. And we all can participate in the rescue, rejoicing together over every soul who is saved (see Doctrine and Covenants 18:15-16).

This scripture block contains several parables, but I will discuss a real-life story of the Ten Lepers. Let’s first look at the scripture.

11 And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.

12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:

13 And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.

14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.

15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God,

16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.

17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?

18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.

19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.

(Luke 17:11-19)

If you had been one of the ten lepers that were cleansed, would you return to thank the Savior? You might IF you are in the practice of showing gratitude for the blessings in your life. If you thank you spouse for preparing dinner or washing the car or cleaning the house, you might thank the Savior. However, if you are one of the many people who feel entitled to more than they have, you probably would not think about expressing gratitude.

All ten of the lepers were cleansed from leprosy, but they were told to go to the priest to be pronounced clean and worthy to re-enter society. One of the lepers noticed that his body was healed. He knew the Source of the blessing, and he returned to thank the Giver of the blessing.

Social scientists discovered from their studies that expressing gratitude makes us feel better. Several years ago, I adopted a new way of life: each night as I make my journal entry, I list five blessings for which I am grateful. They may be the same five blessings as I listed the previous day, or they may be five new blessings.

Two years ago, as the world suffered with the COVID-19 pandemic, President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sent a special message to the world. His message is still good, and I recommend it highly. You can find a video of his message here. 

Did you notice that the thankful leper received an additional blessing? You might want to ponder the words that the Savior said to him: “Thy faith hath made thee whole” (verse 19). Faith and gratitude are related because they both help us to become whole. I invite you to strengthen your faith and become whole by expressing gratitude for your blessings.

 

How Do We Form Stronger Families?

Marriage strengthens families, communities, and nations, and the changes to marriage bring both strengths and weaknesses. My textbook has proportions for the different living conditions for children in 1960 to those in 2014.

                                                                                     1960    2014

Two parents in first marriage                                      75%     47%

Two parents in second marriage                                  14%     15%

Cohabitating parents                                                   ----         7%

Single parents                                                                9%      26%

No parent                                                                      4%         5%

 According to the above figures, the number of children living with their biological parents dropped by more than one-third, but children living in a second marriage increased only one percent. Cohabiting parents came on the scene sometime in the 50-year period, but single parents nearly tripled. Remarriage involving children is not a good option because forty percent of such marriages end in divorce within ten years. Those are all interesting proportions. (Source: Robert Siegler, Jenny R. Saffran, Nancy Eisenberg, Judy DeLoache, and Elizabeth Gershoff with help from Campbell [2017]. How Children Develop, 5^th ed., pp. 512, 518.)

A recent study titled What’s the Plan? Cohabitation, Engagement, and Divorce (2023) by Scott M. Stanley and Galena K. Rhodes has some interesting information. The study found that 50 to 65 percent of Americans believe that cohabitation before marriage will strengthen a later marriage. Yet, statistics show that cohabitating couples who marry have a higher risk of divorce than couples who do not cohabitate prior to the wedding ceremony. Here are the key takeaways of the study. 

• Not living together before marriage, or only doing so after already being engaged to marry, is associated with a lower likelihood of marriages ending than living together before being engaged.

• Couples might lower their risks of divorce by having clear intentions to marry before moving in together or by waiting until marriage to live together.

• Reasons for moving in together also matter: People who reported that their top reason for moving in together was either to test the relationship or because it made sense financially were more likely to see their marriages end than those who did so because they wanted to spend more time with their partner.

• Having a greater number of prior cohabiting partners is associated with a higher likelihood of marriages ending.

• Talking about what living together means and making a decision together about it (rather than sliding into it) might help lower the risk of marital difficulties for some couples who will live together before marriage. Clarifying marital intentions may be a particularly important goal for such discussions.

Although the percentage of people cohabitating is smaller than those married, the takeaways listed above show that there are dangers to cohabitation. The myth that cohabitation is preparation for marriage needs to be debunked because it does not strengthen marriages. Stronger marriages make stronger families, communities, and nations.

 

How Did Montana Restrict Abortions Without Banning Them Completely?

 The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the right to live. According to Mary Margaret Olohan and Samantha Aschieris at The Daily Signal, the Montana legislature has been busy passing pro-life legislation, and Republican Governor Greg Gianforte has been happy to sign them into law.

            In their article, the authors reported that on Wednesday, Gianforte signed five pro-life bills into law, stating, “Montanans sent us to Helena to boldly defend life, not send their tax dollars to abortion clinics.” He added, “Montanan’s hard-earned money should not be used by the government to fund elective abortions.” The authors continued:

According to the governor’s office, “the package defends life, protecting babies born alive following a botched abortion, restriction dismemberment abortion of babies, and prohibiting the abortion of viable babies, unless necessary to protect the life of the mother.”

One of the bills signed into law on Wednesday, SB 154, sponsored by state Sen. Keith Regier, R-Kalispell, “clarifies the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution does not mean the right to an abortion.”

“Senator Regier’s Senate Bill 154 was one of the most important bills brought this session. For years in Montana, abortion activists have used the cloak of a shaky legal interpretation to advance their pro-abortion agenda. That stops today. No more,” Gianforte said.

There are five other pro-life bills awaiting action from Gianforte, according to the governor’s office.

Pro-life advocates applauded the move, praising the governor for standing up for life.

While pro-life supporters were praising the governor and acting to save the lives of babies, “pro-abortion groups accused Gianforte of putting women’s health at risk.” Martha Fuller, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana president and CEO, claimed that “These laws have the potential to harm thousands of Montanans and people across our region who have been forced to travel to Montana for care.” However, she did “not address specifics about the bills that would jeopardize women’s health.”

Are You Ready For a Bigger Flood of Illegal Immigrants at the Border?

Title 42 will expire on May 11, 2023, and the flood of illegal immigrants coming into the United States will greatly increase. The Biden administration – Department of Homeland Security – is blaming smugglers for spreading disinformation about the border being open. I do not understand why they do not simply close the border, but I know that they will not.

According to Virginia Allen at The Daily Signal, Title 42 is a public health measure that was put in place during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic by the Trump administration. It gave Border Patrol the authority to “quickly expel some illegal aliens from the country.” It worked well until Biden became POTUS and opened the borders to whoever wanted to come to America. 

Instead of closing the border, “Biden has authorized 1,5000 active-duty U.S. troops to be deployed at the border for 90 days to assist” the Border Patrol. The troops will help with transportation and administrative tasks, freeing “Border Patrol and other law enforcement to work in the field.”

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Arizona) expects that “as many as 14,000 illegal aliens are expected to be encountered at the southern border daily when Title 42 ends.” Supposedly, Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security has a plan to deal with them. At least, he has been working for a year on a plan that has “six pillars.”

The first pillar focuses on increasing resources and touts the addition of “2,000 additional non-uniformed personnel” to help Border Patrol process illegal aliens, the hiring of an additional 300 Border Patrol agents, increasing border surveillance, constructing new processing centers, using larger vehicles to transport illegal aliens from the border to processing centers, increasing medical [personnel] on hand, and increasing funding.

The second pillar focuses on processing illegal aliens faster.

The third centers on the establishment of new removal and parole processes.

The fourth pillar includes millions of dollars in funding to non-governmental

organizations that transport, house, and provide resources to illegal aliens.

The final two pillars of the DHS plan include efforts to target drug and human smugglers and to work with other nations within the Western Hemisphere to address the “root causes of migration.” (Emphasis added.)

I say that Mayorkas really messed up. He should have forgotten about “the root causes” and used the millions of dollars and the past year to complete a wall across the southern border. He would have had money left over to provide lights and all the electronic gadgets to completely seal the border. Mayorkas and Biden should be impeached for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to flood into the United States!

What Does the Future Hold?

One year ago the draft Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked. The Dobbs leak occurred on May 2, 2022, and spurred illegal protesting. Protesters sought to influence the decisions of the justices, attack Catholic churches and pro-life pregnancy centers, and assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The Department of Justice is slow in prosecuting all the illegal acts. Justice Samuel Alito believes that he knows who the leaker is, but no one has been identified. I wonder when the leaker will be prosecuted as well as when the Department of Justice will provide equal protection before the law and stop favoring Left Wing supporters. 

Do American Children Have the Right to Express Their Political Views?

 My VIP for this week is Liam Morrison, a 12-year-old seventh grader at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts. He was sent home because he wore a T-shirt that said, “there are only two genders,” a position that he believes. He is my VIP because he “bravely, brilliantly, and bluntly” defended his position at a Middleborough Public Schools Committee meeting. You can watch his defense here in an article by Michele Blood at The Blaze. 

According to Blood, Morrison lowered the microphone and said, “I never thought that the shirt I wore to school … would lead me to speak with you today.” He then explained that he had been taken out of gym class in March for what he called a “very uncomfortable talk” with two adults. He was told that his shirt made some people feel “unsafe” and that he could return to class if he removed the shirt.         

The preteen explained that he felt that he was in trouble even though he was told that he was not in trouble. He told the adults that he did not want to remove his shirt, and school officials called his father to pick him up. He was grateful that his father supported his position and picked him up.

In his presentation before the committee, Morrison explained, “I was told that my shirt was ‘targeting a protected class.’ Who is this protected class? Are their feeling more important than my rights?” He continued by saying that he did not “complain when he saw diversity posters and pride flags in the school ‘because others have rights to their beliefs just as I do.’”

Morrison was having difficulty understanding the problem because “no students or staff told him they were bothered by what he was wearing,” and some students even said that “they supported him and wanted a similar T-shirt.”

Despite being told his shirt was a “disruption to learning,” Liam said no one stormed out of class or burst into tears.

“I experience disruptions to my learning every day. Kids acting out in class are a disruption, yet nothing is done,” Liam said. “Why do rules apply to one but not another?”

“I feel like these adults were telling me it wasn’t OK for me to have an opposing view.”

“Their arguments are weak, in my opinion,” Liam said, briefly looking up from his papers, directing his gaze at the adults on stage.

“I have learned a lot in this experience…. I learned that adults don’t always do the right thing or make the right decisions.”

“I know I have the right to wear a shirt with those five words. Even at 12 years old, I have my own political opinions and I have a right to express those opinions, even at school. This right is called the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

“I hope you will speak up for the rest of us so we can express ourselves without being pulled out of class,” Lim concluded, thanking the committee for its time.

Although the committee did not comment on Morrison’s remarks, he should be applauded for being brave enough to defend his position in front of the committee. Even at 12 years of age, he understands that the Constitution protects his right to express his opinion.