How Should Families Be Supported?

Families are stronger when churches, governmental leaders, and ordinary individuals support them, and strong families strengthen communities, states, and nations. Dr. Ben Carson and his wife, Candy, will be honored tomorrow (Friday) by the Sutherland Institute at its 30^th anniversary awards dinner. Carson is a retired neurosurgeon, former GOP presidential candidate, and former U.S. Housing and Urban Development secretary.

According to numerous sources, Carson and his wife work as a team, and they will be honored as a team. In their article published at the Deseret News, Jennifer Graham and Jason Swensen quoted Rick Larsen, the institute’s president and CEO: 

And it is their own strong union that compelled the Sutherland Institute to present its Family Values Award to both of the Carsons together.

“We find it remarkable that in public life, there are so few people of (Dr. Carson’s) standing and profile who will unapologetically defend the family as a core institution and make the connection with families of faith,” Larsen said, Thursday, explaining why Sutherland initially considered Ben Carson alone as a recipient.

But then, looking closer at “The Perilous Fight” and other books, the Sutherland team realized how important Candy Carson is to the work.

“When you read their book, and when you read Candy’s book, ‘A Doctor in the House,’ you realize they’re inseparable, they’re in this together.” And so we adjusted the award to recognize both of them,” Larsen said.

According the Carsons, the fight for families is “perilous” – a word taken from a line in “The Star-Spangled Banner,” written by Francis Scott Key about the bombardment of Fort McHenry by the British Navy during the War of 1812.

Like Fort McHenry, the Carsons write, “the American family is under heavy bombardment and sustained attack. Our enemies have been chipping away at their target for decades, and they now believe the time is right for a full-scale assault.” …

The Carsons believe that the institution of the family is being deliberately undermined by modern-day Marxists, socialists and globalists whose values are at odds with those of America’s founders.

They cite the 1958 book “The Naked Communist,” written by former FBI agent and Latter-day Saint W. Cleon Skousen, who argued against communism and put forth the movement’s 45 strategies that some believed would result in “the ideological capture of America.”

Among them: “Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce” and “emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.”

The assault on the family is ongoing through the entertainment media and through liberal forces in education, the Carsons believe, at the same time that religious faith – another component of strong families – is also experiencing erosion.

The Carsons are not 100% convinced this new “perilous fight” can be won, but they offer strategies that give families a fighting chance. Among them: They advocate for public policies that strengthen and grow families (such as streamlining the adoption process and making it more affordable), divorce laws that incentivize staying married and punish fathers who abandon their children….

Like his mother before him, Ben Carson believes that education can overcome a lot of the problems we face.

“Things like what happened in New York yesterday [election of  Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York] would not happen if people were truly knowledgeable, but they’re not knowledgeable. You see that all the time. You see the man-on-the-street interviews, and they ask people just the simplest questions, and they have no idea what the answer is. You could ask them who wrote Mozart’s 40^th Symphony, and they wouldn’t know. That’s the level of ignorance that exists. We have to fight that,” he said.

The Carsons are doing their part to help educate America with the American Cornerstone Institute, the nonprofit they founded to promote conservative principles and policy solutions. Through their Young Patriots program, the couple want to make sure that American children are taught to value faith, liberty, community and life.

“We have a wonderful story to tell with this nation – the most prosperous nation that ever existed, and provided more opportunities for people than any other place ever has. It has a moral base, and as we allow all of that to recede, we’re suffering the consequences.”

Are Trump’s Tariffs Constitutional?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the importance of the three branches of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – staying in their lanes of responsibility while supporting each other to keep the government strong. The Constitution outlines the duties of the three branches with Article I pertaining to the duties of the legislative branch, Article II pertaining to the duties of the executive branch, and Article III pertaining to the duties of the judicial branch. Basically, the legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judicial branch determines if the laws are constitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday concerning President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs without Congressional approval. The case is Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Fred Lucas reported on the Supreme Court hearing. 

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

According to Lucas, several Justices questioned Trump’s authority to use tariffs without approval of Congress. He recognized that “Tariffs have long been core to Trump’s trade and economic agenda, often clashing with the more libertarian-leaning conservative views on free trade that dominated the Republican Party going back to at least the Ronald Reagan era.”

It will be interesting to learn how the Justices rule because their questions fell in several areas.

According to a Forbes article written by Alison Durkee, President Trump could still use tariffs under different laws, but their use would be narrower. The tariffs will remain in effect until the case is settled. 

The tariff case before the Supreme Court specifically concerns the “Liberation Day” tariffs, or “reciprocal tariffs,” that stem from Trump’s April announcement imposing tariffs on nearly all foreign countries. These tariffs are general tariff rates that apply to nearly all goods from foreign countries, with tariff rates set by country. The president also used IEEPA for his tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China, which he imposed due to the countries’ purported failing to address the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., so those tariffs would also be affected by a ruling declaring Trump can’t impose tariffs under IEEPA. The lawsuit would not impact other tariffs Trump separately imposed on specific industries or goods, such as automobile tariffs or tariffs on steel and aluminum, as those were justified under different federal statutes.

Legal experts told Forbes companies that paid “Liberation Day” tariffs on imports to the U.S. are likely entitled to refunds of the fees, if the tariffs are ultimately deemed unconstitutional…. Trump administration could fight the refunds and argue only companies who directly sued over the tariffs are entitled to them – but government officials have acknowledged they’ll likely be on the hook for returning at least some of the companies’ money. “We would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” Bessent told “Meet the Press” on Sunday about what happens if the tariffs get overturned.

… While Trump’s ability to levy sweeping tariffs under IEEPA is up for legal debate, there are a number of other federal statutes that give Trump more explicit authority to impose tariffs. That tariff authority is much more limited than what Trump’s done with his “Liberation Day” tariffs, however, often imposing restrictions on how long they can be in effect or maximum tariff rates….

Bessent warned in a declaration to the Supreme Court that a ruling against Trump’s tariffs could threaten the administration’s trade deals with foreign countries, as the White House has used the threat of tariffs on countries’ goods to try and get better terms for the U.S. The Federal Circuit’s ruling against the tariffs has already “adversely affected ongoing negotiations,” Bessent claimed, as leaders from other countries are “questioning the President’s authority to impose tariffs, walking away from or delaying negotiations, and/or imposing a different calculus on their negotiating position.” The Trump administration also suggested an unfavorable tariff ruling could “jeopardize” Trump’s efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war, as Trump has used tariffs to punish other countries that are still doing business with Moscow….

  

What Are the Results of the Off-Year Elections?

As this essay is written on Tuesday evening, results are coming in for the off-year elections in blue areas like New York City, New Jersey, and Virginia, and it looks like Democrats will occupy the mayor’s office in NYC and the governor mansions in New Jersey and Virginia. It is possible for conservatives to look at Democrat wins tonight and feel like the sky is falling. However, such thoughts may be wrong. Bradley Devlin, politics editor for The Daily Signal, shared the following information. 

As I previously wrote for The Daily Signal:

On Tuesday night, the temptation for professional and casual election observers alike will be to assume that if more candidates win with D’s next to their names than R’s, Democrats are in the driver’s seat for the midterms, and vice versa….

The truth is that the party identification of Tuesday night’s winners are oftentimes bad predictors of how the chips will fall in the midterms.

What we did learn from the 2025 election cycle that culminated in Democrat victories across the board, however, is that Democrats have no interest in moderating.

Their base has the basest desires. They demanded the government shutdown, now the longest in U.S. history. They embraced Mamdani’s democratic socialism. They pulled the lever for Virginia Attorney General-elect Jay Jones, who explicitly called for the death of a former speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates and his family. This, of course, came less than two months after the most high-profile political assassination of my lifetime.

And the Democrat base has rewarded its Democrat candidates for their hostility, extremism, and violence.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution and one of Virginia’s finest statesmen, wrote in Federalist No. 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Perhaps the 2025 elections demonstrate the opposite truth: If men were devils, no government would be sufficient.

Sounds like I’m getting swept away. I am not. This radicalism forced Democrats to spend more money on races Republicans thought unwinnable just two months ago – much less before the 2024 election, when Trump made massive inroads in both New Jersey and Virginia.

Take Jones’ message, “war to the death” with my political opponents, and Mamdani’s “let them eat cake” from government-run grocers, and see how it plays in the purple areas of Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Texas. It won’t….

While Democrat radicalism makes the stakes of each and every race in the 2026 midterms that much higher, conservatives now know the Democrat playbook for 2026. With well-laid plans, there’s hope to find peace in Canaan.

What Kind of Politician Is John Fetterman?

Many people thought that Democrat voters were crazy to send John Fetterman to Washington DC to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate. Fetterman was not physically or mentally capable of serving as a U.S. Senator when he was elected. He was suffering from brain damage and was not capable of carrying on a conversation. 

Now it is possible that Fetterman is the only Democrat senator that is not crazy, and his party is openly calling for his resignation because he criticized the Democrat’s refusal to reopen the government. According to Lorenzo Prieto in an article published at The Daily Signal, Fetterman said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Democrats “really need to own the shutdown.” 

“Fundamentally, I’m deeply distressing that 42 million Americans are going to lose their SNAP benefits. And now that’s one of the big reasons why I refuse to shut our government down,” Fetterman said.

Fetterman acknowledged that Democrats want to address the importance of the Obamacare tax credits, but called their current “tactic wrong,” as it will “put 42 million Americans in the kinds of food insecurity.”

“So, it’s not something I support of, and I don’t want to be involved,” Fetterman added. “We can find a way forward. We need to find a way forward and we really can achieve these kinds of tax credits, and this is something I support, but it’s the wrong tactic. It was wrong when the Republicans did it. It’s wrong now that we seem to be driving it.” …

Fetterman has also recently called out the hypocrisy of his own party and distanced himself from colleagues who openly refer to Republican lawmakers as Nazis.

“I am not just representing Democrats. I’m representing 13 million Pennsylvanians, and I refuse to call members of the other team as fascists or Nazis, or those other kinds of thing. Because if you do, then that implies that the people that vote for them must be the same. And that’s absolutely not true,” Fetterman said last Wednesday on Fox News.

“I know and love many of people that voted for the president, and they’re not fascists. They’re not Nazis. They’re not here to destroy our democracy. [They] have different values and different views on what they think is the American way of life. And that’s why I refuse to engage in those things.”

 

Who Is Elise Stefanik?

In a news cycle where a communist mayoral candidate is sucking up most of the air and other radicals are taking the rest, my VIP for this week is Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), who leads the race for New York Governor. In a head-to-head poll, Stefanik polls 43% support among New York registered voters, and current Democrat New York Governor Kathy Hochul polling 42%. In his article published at The Daily Signal, Jacob Adams reported the following: 

“The margin of error is +/- 4% for the NYC sample, and +/- 3.3% for the full New York statewide sample,” according to the Manhattan Institute. Still, the statistical tie is stunning in a state that voted for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat, in last year’s presidential election by double digits.

Hochul has thrown her support behind self-described democratic socialist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani over her former boss, Andrew Cuomo, the former Democratic governor now running for mayor as an independent.

Even some Mamdani supporters appear less than enthused by the New York governor. Hochul was heckled during her recent appearance in Queens with the mayoral candidate with calls to “tax the rich.”

“Kathy Hochul and single-party Democrat rule have failed New York, making it the most unaffordable state in the country, with the highest taxes, energy, utility, rent, and grocery bills, making it unaffordable to raise a family, work, and start a business,” Stefanik spokeswoman Bernadette Breslin said in a statement adding: “New Yorkers of all political parties are hungry for new common sense leadership after decades of Hochul’s failed, single-party Democrat rule.

Stefanik is a New York state native who has served in the House of Representatives since 2015. She was chairwoman of the House Republican Conference from 2021 to 2025. A prominent defender of Israel, Stefanik earned national press coverage over her grilling of university presidents in the wake of rising antisemitism on college campuses following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel….

A separate poll found that only 39% of New Yorkers approve of Hochul’s performance as governor, compared with 56% that disapprove.

Stefanik has yet to officially declare her candidacy to be the Republican nominee for the 2026 New York gubernatorial election, but is expected to do so after the off-year elections next Tuesday….

When Should Vice President Act for Mentally Incapacitated President?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns former President Joe Biden, his cognitive deterioration, and the use of the autopen during his presidency. The House Oversight Committee investigated the situation and recently released a major report on its findings. Jarrett Stepman at The Daily Signal shared the following information. 

“In the absence of sufficient contemporaneous documentation indicating that cognitively deteriorating President Biden himself made a given executive decision, such decisions do not carry the force of law and should be considered void.”

That was what a major report released Tuesday by the House Oversight Committee concluded about former President Joe Biden’s autopen usage during his presidency. The report on Biden’s mental acuity while in office and his autopen use was spearheaded by Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.

The committee’s report notes that the Biden administration “left no record demonstrating President Biden himself made all of the executive decisions that were attributed to him.”

It seems Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Republicans agree with the committee’s conclusions.

The conclusions about Biden’s executive decisions being “void” mean there will soon be very serious legal challenge to the orders Biden gave, but didn’t verify, while in office. Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X that her office has “already initiated a review” of Biden’s autopen usage and thanked Comer for his detailed report.

To a certain extent, the Oversight Committee has simply confirmed what most Americans already knew. That is, Biden was clearly in severe mental and physical decline from the time he was elected and struggled to handle the basic duties of office. One didn’t need to be a doctor or have insider information to know that. It was obvious nearly every time he made a public appearance.

What the report has done is shine a light on some of the inner workings of the Biden White House. The report pains a damning picture – one could even call it a conspiracy – of how Biden’s aides, both formal and informal, manipulated their position to secure executive orders, pardons, and clemencies that the president may have had no knowledge of.

In one example of how decisions were made in the White House, the report highlighted the process that led to a series of pardons as Biden was leaving office. Among these pardons were Biden family members, including his son, Hunter. Biden had said earlier in his presidency that he wouldn’t pardon his son.

The Oversight Committee report says that no official documentation exists regarding how the pardon judgments were made. Instead, the decision to grant these pardons was handed down by “second hand” to the second in command under Biden’s chief of staff Jeff Zients, Rosa Po. After receiving the list, Po called Zients, “who verbally authorized the use of the autopen from home.”

The report said that Zients “did not even know who actually used the autopen to apply the signature after his aide, using his email account with his permission, communicated that the autopen was authorized for the clemency actions.” Zients allegedly went ahead with the autopen pardons without confirming anything with the president.

Stepman said, “It couldn’t be clearer now that Biden was simply the figurehead of a deep state presidency.” Most Americans with eyes to see already knew that Biden was not in charge, and that someone else was giving the orders. Biden would be propped up for public appearances, but he was not making the decisions. We know this is true because he made comments about not being allowed to take questions and being in trouble for doing so. Who was ordering the President of the United States around?

After writing “Biden’s final days certainly seemed a lot more like a late-stage monarchy to me” than the object of the complaints of the “No Kings” protests – President Donald Trump, Stepman continued his article:

The Oversight Committee report brings up another potential long-term issue. While it’s unlikely that the United States will soon again experiment with putting a man in steep mental decline in the president’s office, it’s not impossible that a situation of a missing-in-action president might arise again in the future.

Given the immense power the executive branch yields, it would perhaps be wise to regularize the process by which executive actions are verified….

The autopen business remains a big deal because it’s tied to one of the most significant scandals in American presidential history: the cover-up and denial of Biden’s mental decline while in office.

Because of this cover-up, the American people can’t be certain that official acts by the president were his acts at all, so we’ve been thrown into an unprecedented legal situation of deciding what he did that was valid and what was potentially “void.”

I agree that it would “be wise to regularize” the verification of signing of executive orders. With transparent presidents, it is not a big deal. We can watch as President Trump signs and discusses executive orders in front of cabinet members and members of the Press. However, the lack of transparency in the Biden presidency should be a warning to us.

History tells us that Biden is not the first incapacitated President of the United States. This site shares the following information. The First Lady Who Secretly Ran The U.S. Government - History and Headlines

From October 2, 1919 and for some weeks afterwards, First Lady Edith Wilson (October 15, 1872 – December 28, 1961) unofficially ran the U.S. government following her husband’s (then President Woodrow Wilson’s) life-changing stroke….

On that date, Wilson suffered a stroke of such intensity that it incapacitated him, having permanently paralyzed the left side of his body and even blinding his left eye. While he was bedridden for the next two months, only his wife, physicians, and a few other close associates saw him.

In the meantime, the First Lady in effect took over many of the president’s responsibilities, including reviewing various important matters of state. Even after the president was released from his sick bed, he still spent the remainder of the year in a wheelchair. As 1920 came about, his mental health had clearly deteriorated as his mind wandered and he exhibited a diminished memory. Thus, the First Lady continued to play a pivotal role as a sort of unofficial “acting president”. As the First Lady put it, she had taken on a “stewardship” to care for the largely incapacitated president and keep the American government running as smoothly as possible. The situation was so unique in American history and the president’s condition so tragic, that the extent of what the ailing president endured was kept secret from the American public until his death a couple of years after his term ended.

Knowing how both Nancy Reagan and Jill Biden protected their husbands, I can totally understand Edith Wilson doing the same. However, where was the Vice President in all three situations. We know that Vice President George Bush was acting president while Reagan underwent surgery after he was shot. We also know that Kamala Harris was part of the Biden cover-up. What do we know about Wilson’s VP? I did a bit of research to learn the following. Thomas R. Marshall - Wikipedia

Thomas Riley Marshall (March 14, 1854-June 1, 1925) was the 28^th vice president of the United States from 1913 to 1921 under President Woodrow Wilson….

Marshall’s vice presidency is most remembered for a leadership crisis following a stroke that incapacitated Wilson in October 1919. Because of their personal dislike for Marshall, Wilson’s advisers and wife Edith sought to keep him uninformed about the president’s condition to prevent him from assuming presidential powers and duties. Many people, including cabinet officials and congressional leaders, urged Marshall to become acting president, but he refused to forcibly assume Wilson’s powers, not wanting to set a standard of doing so….

Why Does God Command His Saints to Build Temples?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 124 in a lesson titled “A House unto My Name.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

As difficult as the last six years had been for the Saints, things started to look better in the spring of 1839: The refugee Saints had found compassion among the citizens of Quincy, Illinois. Guards had allowed Joseph Smith and other Church leaders to escape captivity in Missouri. And the Church had just purchased land in Illinois where the Saints could gather again. Yes, it was swampy, mosquito-infested land, but compared to the challenges the Saints had already faced, this probably seemed manageable. So they drained the swamp and drafted a charter for a new city, which they named Nauvoo. It means “beautiful” in Hebrew, though it was more an expression of faith than an accurate description, at least at first. Meanwhile, the Lord was impressing His Prophet with a sense of urgency. He had more truths and ordinances to restore, and He needed a holy temple where He could “crown [His Saints] with honor, immortality, and eternal life” (Doctrine and Covenants 124:55). In many ways, these same feelings of faith and urgency are evident in the Lord’s work today.

This scripture block teaches numerous principles including (1) I can invite others to come unto Christ (Doctrine and Covenants 124:2-11), (2) I can be a disciple whom the Lord trusts (Doctrine and Covenants 124:12-21), (3) The Lord wants me to welcome and accept others (Doctrine and Covenants 124:22-24, 60-61), (4) We build temples unto the Lord to receive sacred ordinances (Doctrine and Covenants 124:25-45, 55), (5) The Lord blesses people who strive to obey His commandments (Doctrine and Covenants 124:45-55), and (6) The Lord can guide me through my patriarchal blessing (Doctrine and Covenants 124:91-92).

This essay will discuss principle #4 about temples and ordinances. I will begin by sharing the applicable scripture block.

25 And again, verily I say unto you, let all my saints come from afar.

26 And send ye swift messengers, yea, chosen messengers, and say unto them: Come ye, with all your gold, and your silver, and your precious stones, and with all your antiquities; and with all who have knowledge of antiquities, that will come, may come, and bring the box tree, and the fir tree, and the pine tree, together with all the precious trees of the earth;

27 And with iron, with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and with all your precious things of the earth; and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein.

28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

29 For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead—

30 For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me.

31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me….

38 For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was.

39 Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name.

40 And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;

41 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times.

42 And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built.

43 And ye shall build it on the place where you have contemplated building it, for that is the spot which I have chosen for you to build it.

44 If ye labor with all your might, I will consecrate that spot that it shall be made holy.

45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place….

55 And again, verily I say unto you, I command you again to build a house to my name, even in this place, that you may prove yourselves unto me that ye are faithful in all things whatsoever I command you, that I may bless you, and crown you with honor, immortality, and eternal life.

The Lord desires that all His Saints receive all the ordinances necessary to return to the presence of Heavenly Father. However, He wants the ordinances to be performed in temples – buildings erected unto His holy name and for this purpose.

Since the building of the Nauvoo Temple in the 1840s, more than 300 temples have bene built or announced. President Russell M. Nelson taught: “We know that our time in the temple is crucial to our salvation and exaltation and to that of our families…. The assaults of the adversary are increasing exponentially, in intensity and in variety. Our need to be in the temple on a regular basis has never been greater” (“Becoming Exemplary Latter-day Saints,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2018, 114).