Issue 3 – December 2025

In this issue of Solid for America, I’ve got two great interviews (I think): one with Kristen Day, Executive Director of Democrats for Life of America, and one with Emily Berning, Co-Founder and President of Let Them Live, which helps pregnant moms who are afraid they might need to resort to abortion for financial reasons. While eagerly awaiting submissions of proposed articles from people other than myself, I did also write a few articles myself, which you can find below the interviews. Readers, please let me know what you think in the “E-Mails to the Editor” contact form near the bottom of the page!

Does It Make More Sense to Be a Pro-Life Democrat
Than to Be a Pro-Life Chinese Communist?

We Will See Abortion Become Unthinkable

US Citizenship and Unalienable Rights:
Did You Miss Out on This in School?

Common Goods, the Common Good, and Individual Rights

Should Choices of Words Have Consequences?

---

Does It Make More Sense to Be a Pro-Life Democrat
Than to Be a Pro-Life Chinese Communist?

An interview with Kristen Day, Executive Director,
Democrats for Life of America

Editor:  Nowadays, I’m pretty sure, many people would think it makes no more sense to be a pro-life Democrat than to be a pro-life Chinese Communist. That wasn’t always true; I’m old enough to remember great pro-life Democrats like Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, and Henry Jackson, as well as pro-abortion Republicans like Barry Goldwater. Is it possible to give a brief summary of how and why the anti-life zealots and profiteers have come so close to getting a stranglehold on the Democratic Party?

Kristen Day:  In 2010, sixty-four Democrats voted for the Stupak Amendment to prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion when the House considered the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I was lobbying on the Hill for the Stupak Amendment and the passage of the ACA. It was the first time in a long time that momentum shifted, allowing Members to vote their conscience on this issue. Members were lobbying other Members to vote for the Stupak Amendment. There was an excitement about voting for the Stupak Amendment within the Democratic Caucus. It was almost infectious. The more Members indicated they would vote yes, the more Members felt freer to do so.

Unfortunately, even with the major victory to pass the ACA and the Stupak Amendment on the House side, the abortion zealots maintained control over the Democratic Party. They blamed pro-life Democrats for the difficulty in passing the law. There was a lot of drama to get the bill over the finish line (Senator Kennedy’s passing, Spector switching parties, the Nelson Amendment, the executive order, etc.). Democratic Members refused to talk to or even look at pro-life Democrats, even after the law was signed.

It was a significant turning point for pro-life and moderate members of the party. In the next election cycle, the pro-abortion zealots and pro-life groups targeted these Members for defeat, leading to a 242 to 193 Republican majority. The pro-life groups mostly aligned with the Republican Party and were upset that the ACA passed. In addition to the pro-life caucus being wiped out, the Blue Dog Caucus as well.

This led to a more empowered pro-abortion movement with more control over the Democratic Party.

Editor:  Many pro-life Republicans have expressed dismay at the course the national Republican Party has been taking in ways such as doing nothing at best about the rapid increase in chemical abortions, as well as actively pushing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Does DFLA have ways of reaching out to pro-life Republicans who believe that agreement about pro-life issues is more important than disagreement about other issues that may divide Democrats from Republicans?

Kristen Day:  DFLA values the opportunity to collaborate with those who share our goals to support pregnant women and families. We appreciate bipartisan efforts like the Pregnant Women Support Act, signed into law under the ACA, and our Make Birth Free proposal, which received bipartisan backing. Pro-life legislators who are open to cooperation demonstrate a shared commitment to these critical issues. In this current political climate, both parties are more interested in the next election cycle than in doing what is right for the American people. We need to elect more representatives who put the people before politics.

Editor:  What would you say are the most important issues that divide pro-life Democrats from pro-life Republicans?

Kristen Day:  The issues of climate change, health care, and immigration are areas of disagreement. However, Democrats For Life has consistently sought ways to unite people around issues rather than divide them. We have collaborated with pro-life Republicans and pro-choice Democrats on initiatives such as paid leave, the child tax credit, and other measures designed to support pregnant women and their families.

We are part of the Blueprint for Life Coalition aimed on those measures to support families.

Editor:  Do you see any prospect of overcoming some or all of the disagreements on those issues?

Kristen Day:  Pro-life Democrats and pro-life Republicans may have different approaches to solving complex issues, but we believe that well-intentioned individuals can come together to find compromises that will improve our society. One of the most significant barriers to overcoming these disagreements is President Trump. For example, when the President suggested a “baby bonus,” the immediate reaction from many Democrats was to oppose it. However, Democrats had already been proposing a baby bonus, including the successful program in Flint, Michigan, which has since been expanded throughout the state, and Congresswoman DeLauro proposed “baby bonus” legislation. I wrote about it here. If we can’t agree that a baby bonus is a positive initiative simply because President Trump proposed it, it will be very challenging to reach a consensus on immigration reform, environmental protection, or addressing the healthcare crisis—especially if the aim is to prevent the White House from achieving any real or perceived policy victories.

Editor:  I’m interested to compare the pro-life movement today with the political abolitionist movement in the decades before the abolition of slavery. Back then, opponents of slavery, coming from among Whigs, Democrats, and third-party supporters, succeeded in reorienting the “great divide” in American politics away from “Whigs versus Democrats” and toward “liberty versus slavery.” Would you say that American politics in the decades to come, likewise, can and should be reoriented away from “Republicans versus Democrats” and toward “pro-life versus anti-life”? Why or why not?

Kristen Day:  Democrats are on the wrong side of history regarding abortion. This is a human rights issue for both mothers and babies. No mother should feel that taking the life of her child is necessary to complete her education or secure employment. No child should lose their life simply because they are seen as an inconvenience or hindrance.

We must work towards bipartisan cooperation to provide a pathway to ending abortion in America. Slavery would not have ended if Northern Democrats had been silenced and not allowed to speak and vote their conscience. Our Founding Fathers had serious discussions and disagreements on the issue of slavery. They compromised many times, including providing Southern legislators with the 3/5th compromise to count slaves for Congressional representation. And admitting additional slave states into the union if there was a non-slavery state admitted as well. Democrats are not open to incremental approaches to providing women with alternatives to abortion. There is an active attack on centers that offer that support. There was a case before the Supreme Court yesterday. The AG of New Jersey subpoenaed donor records for a pregnancy center to investigate whether their donors were misled. At the oral argument, the lawyer for New Jersey admitted there were no complaints about this center.

Today, there are many Democrats in Congress who say they are pro-life but will not vote to protect life. Imagine if that had been the case during the debate over ending slavery in America. Imagine if the Democratic Party were using the same tactics they are using today against pro-life Democrats against those who dared to speak in favor of ending slavery.

In today’s Democratic Party, pro-life Democrats are threatened with primary challenges, removal from key Committee assignments, and other penalties. Congressman Dan Lipinski is a prime example. He was targeted for defeat because he dared to cross leadership and vocally oppose abortion.

Democrats present themselves as the Party that champions human rights; however, they overlook the rights of the unborn and the well-being of their mothers, who can be harmed by abortion. They politicize victims of abortion for political gain, blaming abortion limitation bills for substandard care. The availability of abortion pills by mail allows men to purchase them and potentially force unsuspecting women into having abortions. Many women take these pills at home without proper medical supervision, which often leads to emergency room visits. Additionally, attacks on pregnancy support centers that provide essential post-abortion healing services hinder the support available to women in need.

The politicization of abortion will continue unless we build a broader coalition of democrats who are willing to speak up and vote their conscience on this issue.

Editor:  Turning to DFLA’s FAQ <https://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php/about-us/faq> about why you and your fellow Democrats for Life stick with the Democratic Party, I see you say, “We hold to traditional Democratic beliefs: a strong social safety net, action on the environment, worker’s rights, and a bold stance against systemic racism.” About “systemic racism”: What would you say are the most important ways in which systemic racism is manifested? What would need to be done to overcome it? And how will we know when it has been overcome?

Kristen Day:  There was a recent article about a black woman from Indiana who went to the ER because she was in active labor. There was total disrespect toward this pregnant woman, and they told her to leave and come back later. The woman’s husband delivered the baby in the car 8 minutes after they left the hospital.

I was at a recent conference where a black pro-life woman spoke about racism in the pro-life movement. It was hard to ignore that it is a majority of white women and men advocating against abortion when it is the black women who are most affected. Black women feel unheard and ignored. As a pro-life movement, we need to make sure that we are listening and not just putting a black woman up as a prop.

As Democrats, we talk about systemic racism, but instead of addressing the high black abortion rate, we ignore the fact that abortion clinics are located in minority communities. It is easy for white women from the suburbs to make assumptions about what is best for black women in the inner cities. We need more conversations and more listening to what minoirty women really want and need.

DFLA delivered 40,000 diapers around Virginia this summer to pregnancy support centers. We also delivered diapers to Birth in Color in Richmond, Virginia. We disagree on the legality of abortion, but they do an excellent job supporting pregnant and parenting families in Richmond. They were wary of our intentions because we have a difference of opinion on abortion. In addition to providing parenting and community support, they also provide abortion doulas. While we disagree on abortion, we found it encouraging that they actually cared about women enough to not let them suffer abortion alone. They almost canceled our delivery because they thought there might be a quid pro quo. We ended up having a nice discussion on the areas of agreement, including the high maternal mortality rate in the black community. We are seeking to collaborate in the areas where we agree.

Bottom line is we need to listen more and make sure people are heard. If we continue to ignore the needs of the black community, we will not make any progress in addressing racism.

Editor:  Finally, although the legal abolition of slavery after the Civil War obviously didn’t abolish racial prejudice and discrimination, today it does seem to be simple common sense that no person should be permitted to own another person as property. Do you think we can realistically hope for a future in which, likewise, it’s seen as simple common sense that no person should be permitted to kill an innocent person, no matter how small, hidden, speechless, and totally dependent upon another person? If so, why?

Kristen Day:  It is already illegal to kill an innocent person, but our society is drifting. I have bigger concerns about the Democratic Party, which is moving beyond abortion to push for assisted suicide as the best option for someone suffering from a disease, a disability, or simply aging. Author Charlie Camosy talks about the throwaway culture that has infected our society. We don’t fix things, we just discard them.

I have hope, and I must hold onto it. I wholeheartedly believe that we can and must do better for women, for babies, and for our future. I have visited nearly 40 pregnancy centers and maternity homes, and I have witnessed the good they do.

I am confident that this goodness will triumph over the evils of abortion and the right to life will triumph.

---

We Will See Abortion Become Unthinkable

An interview with Emily Berning, Co-Founder & President, Let Them Live

Editor:  I give to Let Them Live because I’m pretty sure most women who consider abortion are not pro-abortion zealots; they’re just moms in difficult situations who are afraid they might be forced to have abortions because they can’t handle having a baby. In your FAQ about “What is the mission of Let Them Live?” you say, “73% of women have abortions due to financial burden. Let Them Live offers them financial support so that they can choose life instead.” How did you get that figure of 73 percent?

Emily Berning:  You are absolutely right. Most women considering abortion are not pro-abortion zealots. They are women in difficult situations who feel cornered, overwhelmed, or unsupported.

That 73% statistic really stood out to me when I was first researching the reasons why women have abortions. It comes from a 2005 U.S.-based survey of women who had abortions and in that study, 73% of respondents reported that they ‘could not afford a baby now’ as one of the reasons for their decision. This stat is widely used (including in public-policy and pro-life literature) to highlight how economic hardship drives many abortion decisions. That being said, we do recognize that the reasons women seek abortions are often numerous and overlapping (financial, timing, family structure, number of existing children, education/work commitments, etc.)

Editor:  What about the other 27 percent? I’m thinking they can’t all be pro-abortion fanatics. Can you say anything about why they choose abortion, and what kind of help (if any) they might be willing to accept? Or is that too far from Let Them Live’s mission?

Emily Berning:  That is a great question. The remaining 27 percent are not pro-abortion fanatics either. Women rarely choose abortion for ideological reasons. The research shows that the other reasons women give are things like lack of support from the baby’s father, relationship instability, fear of being a single mom, feeling already overwhelmed by the children they have, pressure from family, concerns about school or work, and even emotional or mental health struggles. These are real pressures that make them feel trapped or alone and often loop right back around to needing financial support (maybe they were kicked out of their house and are in need of stable housing, maybe they struggle with mental health issues but don’t have the insurance or the means to pay for care).

In our experience, even women in that 27 percent are often open to help when that help speaks to their actual situation. Some need emotional support. Some need a safe place to live. Some need a job, counseling, childcare, or simply someone who will walk with them. Let Them Live’s specialty within the pro-life movement is financial support, but our team is equipped and ready to deal with other concerns women have when considering abortion.  So the mission is still the same; Meet a woman at the point of her fear, give her real support, and almost every time (we have a 99% success rate!) she will choose life.

Editor:  How do you make sure the moms who seek help from Let Them Live are in genuine financial need?

Emily Berning:  This is one of the most common questions I get, and I actually love answering it. At Let Them Live we care deeply about balancing two things. We want to support women and save lives, and we also want to steward our donor funds responsibly. That means we have to make sure the women we help are legitimate and genuinely in need. When a mom reaches out for help, we begin with a careful intake process. First, we verify that she is pregnant through an ultrasound at one of our partner pregnancy centers. After that, we gather information about her income, expenses, living situation, and the specific financial pressures that are pushing her toward abortion. We have direct conversations with her, and confirm the details she shares. It is not about judging her. It is about making sure we are serving the women who truly need help and using donor support wisely. Once her needs are verified, we build a personalized support plan that may include covering rent, utilities, transportation, childcare, or medical costs. Our goal is to stabilize her situation so she can choose life with confidence. From there we slowly transition the bills back to her as she regains stability and can stand on her own again.

So the short answer is that we rely on a structured intake process, documentation, and personal conversations to confirm genuine need. And we do it with compassion, because most of these moms are scared, overwhelmed, and very honest about what they are going through.

Editor:  Do you see a lot more need for financial help to moms in need than Let Them Live is yet able to provide?

Emily Berning:  Right now Let Them Live has never had to turn away a mom in need. We have never told a woman considering abortion that we could not help her. Every single time a mom has come to us, we have found a way to support her, and that is something we are very proud of. At the same time, we always need more financial resources. Every dollar that comes into our bank account goes right back out to help moms. More funding would allow us to grow our reach on social media, hire more pregnancy counselors, connect with more women in crisis, and make sure more people know that this resource exists. There are definitely women out there who never find us simply because we do not yet have the capacity to reach them.

So the answer is yes and no. We have been able to help every mom who has come to us so far, but there is no way to know how many more women and babies we could save if we had the resources to expand.

Editor:  Do you think pro-life state and local governments, or bigger non-profit organizations, or both should be encouraged to help do the same kind of job that Let Them Live is doing?

Emily Berning:  I believe every person and every organization has unique gifts and talents that can be used to help women choose life and to build a true culture of life. The pro life movement is full of incredible voices and groups that all play different but important roles. Some focus on education and activism, like Live Action and Students for Life. Others focus on direct outreach, like pregnancy centers and sidewalk advocates. All of them make an impact.

I think the answer is a combination. We should encourage new organizations and even state or local governments to develop programs that provide practical support to moms in crisis. At the same time, we also need strong partnerships with the organizations that already exist. For example, if a mom reaches out to Live Action and her main barrier is financial, they know to contact Let Them Live because this is our area of expertise. The more we collaborate and the more each group leans into what they do best, the more women we can reach and the more lives we can save.

Editor:  I see that you give moms help in finding jobs that they can do while still taking care of their babies. Do you know approximately what percentage of Let Them Live’s moms have found and kept satisfactory jobs?

Emily Berning:  Right now I do not have an exact percentage, and that is something we are working on tracking more formally in 2026! Many of our moms do go on to find stable jobs or better jobs than they had before because our coaches and counselors work closely with them on resume building, job searches, interview skills, and childcare planning so they can take steps toward independence.

As we grow, we are building stronger systems to track long term outcomes like employment, housing stability, and educational progress. Our goal is not only to help a mom choose life, but also to help her thrive long after our financial support ends. Tracking employment outcomes is an important part of that, and it is something we are actively developing.

Editor:  Do you also help moms get a better education?

Emily Berning:  Absolutely! Our primary focus is financial support that keeps a mom from feeling pressured into abortion, but education fits into that in a very real way. Many of our moms want to finish school or get additional training, and sometimes the only thing standing in their way is the cost of childcare, transportation, or basic living expenses. When we step in to cover those needs, it creates the stability they need to stay in school or return to school. We also help connect moms to local programs, community colleges, trade schools, and online education options that are flexible for single mothers. Our pregnancy counselors work closely with each mom to understand her goals and help her map out a path that feels realistic for her situation. We are very supportive of our moms in pursuing education because that becomes a major part of her long term plan to thrive and provide for her baby.

Editor:  I’m guessing a lot of moms who need your help are not in stable marriages. Is there anything Let Them Live can do to promote stable marriages and two-parent family life?

Emily Berning:  Yes, this is a very real issue. Many of the moms who come to us are not in stable marriages. Some are completely on their own, some are in unhealthy or unstable relationships, and many have experienced trauma that makes it hard for them to pursue healthy connections.

One of the most important things we offer is our support group program. Our moms meet weekly with one of our coaches in a small group setting. These meetings are not only about practical needs but also about emotional and relational stability. A big part of the curriculum focuses on learning what a healthy relationship looks like, how to identify red flags, how to communicate, and how to break out of destructive patterns. We talk about what stable partnerships and strong family life involve, including what a God-honoring marriage should look like. Many of our moms have never seen a healthy relationship modeled. Trauma, past experiences, and lack of support have shaped what they believe they deserve. Our program gives them tools, support, and a community of women who care about their growth.

Editor:  It’s pretty obvious that a lot of so-called “pro-choice” rhetoric is totally deceptive because many pro-aborts want to prevent women from choosing life for their babies, like by trying to shut down pro-life pregnancy help centers and prayer campaigns. Has Let Them Live experienced any of that kind of opposition?

Emily Berning:  Yes, we have experienced lots of opposition! Any time you work in the pro-life world, especially when you are directly helping moms choose life, there will be people who do not want that work to continue. We have seen criticism online, misinformation about what we do, and attempts to lump us in with negative stereotypes about pregnancy centers or pro-life groups in general. There have been social media attacks and campaigns that try to discourage women from reaching out to us.

The reality is that Let Them Live is simply providing help. When a woman comes to us, she is already considering abortion because she feels trapped. We offer support so she can choose life with confidence. There is nothing deceptive about that. We tell her the truth, we respect her, and we meet her needs. If some people want to silence that or shut it down, it says more about their agenda than ours. Our response is always the same. We stay transparent, we share real stories of the moms we have helped, and we let our results speak for themselves. Over and over again, women tell us that they were grateful they had a real choice and they are so grateful they chose life!

Editor:  Short of anyone actually trying to shut down Let Them Live, have you received any criticism of what you’re doing? If so, what kind of criticism, and how have you responded?

Emily Berning:  We have received lots of criticism over the years, which I think is to be expected for any organization working in the pro-life space. Most of the criticism comes from misunderstandings about what we do. Some people assume we pressure women, which is not true. Others claim that helping moms financially is somehow manipulative, even though the women who come to us are already facing serious financial pressure and reach out because they want support. We have also heard concerns from people who think our help creates dependency, even though our goal is the opposite. We stabilize a mom temporarily so she can choose life, and then we help her transition back into independence.

When criticism comes, our approach is to stay transparent, show exactly how we operate, and let our outcomes speak for themselves. We share real stories of moms who were considering abortion because they felt trapped, and who chose life because someone stepped in to help them. We explain our intake process, how we verify need, and how we build individualized plans that are time limited and focused on long term stability. Most importantly, we listen. If a concern is valid, we learn from it. If it is based on misinformation, we clarify it. We have found that when people understand what we actually do, and when they hear from the moms we have helped, most of the criticism fades.

Editor:  Do you think the pro-life cause is prevailing? Can we realistically hope for a future in which there are few or no abortions?

Emily Berning:  I really do think the pro-life cause is prevailing! I believe we can realistically hope for a future with far fewer abortions, but only if we focus on the right thing.

A good friend and colleague of mine, Brett Attebery, explains abortion in economic terms. There is a supply side and a demand side. For more than fifty years the pro life movement has focused almost entirely on the supply, meaning laws, regulations, and trying to shut down providers. But as we have seen, even with Roe overturned, abortion still continues in high numbers because there are always workarounds. Abortion pills are a perfect example.

Where we need to focus now is on the demand for abortion. Why do women feel they need abortions in the first place? What pressures are they facing? How can we remove those pressures? When you meet a woman at the point of her fear, when you change her heart and give her hope and real support, the demand for abortion drops. That is exactly what Let Them Live focuses on and it is why we see so many women choosing life.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the importance of education. Many people who identify as pro-choice do so almost by default. They have never seen what abortion actually is or what it does to a developing child and to a mother in crisis. When people are shown the truth in a compassionate and respectful way, hearts change. We need to keep showing the reality of abortion and the humanity of the unborn, to inform people who may not fully understand what they support.

We have to reduce the demand by removing the pressures that push women toward abortion, and we have to keep educating people, speaking truth in love, and compassionately meeting women where they are. When we do that, I truly believe we will see abortion become unthinkable, and we will see more women choosing life for their children.

---

US Citizenship and Unalienable Rights:
Did You Miss Out on This in School?

The US Supreme Court, they say, is going to decide whether the 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants “birthright citizenship”, that is, US citizenship to everyone born in the US, even if their parents are illegal aliens. Everyone agrees that, at least if your parents are not illegal aliens and you were born here, you’re in as a US citizen. But it turns out there’s a much bigger problem with “birthright citizenship” than deciding whether you’ve got it if your parents were illegal aliens.

Reportedly, half of Americans cannot pass the citizenship test that non-Americans seeking to become US citizens must pass! (“Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch Warns Lack of Civics Education Is America’s Greatest Danger“). And this in a country where one of the chief justifications proposed for compulsory public education has always been that young Americans need an education that will prepare them well for responsible citizenship!

This will never do. True, if you’re reading this article, you’re probably among the half of Americans who could pass the test. But do you understand why you, and all Americans, should at least be able to pass this fairly simple test? Let’s see.

Here are a rock-bottom basic question and answer about why–which, oddly enough, do not appear on the test (128 Civics Questions and Answers (2025 version), although some related questions and answers do:

Q. What is the most basic purpose of government, according to the Declaration of Independence?

A. To secure the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which all human beings receive from their Creator.

“Unalienable” means basically that you can’t sell, trade, or give away these rights to anyone else, and no one else should be able to take them away from you. As you can see from the Declaration of Independence, these rights aren’t only for Americans, they’re for everyone, because everyone gets them from the same Creator. So, we all need government to make sure (so far as possible) that we’re not deprived of these rights. And what are rights?

The best way to understand rights is to start with the “right” way to get where you’re going. That means the best way–the way that will best get you to your destination without undue delay or detours, and certainly without crashes.

No crashes–you need to keep that firmly in mind. Why? Because of something else at that’s near the beginning of the Declaration of Independence, which also isn’t only for Americans:  “All men are created equal.” (Of course you should know that, back in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was written, they said “all men” when they meant all human beings.)

What does that mean–“all men are created equal”? It means you’re just as important as anyone else–and that’s mighty important, because that’s how the Creator of the Universe made you–but you’re not more important than anyone else. You want other people to respect you, right? So you need to respect them just as much as you want them to respect you, whether they really do or not. You need to do your part to avoid getting into crashes with them–with or without cars. (If you don’t respect other people, you’re thinking like a criminal, so you shouldn’t be surprised if you find yourself getting arrested.)

The right way, the best way, for all the people to get where they’re going in life, with no crashes so far as possible, is for all the people to respect each other. What we call rights, like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are things that it’s best, it’s right, for people to respect and protect in each other as they want their own rights to be respected and protected, so everyone can get where they’re going in life.

So where do governments come in? If everyone really respected everyone else’s rights and acted like it, governments wouldn’t be needed to protect those rights. But not everyone does. Many people act as if liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and even life were only for them and people they either like or are afraid of–not for people they don’t like and aren’t afraid of. Those people need their rights protected too. If they can’t do it all on their own, they need something big and strong to help them. That’s what a government is for.

Now, at last, we’re getting to what’s on the citizenship test. We don’t need to get into all the details here. You can read them (and you should, if you’re not sure whether you could pass the test) by clicking the “128 Questions and Answers” link above, or the link for the “One Nation, One People” study guide. (The study guide also has the 128 questions and answers at the end.) But a few of the main points should be helpful toward making sure you understand your citizenship at least as well as you would if you were a foreign-born person who had to earn your citizenship.

Point number one: The rule of law.  “In the United States, we support the ‘rule of law.’ This means that we believe that no one is above the law, and everyone must follow the law” (“One Nation, One People,” p. 15). Why? Here’s another rock-bottom basic answer that’s not on the test: Because the most basic purpose of the law is to tell people to act like they respect each other’s rights, and to tell them about the bad things the government can do to them if they don’t. For example: if you abuse your liberty to violate other people’s rights, the government can restrict your liberty by putting you in jail or prison.

Does the law always work right? No. There have been some pretty bad laws that had nothing to do with respecting people’s rights. What can you do if you think you’ve found one of those?

• Ask your legislators to change the law (state or federal legislators, depending on whether it’s a state or federal law). It’s usually pretty easy to find out who your legislators are and how to send e-mail messages to them. If you’re not sure, ask at your local public library.
• Challenge the law as unconstitutional. Many organizations in the United States help people to challenge laws they believe are unconstitutional, and will give you advice about whether they think you’re right about whether a law is unconstitutional.
• Refuse to obey the law if you’re sure it tells you to do something wrong, even if it’s not unconstitutional. This isn’t on the test, and you should make sure to get good, trustworthy advice before you try it, but sometimes it’s the only thing you can do about a really bad law. For example, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was supposedly constitutional, but it was a really bad law, requiring everyone to help send escaped slaves back to slavery. Many people disobeyed it, and some even helped the slaves escape to freedom instead. This was a necessary exception to the rule that we must obey the law.

Point number two:  We, the people, make and change the law through the men and women we elect to represent us.  As I was saying, if you think a law is bad, step one is to ask your legislators to change it. If you think some kind of bad action should be against the law but isn’t, ask your legislators to enact a law making it illegal. Ask other people to do the same. Legislators might not pay much attention to one person, but they will pay attention to many people all asking them to do the same thing.

About that expression “We the People” at the beginning of the US Constitution, which tells you who’s in charge of making the Constitution and laws of the United States:  you’ll notice that it doesn’t say “I the Person.” You’ll sometimes find so-called “sovereign citizens” who exalt themselves above the laws that apply to everyone else. These people imagine that, because the people together are “sovereign” in our form of government–that is, the people together create our own government and make our own laws–therefore, any random person can be “sovereign” and ignore the laws made by and for the people together. These people need to learn some elementary logic, meaning how to think straight.

If you say, “we five people are a basketball team,” does that mean you’re a basketball team all by yourself? No. And even more so, you’re not “We the People” all by yourself. Why not? Because–let’s hear that one more time–“all men are created equal.” You’re not the top dog, or the top human, merely because you’re you. The law is for all the people, it needs to command equal respect from and for all the people, and (in our system of government) that means all the people together are responsible for making and changing the law through their elected representatives.

Point number three: To protect and improve the rule of law, it’s important to vote. Citizens need to know about the three branches of their state and federal governments: the legislative branch, which makes the law; the executive branch, which enforces the law; and the judicial branch, which applies and interprets the law. People vote for senators and representatives to form the legislative branch, and for governors and the president to lead the executive branch. They don’t vote for federal judges, but those are appointed by the President. They may or may not vote for state judges, depending on their state constitution. They also vote for local officials, like mayors, school board members, and many more.

Is it always easy to know who you should vote for? No. But many organizations keep track of what candidates have said about various issues and how they’ve voted on proposed laws. For example, for people who are interested in pro-life issues, there are state and national Right to Life organizations. It’s often quick and easy to get a voter guide from an organization you agree with about important issues.

One thing you should not do is to pay too much attention to political advertising. You’ll see a lot of political ads during the time just before an election. This is because the politicians are expecting that lots of voters will be stupid, and will make up their minds based on what advertisers feed them rather than what they find out and think about for themselves. This is why large amounts of money are often spent on political campaigns. That kind of last-minute big spending would have no effect if a lot more people would put in a bit of time and effort to make up their minds before the last minute, as they should.

What if you don’t like any of the candidates on the ballot for an office? You’re not alone. Independent voters in the US today, they say, are a bigger group than either Democrats or Republicans (see “Why Independent Voters Are America’s Largest Political Group“). There may be an independent or third-party candidate you can vote for or write in, if you’re interested enough to find out who the certified write-in candidates are and what they stand for. If you’re pro-life, you may be interested in the American Solidarity Party, which is America’s only political party that is totally pro-life for all human life, from beginning to end and everywhere in between.

Independent and third-party candidates don’t usually win elections, but if they get enough votes they can make the major parties pay attention and change their positions to try to get votes away from the independent and third-party candidates. This has actually happened quite a few times in US history.

If you’ve read and understood this, I hope, you’ll understand why you need to be able to pass the citizenship test even if you were born here. Please take a quick look at the test and make sure you can pass it–or, if you can’t, please study for it until you can pass it!

David McClamrock

David McClamrock is a convert to Christianity, a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and Notre Dame Law School, a Hoosier lawyer, a father of four home-schooled children, and (last and least) the editor of Solid for America.

---

Common Goods, The Common Good, and Individual Rights

A fair amount of hot air has been spouted over the years about individual rights and the common good being somehow opposed to each other, as if you had to take sides for one or the other. It may be helpful to have a simple explanation of why that isn’t true.

What Is a Common Good?

A common good is simply anything good that can be shared without diminishing it. If you’ve attended an Easter vigil service with candles at a church, or if you can imagine one, you know what I mean. By sharing the candlelight with your neighbor, you not only don’t diminish your own, you increase the total amount of candlelight in the whole church.

If you’re on the lookout for common or “quasi-common” goods (“quasi” is Latin for “kind of like”), you can see them almost everywhere. A few examples:

• In any good thing that is freely available to all in its presence: sunlight, the air we breathe, the beauty of nature and architecture, artistic and literary works in the public domain or freely distributed on the Internet.
• In any good thing that can be possessed by intelligence: “Give your servant an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil,” the young King Solomon prayed (I Kings 3:9). (Note: This was long before Solomon displayed a shocking decline in wisdom by getting 700 wives and 300 concubines, and worshipping false gods with them!) Today, although many people now are concerned that we should have no kings, the need for shared wisdom and understanding in popular government is more urgent than ever. Aristotle long ago summed up truth as a common good: “Individually we contribute little or nothing to the truth, but by the union of all a considerable amount is amassed.”
• In any common endeavor for mutual benefit or achievement of a shared goal: divine worship, family life, team sports, group discussion of great (or not-so-great) books, activities of any voluntary association, work that needs more than one person to get the work done, voyages together toward a common destination.
• In any publicly available system enabling people to achieve many different goals without needless conflict: a public library, a system of roads and traffic laws.
• More generally, in peace (traditionally defined as “the tranquility of order”) and justice under the rule of law, which can be shared equally by all who peacefully abide by the law.

What Is “The” Common Good?

Every group must have some common good or goods that hold the group together; otherwise it would be a mere crowd of individuals, assembled at random and likely to disintegrate at any time. So what is the common good of a state or nation, or of human society as a whole?

If you know the first thing about America, you’ll recall the first principles that our founders agreed upon as self-evident in the Declaration of Independence: “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” If you agree too, then you can see that the common good of human society as a whole, in the simplest terms, is this: Everything needed for society to protect and promote the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If you’re a Catholic Christian like me, or if you’d like to know whether any part of Catholic social teaching may be good for everyone (Catholic or not), you may be interested to know that this “American” definition of the common good is pretty similar to the definition found in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (¶ 164): “the sum total of the social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”

The common good is what governments are needed for, because individuals can’t achieve it on their own–but it is not the good of the government as distinct from the people. It’s the good of the people united together as a whole, and also of each individual.

So the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are individual rights, but not only individual rights. They’re everyone’s rights, and everyone has to co-operate to secure them for everyone.

What Do We Need to Do for the Common Good?

How? What do we need to do to secure everyone’s rights?

First and foremost, there’s self-sacrifice for the common good. You might imagine, as I used to imagine, that self-sacrifice is just a great way for greedy or lazy people to exploit gullible people. Not true, because both greed and laziness are opposed to the common good. To make sure your self-sacrifice is really for the common good, you need to make sure it is not merely for the private goods of people who themselves are not making their contribution to the common good.

If you believe in Jesus, you’ll recall his supreme self-sacrifice to conquer death by dying, and to lead all who follow him to endless life, liberty, and the fulfillment of happiness. He did die for greedy and lazy people, among many other sinners–but only to lead them to share the highest common good after abandoning their vices, not to grab private goods at others’ expense and to end up in “the other place.” Even if you don’t believe in Jesus, you can think of a police officer killed in the line of duty, or a soldier killed in a just war (if there are any of those nowadays). Short of getting killed, there are many other ways to sacrifice yourself for the common good–anything from giving money to beneficial organizations, to giving your time in volunteer activities, to working for the public interest when you might make more money working for a big money-making enterprise.

Short of self-sacrifice, there are many more ordinary things we can do to help secure everyone’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything from intelligent political activity, to solid education, to the lamentable necessity of paying taxes can help. Raising a family with the habit of honoring and promoting everyone’s rights can help. But there are also a huge number of ways to goof off and fail to contribute to the common good, which I won’t even begin to try to list.

If you try to exercise your individual rights without contributing to help secure everyone’s rights, you will ultimately be a failure in life, no matter how rich you may get at other people’s expense. If you do contribute to help secure everyone’s rights, you’ll be a success in life, and your own exercise of your individual rights will be greatly enriched.

The choice is yours–or ours. So let’s make the right choice, and work together for the common good!

David McClamrock

---

Should Choices of Words Have Consequences?

You may recently have read about a little something our President didn’t expect and sure didn’t like, which happened merely because of his use of false and insulting language. Big deal? Let’s see.

Reportedly, the President called Minnesota governor and 2024 vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz “seriously retarded” (“Trump rages over ‘seriously retarded Governor’ Tim Walz in furious Thanksgiving message“). In response, Indiana Republican state senator Mike Bohacek–who understandably doesn’t like the word “retarded” because his daughter has Down syndrome–decided he wasn’t going along with the President’s plan for redistricting (“Indiana senator says he’s a no on redistricting after Trump uses slur“).

Surely there are many true and unfavorable things the President could have said about Governor Walz, had he wished. “Seriously retarded” is not one of them. But so what?

Here’s what. “This is not the first time our president has used these insulting and derogatory references,” Senator Bohacek was quoted on indystar.com as saying, “and his choices of words have consequences.” Remember the “shot heard round the world“? This could be another.

Why? Because malice and vicious speech, on both sides of today’s Cold Civil War, must be dumped in the dustbin of history, where they belong! Are you sick and tired of them yet? I am; Senator Bohacek is; and I’m pretty sure millions more Americans are too.

No doubt the President’s readiness to hurl insults has been part of his popular appeal, while mild-mannered proponents of truth, justice, and the American way have failed to emerge as political supermen for lack of popular support. Certain so-called comedians, too, have achieved fleeting fame by getting laughs from insults. People got sick and tired of them. Sic transit malitia mundi–that’s Latin for “That’s how this world’s malice goes down the drain.”

Had the President’s major opponent won the election, many people would now be mighty sick and tired of her falsely insulting people who merely didn’t agree with her as “fascists,” “threats to democracy,” and the like. Fair’s fair. It’s time for the President to get the same response for his false and insulting speech, unless and until he decides to cut it out. If that means people will decide not to go along with his proposals, as Senator Bohacek reportedly did, then that’s how it must be.

Christians are warned that “revilers” are among those who won’t inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10). Christians are advised to return blessing for reviling, following the example of Our Lord, who didn’t revile even when He was reviled (1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Peter 2:23). But all Americans, Christians or not, should realize that constant reviling is a way to destroy our country, not to build it up, much less to make it great again–which it still desperately needs.

Good neighbors don’t insult each other, even if they don’t agree with each other. Our President needs to be a good neighbor too. As long as he’s not, his choices of false and insulting words–which seriously degrade the dignity of his office–should be expected to have more consequences he won’t like.

David McClamrock