Mike Johnson

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the issue of border security, a significant public policy concern. It compares the border security measures under two different administrations, implying a critique of current policies and suggesting a preference for past policies.

1. Principle 1:

   I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.

   The statement does not directly cause harm but implies criticism of current policies, which is a normal part of public discourse.
2. Principle 2:

   I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.

   The statement respects privacy and dignity, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
3. Principle 3:

   I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.

   The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is more focused on critiquing policy.
4. Principle 4:

   I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.

   The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, focusing instead on policy outcomes. [+1]
5. Principle 6:

   I will use my influence for the betterment of society.

   The statement uses influence to advocate for a particular policy perspective, which can be seen as contributing to public debate. [+1]
6. Principle 7:

   I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.

   The statement upholds free speech principles by engaging in policy critique responsibly. [+1]