Who Was the Seer of the Latter Days?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Genesis 42-50 in a lesson titled “God Meant It unto Good.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

It had been about 22 years since Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. Joseph had suffered many trials, including false accusations and imprisonment. When he finally saw his brothers again, Joseph was the governor of all Egypt, second only to the pharaoh. He could easily have taken revenge on his brothers, and considering what they had done to Joseph, that might seem understandable. And yet Joseph forgave them. Not only that, but he helped them see divine purpose in his suffering. “God meant it unto good” (Genesis 50:20), he told them, because it put him in a position to save “all his father’s household” (Genesis 47:12) from famine.

In many ways, Joseph was like Jesus Christ. Even though our sins caused Jesus great suffering, He offers forgiveness, delivering all of us from a fate far worse than famine. Whether we need to receive forgiveness or extend it—at some point we all need to do both—Joseph’s example points us to the Savior, the true source of healing and reconciliation.

This scripture block taught numerous principles, including (1) “God sent me before you to preserve you” (Genesis 45:5-7; 47:12); (2) Forgiveness brings healing (Genesis 45; 50:15-21); (3) Jacob gave his family prophetic blessings (Genesis 49); (4) God can help me find meaning in my trials (Genesis 50:19-21); (5) “A seer shall the Lord my God raise up” (Genesis 50:24-25).

All the principles are worthy of discussion and extremely interesting. However, this essay will discuss the last principle about a seer being raised up. The scripture verses are as follow, the first set from Genesis 50:24-25, and the second set from Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 50:24-38.

24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.

26 So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.

 

24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die, and go unto my fathers; and I go down to my grave with joy. The God of my father Jacob be with you, to deliver you out of affliction in the days of your bondage; for the Lord hath visited me, and I have obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of my loins, the Lord God will raise up a righteous branch out of my loins; and unto thee, whom my father Jacob hath named Israel, a prophet; (not the Messiah who is called Shilo;) and this prophet shall deliver my people out of Egypt in the days of thy bondage.

25 And it shall come to pass that they shall be scattered again; and a branch shall be broken off, and shall be carried into a far country; nevertheless they shall be remembered in the covenants of the Lord, when the Messiah cometh; for he shall be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the Spirit of power; and shall bring them out of darkness into light; out of hidden darkness, and out of captivity unto freedom.

26 A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.

27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.

28 And he shall bring them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers; and he shall do whatsoever work I shall command him.

29 And I will make him great in mine eyes, for he shall do my work; and he shall be great like unto him whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel, out of the land of Egypt; for a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king’s daughter, and shall be called her son.

30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;

31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.

32 And out of weakness shall he be made strong, in that day when my work shall go forth among all my people, which shall restore them, who are of the house of Israel, in the last days.

33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.

34 And the Lord sware unto Joseph that he would preserve his seed forever, saying, I will raise up Moses, and a rod shall be in his hand, and he shall gather together my people, and he shall lead them as a flock, and he shall smite the waters of the Red Sea with his rod.

35 And he shall have judgment, and shall write the word of the Lord. And he shall not speak many words, for I will write unto him my law by the finger of mine own hand. And I will make a spokesman for him, and his name shall be called Aaron.

36 And it shall be done unto thee in the last days also, even as I have sworn. Therefore, Joseph said unto his brethren, God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land, unto the land which he sware unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and to Jacob.

37 And Joseph confirmed many other things unto his brethren, and took an oath of the children of Israel, saying unto them, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.

38 So Joseph died when he was an hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and they put him in a coffin in Egypt; and he was kept from burial by the children of Israel, that he might be carried up and laid in the sepulchre with his father. And thus they remembered the oath which they sware unto him. [Emphasis added.]

In his article “Two Josephs Across the Centuries: The Strong Prophetic Ties between Joseph of Israel and Joseph Smith,” published at Latter-Day Saint Magazine, Paul Bishop shared the symmetry in sacred history. 

Sacred history sometimes unfolds with a symmetry inviting to careful attention. One such pattern appears in the prophetic link between Joseph of Egypt and Joseph Smith. Latter day Saint scripture presents this relationship not as coincidence but as part of a divine design reaching across millennia. The idea emerges in the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 50 and receives powerful reinforcement in the Book of Mormon, particularly in 2 Nephi 3. When the passages are read together, they present a compelling vision of prophecy fulfilled through lineage, revelation, and the restoration of sacred records. 

Joseph of Egypt already stands as one of the great figures of the Old Testament. His story carries the drama of betrayal, endurance, and eventual deliverance. Sold into slavery by his own brothers, he rose through years of hardship to become a trusted leader in Egypt. Through revelation and wisdom he prepared the land for famine and preserved the family of Jacob during a time of desperate need.

However, Latter day Saint scripture adds another dimension to Joseph’s prophetic role. According to the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 50, Joseph did not look only to the immediate future of his people. He also saw far down the corridors of time. In this vision he spoke of a latter-day seer who would arise from among his own descendants. That seer would bear Joseph’s name. His mission would involve bringing forth the word of God and helping restore truth obscured over the centuries.

The prophecy becomes even more specific. The future seer’s father would also be named Joseph. The Lord would raise him up to perform a work of great value for the house of Israel. His words would bring people to the knowledge of the covenants made with their fathers. Those familiar with the life of Joseph Smith cannot miss the striking parallels.

The Book of Mormon strengthens this prophetic connection in a remarkable way. In 2 Nephi 3, the prophet Lehi gathers his sons and speaks directly to his youngest son, who is also named Joseph. In this intimate setting Lehi recalls the prophecy of Joseph of Egypt. The ancient patriarch, Lehi explains, foresaw a latter-day seer among his descendants. This seer would bring forth long hidden sacred records.

The passage then moves from prediction to purpose. The records brought forth by this latter-day Joseph would work together with the Bible to establish the truth of God’s word. They would restore plain and precious lost teachings. They would also help convince scattered Israel of the covenants made with their fathers. This is not a vague forecast. The prophecy identifies lineage, mission, and even name. It describes a seer whose work would center on scripture, revelation, and the gathering of Israel.

Joseph Smith’s life aligns closely with this description. Born in 1805 to Joseph Smith Sr., he emerged from a family line identified in Latter-day Saint patriarchal blessings with the tribe of Ephraim, the son of Joseph of Egypt. Through divine guidance he translated the Book of Mormon from ancient plates and published it in 1830. Latter-day Saints view this moment as the opening chapter of the Restoration.

The connection between the two Josephs becomes even more meaningful when their roles are considered side by side. Joseph of Egypt preserved physical life during a season of famine. By preparing the storehouses of Egypt, he ensured his family and many others survived a devastating crisis.

Joseph Smith entered a different kind of famine. The spiritual landscape of the nineteenth century included deep religious yearning but also widespread confusion about doctrine, authority, and revelation. Through the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the restoration of priesthood authority, Joseph Smith helped reopen channels of revelation we see as essential to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Another shared element in their stories involves adversity. Joseph of Egypt endured betrayal by those closest to him. He faced slavery, false accusation, and imprisonment before his calling became widely known. Joseph Smith encountered relentless opposition during his ministry. Mobs drove him and his followers from their homes more than once. The hardships of his life formed part of the larger narrative surrounding the Restoration. These parallels do not suggest identical experiences. But they do reveal a pattern in which God prepares chosen servants through trial before placing them in positions of sacred responsibility.

The prophecy in 2 Nephi 3 also emphasizes the gathering of Israel. Joseph of Egypt preserved the house of Jacob in his generation. Joseph Smith taught extensively about the gathering of Israel in the latter days. Missionary work, temple covenants, and renewed attention to the promises made to Abraham have all become central elements of Latter- day Saint belief and practice.

Seen through this lens, the prophecy concerning the latter-day Joseph forms more than an interesting historical detail. It places the Restoration within a much longer sacred narrative. The covenant promises made to the ancient patriarchs continue to unfold in later generations.

For Latter day Saints, the connection between Joseph of Egypt and Joseph Smith illustrates how prophecy and fulfillment can span vast stretches of time. A patriarch in ancient Egypt looked forward to a future servant who would help restore God’s word. Centuries later, a young man in rural New York stepped into the role and began a work which continues to shape the faith of millions.

This prophetic thread invites a deeper appreciation for the unity of scripture. The Old Testament, the Book of Mormon, and modern revelation do not stand as isolated witnesses. They join together in telling a single unfolding story of covenant and redemption.

When those passages are read together, the voice of Joseph of Egypt reaches across the centuries with quiet certainty. The Lord would raise up a seer named Joseph. Through him sacred records would come forth and the knowledge of God’s covenants would expand again among His people.

History has now provided the name that prophecy anticipated.

How Can the Measles Outbreak Be Contained?

Families are stronger when they are healthy, and immunizations tend to help individuals stay healthy. For decades, there were few measles outbreaks because parents had their children immunized. Then parents began questioning the effectiveness of immunizations.

I found an article published at the Deseret News to be interesting and educational, and I encourage all parents to read it. Dr. Nathan Money is a board-certified, hospital-based pediatrician in Utah and a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Thus, he should be qualified to share his thoughts on the topic of measles and immunization. 

In 2025, the United States had its worst measles outbreak in decades, including the first children to die from measles in 20 years. It’s 2026, and measles cases seem to only be getting worse: 2026 cases have already reached 50% of 2025’s total cases in just two months. Utah has been a hotbed for measles cases, accounting for nearly 1 in 3 of all cases in the United States, with most cases occurring in the southwestern counties.

The recent outbreak is likely a direct result of declining measles immunization rates. Improving immunization rates against measles will be vital to reversing its spread in our community. Recent models suggest that if measles immunization rates decrease 10%, the United States will see an estimated 11 million cases of measles over the next 25 years (an average of 440,000 cases per year). In contrast, if we can increase immunization rates by 5%, there will be only 5,800 cases over that same time frame (an average of around 200 cases per year).

Measles is far more than a rash and fever – it is pneumonia in a previously healthy child, brain swelling in an intensive care unit and anxiety for families who thought it was gone. At its core, measles prevention is about protecting children, especially those who are too young or too medically vulnerable to be fully protected themselves.

As a hospital-based pediatrician in Utah, I want to help keep children safe, healthy and out of the hospital. Below are 10 important questions Utah parents should get answered about measles recognition and prevention.

Is measles really that dangerous for children?

Yes. Measles can be very dangerous and even life threatening, especially in infants. It is extremely contagious, and many children with measles are hospitalized due to complications. Of those, 1 in 1,000 dies.

What are the first signs and symptoms of measles?

The first signs of measles include a fever, runny nose, cough and red eyes. A few days later, a red rash can appear that starts on the head and spreads downward.

My child was exposed; when might I see symptoms?

Measles symptoms usually take one to two weeks to start after exposure…. If your child is immunized, the chances of them getting measles are very low.

How contagious is the measles virus?

Measles is extremely contagious; it can spread through the air and survive for two hours in a room after a person with measles has left it. A person with measles will spread it to 90% of unimmunized people they have contact with. Those with measles should quarantine until at least four days after the appearance of their rash.

I think my child has measles, what should I do?

If you suspect your child has measles – especially if they have been exposed recently – you should call your health care provider for guidance….

Please call the facility before you go to notify them … and wear a mask….

My child has measles. What complications should I watch for?

Two important complications of measles are pneumonia (1 in 20) and brain swelling (encephalitis, 1 in 1000). Many cases of measles can safely recover at home, but you should seek immediate medical attention if your child is struggling to breathe or has altered mental status or seizures.

When should my child be immunized, and how effective is immunization?

Measles immunizations are usually given when children are one and four years old….

The MMR immunization is 97% effective at preventing infection – only 4% of cases in 2025 were in immunized people. If your child is immunized and still gets measles, they will have a milder case and are less likely to have complications….

What is subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE)?

SSPE is a complication of measles that can occur years after infection. One in 600 infants that get measles will have this complication, which is usually fatal….

Is the MMR vaccine associated with autism?

No. Several large studies have been done to investigate this and immunized children have never shown an increased risk of autism.

How do the complications from the MMR vaccine compare to measles complications?

 … The MMR vaccination carries some side effects, but they pale in comparison to potential measles complications.

Estimated risks for the MMR vaccine compared to risk of measles complications

MMR Vaccine Side Effects

Fever, rash (1 in 10)

Swollen lymph nodes (1 in 10)

Joint pain (1 in 200)

Febrile seizure (1 in 3,000)

Anaphylaxis (1 in 700,000)

Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura (ITP) (1 in 40,000)

 

What Should Be Done About Schizophrenic and Ungrateful Immigrants?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns immigrants to our nation, particularly the schizophrenic and ungrateful immigrant who hates America but refuses to leave. Legal immigration is good for our country.

Most of the people who are legal immigrants come to America because they recognize the virtues of our nation, such as democracy, constitutional law, free enterprise, liberty, freedom, etc. They respect the laws of the United States and are willing to abide by them. On the other hand, many illegal immigrants curse those same laws, virtues, and qualities while enjoying the benefits of living in America.

In an article published at The Daily Signal, Victor Davis Hanson discussed the ungrateful immigrant. 

I’d like to talk about a very controversial topic. I call it the ungrateful immigrant. You know, it used to be in the United States that immigrants were our great strength….

That was sort of the general perception that we had of immigrants. Think of Silicon Valley. I mean, Tesla, SpaceX, eBay, Strip, Sun Microsystems, I could go down the list. They’re all created by these wonderful legal immigrants.

But that’s changing. And I’m not talking about the 500,000 illegal immigrants who were known to have come across with criminal records. I’m not talking about the truck drivers….

I’m not talking about the Somali fraud…. I’m not talking about Rep. Ilhan Omar and antisemitic remark, “It’s the Benjamin’s baby,” or labeling and vilifying the United States as trash. That’s all self-evident.

What’s new are legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. As if they become almost … They have a schizophrenic idea. They hate the country, but under no circumstances do they want to leave it.

Hanson proceeded to name a few of the “schizophrenic” and “ungrateful” people who are in the United States legally, but do not love and appreciate America and American values:

Just in an eight-day period: A week ago, we had in Austin, Texas, a Senegal naturalized citizen who went into a beer garden and opened fire. Killed three and wounded a lot…

At Old Dominion University in Virginia, a naturalized immigrant from Sierra Leone came in, and he shot the ROTC instructor and yelled, “Allahu Akbar.”

… Out in front of the New York mayor’s mansion, there was a protest against Islam and a counterprotest supporting Mamdani and two naturalized citizens, one an Afghan, one parents from Turkey, they brought two IEDs and tried to, they said, surpass the Boston Marathon bomber of 2013.

Remember them? The Tsarnaev brothers? They were Chechens from Russia. And we were very magnanimous in allowing them to come in. And how did they repay us? By trying to slaughter people. They injured dozens. Dozens. More than dozens in Boston.

And then, of course, we had the synagogue attempt by a Lebanese naturalized citizen. And he had ties to Hezbollah. His family were Hezbollah members. He tries to drive his car into a synagogue in Michigan and kill people. And the question is, why do they do that?

Maybe a better rephrasing it would be why don’t they do it?

We have no civic education. We ask very little of the immigrant when they come to the United States. We don’t ask them to have a high school diploma all the time. We don’t ask them to be fluent in English. We don’t ask them to study the Constitution. We don’t ask them to profess their greater loyalty and love to the United States.

Instead, we have open borders. Or we bring in thousands of students from the Middle East.

And what do they do? They protest, and they push Jews around, and they celebrate at a time when we’re at war. As we saw in New York City recently, they celebrate our enemies: Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran. They’re on their side.

This is a far different phenomenon from the past when we had wonderful immigrants from Japan who were treated pretty badly, that many of them, most of them, went to internment camps, and yet they joined the 442 [C]ombat [B]rigade in Italy. And they took horrendous casualties fighting for whom? The United States.

So, something’s wrong, and what I’m getting at is this: These immigrants, whether they’re temporary immigrants, they’re illegal immigrants, they’re legal immigrants, or they’re naturalized citizens, or they’re on student visa, they sense something.

They look at the Tsarnaev brothers, and they say, “Well, yes, they were Islamicists and yes, they killed a lot of Americans, but Rolling Stone put one of the brothers in a very photogenic pose on their cover as if he was a romantic type of person. Oh, I remember Fort Hood.” That was Major Nidal Hasan. He shot 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded over 30 of them.

And the Pentagon said, we’re not going to attribute this to what? Terrorism. Even though he yelled, “Allahu Akbar.” … then-Chief of Staff of the Army George Casey … said one of the greatest tragedies of this shooting might be the injury to our diversity program.

No, no. It was not the injury to the diversity. It was the paradigm that was established that you can go in and kill people and not suffer public opprobrium and condemnation. It’s almost as if anytime someone yells “Allahu Akbar” – citizen, illegal citizen, anybody – and you scream and yell, and you do something terribl[e], the first thing we say is, “Well, we don’t want to condemn it. That would be Islamophobic.”

But again, that sends a message. And all of these people, all 50 million people, who have come to the United States, many of them, some of our best citizens, but all of them have to be reminded and are reminded, if we’re doing our duty, that they chose to come here, and they need to become Americanized.

And a lot of them are not….

Hanson shared an example: Illegal immigrants from Mexico rioting in Los Angeles and waving the Mexican flag – a country that they do not want to return to – while burning the American flag – a country that they do not want to leave. Then Hanson questioned where people got such an idea:

Was it from the universities? Was it from the K-12 curriculum where we teach people that the story of the United States is sexism and racism and homophobia? Or is it when they look on TV and we see ICE people trying to enforce the law, and predominantly looking at the 500,000 criminals that came in.

And what happens to them? They’re demonized by us as Gestapo, as Nazis.

Hanson called the situation a “Frankensteinian monster of immigration” and said that we created the problem. Immigration “used to be our great strength,” but the American people have become Dr. Frankenstein. We have turned immigration into a monster that threatens the American way of life.

Will You Call Your Senator about the DHS Shutdown?

Congressional Democrats partially shut down the U.S. government just after midnight on Friday, March 8, 2026. Congress failed to fund departments like the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Treasury. The Justice Department, Veterans Affairs, FDA, and the EPA continued operations because they received prior funding.

The shutdown means that nonessential federal employees in the affected agencies are furloughed. However, essential personnel – air traffic controllers, TSA staff, and some law enforcement officers – continue to work but without pay. ICE is not included because they were funded in previously passed legislation.

Congressional Democrats have stalled for 18 days even while negotiating with the White House. However, Democrats finally sent their latest counteroffer around 11:00 p.m. last night, according to an article by Cami Mondeaux in an article posted at the Deseret News. While White House officials are reviewing the details, “top Republicans on Capitol Hill said the latest proposal ‘didn’t change much from where we were.’” 

“There are things that, in my view, have been significant gives on the part of the White House, but the Democrats seem intent on dragging out this political issue,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters on Tuesday.

Democrats have been engaging directly with the White House on funding for DHS for the 2026 fiscal year since early February. Congress was on track to pass a spending bill that had been negotiated between both parties, but Democrats scuttled those plans after a pair of deadly shootings by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis in January.

Since then, Democrats have demanded major reforms to how immigration officers can operate, including body cameras and judicial warrants. But as talks drag on, Democrats say the White House isn’t offering enough while Republicans say the minority party is refusing to compromise….

Federal funding for DHS lapsed at midnight on Feb. 14, leaving the department shuttered for over a month. That’s caused challenges for agencies beyond those that deal with immigration, such as the Transportation Security Administration that has dealt with major airline delays due to staffing shortages.

TSA agents have not been paid since the beginning of the shutdown. Some agents are calling in sick while others have quit their TSA jobs to find steadier work. Even though Democrats want to fund TSA in a stand-alone bill, Republicans fear that such a move “would leave all agencies funded except those that have to do with immigration and border security.”

In his article published at The Blaze, Lance Gooden states that Americans stuck with “longer security lines, missed flights, and mounting frustration” should blame Democrats. 

This marks the third funding lapse in six months. Instead of doing their job, Democrats are using the DHS as leverage to undermine President Trump and stall the work Americans elected him to do.

The consequences are immediate. More than 95% of TSA employees are working without pay during this shutdown. Many have taken second jobs to cover basic bills. At the same time, the TSA has cut staffing, which means fewer screeners and longer lines – even as the security mission stays the same.

With TSA wait times reaching three hours at some airports in Texas, Gooden says this “translates into real costs: lost time, missed flights, and families stranded because Congress can’t pass a basic funding bill.”

And this chaos could end overnight. Congress could fund the government and get the DHS back to work. Instead, Democrats are choosing disruption – and putting national security at risk – to block Trump’s mandate to secure the border, end illegal immigration, and Make America Safe Again.

Is Taxpayer-Funded K-12 Education Incentivizing Illegal Immigration?

It is safe to say that many of the policies of the Biden administration encouraged illegal immigration. Now a “House subcommittee will examine whether the Supreme Court’s decision that states cannot deny the children of illegal aliens access to taxpayer-funded K-12 education incentivized more aliens to come to the U.S. illegally,” according to an article written by Pedro Rodriguez and published in The Daily Signal. 

The House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government will hold a hearing Wednesday on the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe (1982), Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told The Daily Signal Friday. The Supreme Court allowed illegal alien children to enroll in public schools, ruling that state laws preventing their enrollment violated the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment.

“Decades ago, the Supreme Court’s erroneous decision in Plyler v. Doe set a misguided precedent by extending taxpayer-funded public education to those in the country illegally,” Roy told The Daily Signal. “As our schools face growing strain, it’s time for Congress and the courts to reexamine this decision and put American students and taxpayers first.”

The hearing will also explore the “policy implications” of “allowing large numbers of illegal aliens to overwhelm public schools, strain resources, teachers, and hinder class learning.”

Witnesses, who have yet to be formally announced, will help the subcommittee identify how Congress could push the Supreme Court to “rectify this judicial and policy gap.” “This serves as an opportunity to examine the federal judiciary’s recent series of questionable decisions, highlighting a history of bad precedent,” the Texas congressmen added.

The committee hopes to use the hearing as an “opportunity” for them “to build from the birthright citizenship hearing” by demonstrating that the Plyler precedent compounds the issue of illegal aliens absorbing public resources.

In recent years, Republican lawmakers have continuously championed efforts to stop incentivizing illegal immigration, which they claim includes education.

States, including Florida and Texas, have already banned illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuition benefits in public higher education.

“I don’t think you should be admitted to college in Florida if you’re here illegally,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a 2025 press conference. “To give in-state tuition was just a slap in the face to taxpayers.”

It is a good thing that any part of Congress is looking at how illegal immigration is being incentivized. If all the handouts and other benefits are cut off, America will stop looking like the Promised Land to more residents of foreign nations.

Who Is John Fetterman?

My VIP for this week is Senator John Fetterman (D-PA.). I do not usually consider any Democrat as being a VIP, but Fetterman has caught my attention. During his campaign, I wondered why anyone would vote for a man with obvious brain damage. Yet, he has become THE Democrat who makes the most sense in the vast majority of cases.

Fetterman has ruffled the feathers of his fellow Democrats on numerous occasions. His latest act took place last Saturday, and the topic was his criticism about the Democrats’ “ongoing partial government shutdown and its impacts on federal employees and operations.” Harold Hutchison reports the story in his article published at The Daily Signal.

Multiple agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), are being subjected to “emergency measures” due to the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to a release by DHS.

Fetterman said he spoke with TSA agents during his frequent travels about the effects of the shutdown.

“I am the only Democrat that has refused to vote in shutting down DHS, literally the only one,” Fetterman said during Saturday’s episode of “The Big Weekend Show.” “And now all agree that this would not have any impact on ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement]. They already have their funding, and it doesn’t push or force ICE to do any of those kinds of reforms that people think are necessary now, too.”

“Why would you want to punish all of these workers that are under DHS? The only thing that it can do is just make us less safe, and that also makes people have to go without getting paid,” Fetterman continued. “I’m at the airport virtually every week of the year, and I ask all those TSA agents, and I said, ‘Hey, do you like not to get paid for your work?’ I haven’t met one saying, ‘No, it’s no problem.’”

Democrats are demanding new restrictions on ICE after federal law enforcement officers were involved in the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good in January during Operation Metro Surge. The separate incidents occurred amid the deployment of hundreds of federal agents to Minnesota in response to reports about welfare fraud involving Somali migrants.

Fetterman also criticized Democrats over their efforts to block the funding.

“It’s not a big deal, you know,” Fetterman said. “I truly don’t understand that, other than it’s just toxic for a Democrat to agree with something that maybe that the Republican side might agree with that. And now I know that, but it’s very easy: more of a country over party, or ‘I’m going to put those union workers over it,’ or America’s security over the base might demand.”

Fetterman appears to be a common-sense type of man. He sees the foolishness that has taken over the Democrat Party. He is solid in his intention to remain a Democrat, but he sounds more like a Republican than my own Senator Lisa Murkowski does!

Why Is Religion Essential for Freedom?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the need for religion in our constitutional republic. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. President George Washington and President Donald Trump believe religion is essential to freedom.

President Trump believes, according to his State of the Union address on February 24, that the United States could be in the midst of a spiritual revival. However, a recent Gallup survey says that the data is mixed. In his article published at The Daily Signal, Andrew Fowler states: 

Nevertheless, for the nation to prosper and bind together, religiosity is not only a crucial aspect of civil society, but vital to its sustainability. This sentiment was express by none other than the country’s first president, George Washington.

Fowler explained that Washington was “private in his own religious convictions and skeptical of fanaticism.” However, he gave a “prescient warning to contemporary and future Americans – on national and international affairs – definitively emphasized that ‘[o]f all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.’ Moreover, to ‘subvert’ such ‘great pillars of human happiness’ – like the freedom of religious expression – would be considered unpatriotic.” Fowler continued his explanation.

Indeed let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Fowler explained that Washington “was not the only Founding Father to stress religion’s intrinsic importance to the new republic.” He then quoted a famous statement by the future President John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He quoted a third Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin, as saying: “[God] ought to be worshipped” and “the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.”

Fowler continued by quoting “Thomas Jefferson, the most notable deist among the Founding Fathers.” He “warned about the consequences of abandoning religious conviction entirely.” Jefferson advocated for a “wall of separation” between church and state, but he also said: “God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?”

Fowler explained that the rationale of the above Founding Fathers “was not without historical precedent.” He continued by explaining that Christianity has served for centuries “as the basis for establishing institutions that we take for granted, such as universities, hospitals, economic systems, and – most importantly – the philosophy undergirding the truth that ‘all men are created equal.” It was Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19^th-century political scientist, who observed and then wrote in his “Democracy in America” that “religion is the ‘companion of liberty’ and a ‘safeguard’ in preserving the ‘pledge of freedom.’”

Fowler then shared his thoughts about how religion is doing in America today and the consequences that have followed.

Today, however, American religiosity is struggling – and the consequences borne from this sociological trend have reverberated across civil society and political dynamics.

In the early 1950s, 75% of Americans found religion to be “very important” in their lives. Now, that is 47%. Moreover, the March Gallup survey shows that “in each year since 2022, 28% of Americans have said religion is ‘not very important’ in their lives,” which is the “highest proportion” in this trend and “more than double the rate seen as recently as the early 2000s.” Concurrently, as a recent Pew Research Center survey discovered, the United States is “the only place” where “more adults (ages 18 and older) describe the morality and ethics of others living in the country as bad (53%) than as good (47%).”

The relationship between these trends may not be purely coincidental. Religious affiliation has historically declined since the 21^st century’s outset; meanwhile, the importance of one’s political party affiliation has risen and, in some cases, supplanted not only religion as an identifiable characteristic, but race, culture, and even language.

Additionally, in recent years, Americans have shifted their self-defining characteristics to better align with their politics; in effect, a political platform has increasingly informed one’s values and principles, instead of one’s beliefs being rooted by families, churches, and communities.

Psychologically, this identity shift heightens emotional reactions toward political criticisms since debate – or opposition – now challenges the core of a person’s personality. Even brain activity confirms political conflict has a similar effect as being physically attacked and/or threatened. It should be unsurprising then, as a result, America has seen increased polarization and even violence against political adversaries.

At the same time, American civil society has receded. Fewer opportunities exist for neighbors to gather together, regardless of political affiliation, and pursue a common goal. In the past, religious organizations and charities were cornerstones for such activity; today, however, as religiosity fades – which had been a motivating impulse propelling communal outreach – a void has formed. Indeed, the less religious are less likely to be civically engaged.

This massive disconnect between an individual and society at-large presents an existential crisis in the modern United States. Civilizations cannot survive without a firm foundation. In an American context, morality was not borne from thin air nor from moral relativism – but formed by Western philosophy and the Judeo-Christian religions.

President Trump is launching initiatives like “America Prays” and establishing the White House Faith Office. In addition, there are signs that the rising generations are seeking spiritual guidance. Will this trend continue?

Fowler offers “Washington’s fatherly advice” given in his Farewell Address as being “relevant to modern audiences: “when religiosity disappears from the public square, the moral framework supporting civil society wanes and weakens. A transcendent set of principles, however, unifies and moors the nation in common principles.”

Fowler suggests that this year -- America’s 250^th birthday anniversary – is a good time for Americans to return to what has been called the “indispensable” pillars that hold up society: “prayer, worship, and charity.” He wonders if faith is powerful enough to “reverse every sociological problem.” He suggests that religious commitment must be revived if we are to “renew the civic bonds that sustain, safeguard, and preserve a free society.”

This year is a suitable time for all of us to pray for America and for our political leaders.