Should Trump Send Troops to Protect Federal Agents and Property?

Portland, Oregon, has endured unrest for several years, unrest that morphed into riots and threats toward federal agents and which has increased over the past 100 nights. President Donald Trump decided to send the National Guard – known as federalizing troops – into Portland to protect the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center and headquarters. The facility has been under assault, particular at night. Victor Davis Hanson explained the situation as follows. 

In other words, Antifa-like protesters surround the facility. They make it almost impossible to drive in and out. And they’re trying to disrupt the idea itself that the federal government has a right to apprehend illegal aliens that have warrants out for their deportation.

Hanson asks a question that may be on the minds of other people: why would President Trump bother with Portland, Oregon? Hanson considers it a “lose-lose situation” in some ways for the President. Trump could just let Portland destroy itself, but the President looks at the situation in a different way.

… But Trump’s point, I think, is different. He is saying that the city of Portland, by its nonenforcement, by intent – not just capability, by intent – it is allowing an area of Portland to be free of, exempt from the law. Local law, state law, but more importantly, federal law, too.

In other words, people can commit mayhem against federal personnel with impunity.

And Donald Trump is saying that I have to protect the civil rights of those agents and that agency. And I have jurisdiction, as the president of the United States and the ultimate enforcer of federal law. So, I’m going to go into Portland with sufficient force. And I’m going to guarantee that ICE facility works as it does elsewhere, without harassment. And if this now-designated terrorist organization Antifa tries to disrupt, we’re going to charge them, not with local statutes, not with state, but federal charges. And these carry severe penalties.

So, this puts the ball in the Oregon court and the Antifa court because if you object to what Donald Trump is doing, you’re finding yourself, as to quote former President Barack Obama, “on the wrong side of history” in two senses.

Antifa is a terrorist organization. The only mystery is, it’s centralized, with a head that runs the tentacles of this octopus. I don’t know. But by branding people who identify with Antifa, de facto, as terrorists, it makes anybody who wants to create a safe haven for their terrorist activity part and parcel to terrorism. Do you really want to be defending terrorism is you oppose the federal government’s efforts to protect its own personnel from terrorists?

Hanson says that there is “a larger historical question,” even “a civil rights issue” like those in the 1950s and 1960s. This means that “no city, no state, no county has the right to take away the civil rights of any citizen.” In 1962, it was a segregation issue with George Wallace. President John F. Kennedy said “no.” America fought a civil war over segregation, and states must obey federal law. Kennedy federalized the National Guard who guarded Black students entering previously all-white schools. With that situation as background, Hanson continues:

What am I getting at? The mayor of Portland, the governor of Oregon, that liberal community of Portland, by allowing this direct violation of federal law and the denial of civil rights to ICE agents, is basically nullifying federal law. It is a neo-Confederate idea. They are in league with the George Wallaces of history by saying: We, in our infinite morality and wisdom, can adjudicate what the federal government can do and what it can’t do.

I’m sorry, Oregon, we fought a civil war over that. And your idea lost. There is no legal justification for state nullification of federal law. Legally and morally, you’re on the wrong side of history. You’re siding with terrorists who are trying to maim and hurt federal agents. For what? Trying to enforce an existing federal law, and specifically, targeting people who have criminal records, here illegally, and are dangers to the community that you will not protect.

Even though Trump has authority and precedence to federalize the National Guard, a federal judge blocked his order to send troops to Portland. The order issued by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut “prevents National Guard troops from any state across the country and Washington, D.C., from being sent to Oregon.” In other words, this federal judge just asserted power over the President of the United States. Virginia Allen described the situation in Portland as follows. 

The court order follows Trump’s effort to deploy National Guard troops to Portland to guard federal property amid protests and riots outside an immigration detention center in the city. Federal and local law enforcement have made multiple arrests of protesters outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland in recent days….

Trump is working to take similar action in Chicago. Over the weekend, the president authorized 300 Illinois National Guard to go to Chicago to guard federal buildings. Trump is also ordering hundreds of Texas National Guardsmen to Chicago in a move Illinois Democrat Gov. JB Pritzker is labeling “Trump’s invasion.”

The simple truth is that Democrat mayors and governors are enabling Antifa-like terrorists to hinder and harass ICE agents and other federal agents in doing their jobs. It is the liberal and progressive leaders who have allowed their cities and states to become sanctuary areas in the first place.

The bottom line is that local and state law enforcement officers should be protecting life and property, but mayors and governors allow riots, fires, and destruction. If the politicians who were elected to protect citizens and property will not do the job, then the President of the United States has no option except to step into the chaos to protect federal personnel and property.

Was Charlie Kirk a Martyr for Christ?

My VIP for this week is Charlie in a contrast-and-comparison to Jesus Christ. Both Charlie and Jesus Christ became larger after death than while they lived because each is a martyr for a cause. Charlie is a martyr for “the religion of social justice,” while Jesus Christ was killed because He claimed to be the Son of God. Charlie was a follower of Jesus Christ who interested many people in the gospel of Jesus Christ, while Jesus Christ has the power to change the eternal life of every mortal man, woman, and child.

Virgil Walker says that “America now stands at a crossroads.” Americans can choose “the broad path that leads to chaos and destruction, or the narrow path that leads to peace and life?” He calls the situation an obvious choice: “Christ or chaos?” 

Walker compared the situations surrounding the deaths of George Floyd, Michael Brown (Ferguson, Missouri), and Jacob Blake (Kenosha, Wisconsin) with that of Charlie Kirk. The deaths of the first group of men led to nationwide protests, riots, student walkouts, cities burned, businesses ransacked, stores looted, and calls to defund the police.

Now, set that against what followed the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

He was murdered for daring to give the biggest microphone … to those who opposed him. He welcomed debate. He confronted hostile ideas head on. He refused to be silenced by intimidation. And for that, he paid with his life.

But look at the fruit that followed his death.

No buildings burned. No businesses looted. No cities reduced to ash.

Instead, only candles burned – vigil candles, lifted high in memory of a man who gave his life for truth. People gathered in churches. Prayers rose instead of Molotov cocktails. Instead of mobs demanding blood, thousands made decisions to follow Christ. Politicians who would never publicly declare the name of Jesus suddenly spoke openly about the need for the gospel. Instead of excuses for lawlessness, there were testimonies of salvation….

What explains this radical difference?

On one hand, you have a spirit of rage. A spirit that justifies destruction as expression. A spirit that sees justice as vengeance. That spirit has turned too many American cities into ruins.

On the other hand, you have the Spirit of God. A Spirit that produces repentance instead of riots. Worship instead of war. Candles instead of chaos. When the world lost Charlie Kirk, a true martyr, the response revealed something deeper – something eternal.

The battle lines of our culture are not political but spiritual. The evidence could not be more clear.

The apostle Paul reminds us that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness” (Ephesians 6:12). What we are seeing is not merely two different sets of political responses but two different kingdoms on display….

History teaches us that rage consumes itself….

But the fruits of the Spirit endure. Out of Charlie Kirk’s death, lives are being changed forever. The gospel is advancing. The church is awakening.

The contrast forces every Christian to make a choice….

The choice is clear: Riots or revival? Chaos or Christ?

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I know that Charlie was a mere mortal, while Jesus Christ is the Son of God who atoned for the sins of mankind, who died and was resurrected on the third day, and who will return to earth in glory soon. Charlie himself would be the first to deny that he was worthy to be compared to Christ. However, they are both martyrs, whose lives and deaths have impacted vast numbers of people. Charlie testified and witnessed for Christ, while Christ makes it possible for all of us to return to the presence of our Heavenly Father.

Will the Division in America Be Healed?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns a great division in America. Approximately 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ taught a parable about the wheat and the tares and how they are to grow together until the last days when the two would be separated.

In her article published at The Daily Signal, Kimberly Ells wonders if that foretold separation is happening now. Whether or not the foretold separation is happening, Ells states that something significant is happening now. 

I believe that a separation is happening now that will culminate in the wheat and tares scenario. It is a division between good and evil, righteousness and wickedness. Ells calls it a division “between those who endorse murder and those who do not,” cold-blooded murder – not a life taken in self-defense. She believes that the murder group is growing and points to the assassination attempts on Donald Trump and the murder of Charlie Kirk as evidence.

It appears that a disturbingly high number of Americans now view killing as an acceptable avenue for settling political differences. Glenn Beck noted recently that 55% of “left of center” Americans say it is “somewhat justified” to murder a sitting president. [Absolutely not acceptable!]

How can this be? Democracy has not traditionally been a rule by murder project. It is supposed to be just what Charlie Kirk presumed it to be: A place where people can vigorously debate problems and vote on how best to solve them – without killing each other.

The Founding Fathers of America must be looking earthward with furrowed brows witnessing what is becoming of the land of the free and the home of the brave. [Remember that saying in the Declaration of Independence about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?] Murder is not brave; it is cowardly. It is an admission that you cannot win on your own merits and must therefore muzzle someone else with the permanence of death in order to win.

This does not constitute winning. This is simply suspending the contest in the middle and running away to hide. At present, it is still illegal to kill someone in cold blood, so the murderer must always try to escape or conceal himself. A true victor steps into the limelight and graciously accepts victory and general applause….

But now that cheering for the death of a perceived enemy and in some cases literally dancing on the grave of the murdered is now going mainstream, I wonder how long it will be until the murderer himself is lauded. Some cultures already celebrate those who seek to take out political or religious opponents on behalf of a group identity at large. This dark practice seems to be spreading.

Ells used the term “culture of death” to describe what is happening in America. It is a term that was once used in “reference to abortion, refusing to bear and raise children, euthanasia, war, etc.” Now, “culture of death seems to be widening its reach like a cancer seizing upon the core organs of society.” Ells continued:

During a national prayer breakfast in Washington in 1994, Mother Teresa famously got to what may be the heart of the matter. She said, “If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” She continued, “By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems … So, abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love one another, but to use any violence to get what they want.”

If we accept and even celebrate the killing of the smallest and most helpless among us, how much of a stretch is it to expand the scope of acceptable killing to innocent and open-hearted people like Charlie Kirk? ….

Celebrating murder rather than grieving for the dead is a late-term symptom of a society in the throes of catastrophic collapse into chaos. If there is a great division happening in society right now, I want to be found on the side opposite to the culture of death….

Like Ells, I want to be on side that celebrates “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” To survive another 250 years, the United States of America must destroy the “culture of death” and return to a nation that protects life. We must have an environment of open and honest debate and discussion and secure and honest elections.

 

  

What Blessings Come from Temple Service?

My Come Follow Me studies for this week took me to Doctrine and Covenants 109-110 in a lesson titled “It Is Thy House, a Place of Thy Holiness.” The lesson was introduced by the following information. 

The doors to the Kirtland Temple weren’t supposed to open until eight o’clock on the morning of March 27, 1836. But Saints who were hoping to attend the dedication services started lining up as early as seven. An overflow location and then a second session were needed to accommodate everyone. And it wasn’t just the living who were eager to be present. Multiple witnesses saw angels inside the temple and even on the roof, during and after the dedication. It really did seem that “the armies of heaven” had come to “sing and [to] shout” with the Latter-day Saints (“The Spirit of God,” Hymns, no. 2).

Why the great excitement—on both sides of the veil? After centuries, there was a house of the Lord again on the earth. The Lord was fulfilling His promise to endow His Saints “with power from on high” (Doctrine and Covenants 38:32). And this, He declared, was only “the beginning of the blessing” (Doctrine and Covenants). The era we now live in—with accelerated temple work and ordinances available to millions of the living and the dead—had its beginning in Kirtland, when “the veil o’er the earth [was] beginning to burst” (“The Spirit of God”).

Principles found in this scripture block include: (1) The Lord offers me rich blessings through temple covenants (Doctrine and Covenants 109), (2) Prayer is communication with Heavenly Father (Doctrine and Covenants 109), (3) The Lord can manifest Himself to me in His house (Doctrine and Covenants 110:1-10), and (4) The Savior directs His work through priesthood keys (Doctrine and Covenants 110:10-16). This essay will discuss principle #1 about blessings and temple covenants.

The Kirtland Temple was different from the more than 200 temples in operation today. For example, the Kirtland Temple did not have any altars or baptismal font, which are both in every temple today. However, the blessings described in the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple (see Doctrine and Covenants 109) are available in our temples today as shown in the following verses:

·         Verses 5, 12-13 (see also Doctrine and Covenants 110:6-8): In the Lord’s house, He can manifest Himself to me, and I can feel His power.

·         Verses 9, 15-19, 26, 78-79:

Receive a fulness of the Holy Ghost.

No combination of wickedness will overpower you.

·         Verses 21-23:

Repent and return to God, and find favor with God, have blessings restored.

God’s servants to go forth from temple armed with God’s power.

God’s servants to carry the name of Jesus Christ and have God’s glory round them and angels watching over them.

Know that this is God’s work.

·         Verses 24-33, 42-46:

Standing in temple established to all generations and for eternity.

No weapon formed against them shall prosper.

Protection from enemies and combinations of wickedness.

God will fight their battles.

Enemies brought to confoundment, astonishment, shame, and confusion.

Works of enemies be brought to naught and swept away.

Receive a full and complete deliverance from enemies.

Delivered from wicked.

Be prepared against the day of burning.

I have been serving in temples since I was twelve years old with my first baptisms for the dead. The blessings that I receive from temple service are many, but I will name only a few: (1) feeling peace in a world that is spinning out of control, (2) confidence in asking for blessings from God, and (3) assurance that God will keep His covenants with me.

The hymn “The Spirit of God” was written for the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, and it has been sung at every temple dedication since that day. This hymn lists several other blessings – visions, understanding, knowledge, power of God, blessings, and see glories of God. The words to this hymn are as follows (Hymns, 2; text by William W. Phelps (1792-1872) (sung at the Kirtland Temple dedication in 1836); music by Anon., ca. 1844): 

1. The Spirit of God like a fire is burning!

The latter-day glory begins to come forth;

The visions and blessings of old are returning,

And angels are coming to visit the earth.

We’ll sing and we’ll shout with the armies of heaven,

Hosanna, hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Let glory to them in the highest be given,

Henceforth and forever, Amen and amen!

2. The Lord is extending the Saints’ understanding,

Restoring their judges and all as at first.

The knowledge and power of God are expanding;

The veil o’er the earth is beginning to burst.

We’ll sing and we’ll shout with the armies of heaven,

Hosanna, hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Let glory to them in the highest be given,

Henceforth and forever, Amen and amen!

3. We’ll call in our solemn assemblies in spirit,

To spread forth the kingdom of heaven abroad,

That we through our faith may begin to inherit

The visions and blessings and glories of God.

We’ll sing and we’ll shout with the armies of heaven,

Hosanna, hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Let glory to them in the highest be given,

Henceforth and forever, Amen and amen!

4. How blessed the day when the lamb and the lion

Shall lie down together without any ire,

And Ephraim be crowned with his blessing in Zion,

As Jesus descends with his chariot of fire!

We’ll sing and we’ll shout with the armies of heaven,

Hosanna, hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Let glory to them in the highest be given,

Henceforth and forever, Amen and amen!

What Happens When a Prophet Dies?

Latter-day Saint families are strengthened when individuals understand how the transition between prophets takes place. President Russell M. Nelson passed away at about 10:00 P.M. on Saturday, September 27, 2025. Before his death, he was the Senior Apostle as well as the Prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At the time of President Nelson’s death, Dallin H. Oaks became the Senior Apostle.

Senior Apostle means the man who has held the office of Apostle for the longest period of time. President Nelson and President Oaks were ordained Apostles on the same day, but President Nelson was ordained as an Apostle prior to the ordination of President Oaks.

Before a Prophet dies, there are two quorums: the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The members of both quorums are usually Apostles. I say usually because there have been times when men were called to be counselors in the First Presidency without being called as Apostles.

While I could think of only two such men [Thorpe B. Isaacson and J. Reuben Clark], this site lists the name, position, and dates of service for eleven men who served as counselors without being called as Apostles. However, J. Reuben Clark is unique in that he was called to be a counselor as a High Priest but was later called to be an Apostle and continued serving as a counselor. 

The period of time between the death of one prophet and the setting apart of the next prophet has a special name: apostolic interregnum. Tad Walch religion reporter with a focus on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, shared the following information in his article published at the Deseret News. 

The death of President Russell M. Nelson automatically dissolved the First Presidency on Saturday night and launched an apostolic interregnum – a period when the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles leads The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The end of a First Presidency that lasted more than seven-and-a-half years means that Presidents Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring have returned to the Quorum of the Twelve.

That means the quorum temporarily has 14 members with the senior apostle, President Oaks, as its president.

An apostolic interregnum is a rare moment in the church, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland told the Deseret News in 2018.

“It’s a great thing in the church to say goodbye to a prophet and anticipate a new one,” he said. “Through all the anticipation of it all, there’s never a moment when the keys are not in force, and there’s never any lack of revelatory experience. It’s a little bit like the Brits, who say, ‘the King is dead, God save the king.’ The transition is that fast.”

Throughout the church’s 195-year history, every apostolic interregnum has ended with the quorum selecting the senior apostle as the next church president.

President Oaks, 93, is therefore expected to succeed President Nelson – a friend he literally sat next to in leadership meetings for 41 years – and become the 18^th prophet-president of the church.

The second-most senior apostle becomes the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. During President Nelson’s tenure, that meant President Oaks carried that title while he served as the first counselor in the First Presidency….

President Holland, 84, is now the second-most senior apostle and is expected to be set apart as president of the Twelve. If he were called to the new First Presidency when it is reorganized, the next-senior apostle, President Eyring, 92, would become acting president of the Twelve.

I expect that President Oaks will become the next President of the Church of Jesus Christ, but I wonder when such action will take place. Since the Church is about to hold one of its two yearly General Conferences, I wonder if President Oaks will be sustained during conference even though President Nelson’s funeral is scheduled to be held a couple of days after conference. Walch has a good explanation for why this conference may be one that is led by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Based on church precedent, the First Presidency is not expected to be reorganized before general conference this weekend, though it is possible.

In the past, out of respect for the deceased church president, the First Presidency has not been reorganized until after his funeral. President Nelson’s funeral is scheduled on Tuesday, Oct. 7.

President [M. Russell] Ballard talked about that respect in a Deseret News interview during the last apostolic interregnum in 2018. “In reverence to the deceased president, we just don’t do much prior to the funeral,” he said. Part of the reason is also respect for the following First Presidency, he said. [Paragraphing altered.] …

In 2018, after the death of President Thomas S. Monson, the apostolic interregnum lasted for 12 days. That was the longest interregnum since the church’s pioneer days…. [Paragraphing altered.]

That 2018 interregnum ended when the Quorum of the Twelve set apart President Nelson as … President Monson’s successor during a Sunday morning meeting in the Salt Lake Temple.

If the quorum again chooses to hold its succession meeting the Sunday after the funeral, a new president might not be announced until Oct. 12, 13 or 14, due to this weekend’s general conference meetings.

The new church president will call two apostles from the quorum to assist him in the First Presidency. That will reduce the quorum to 11 members.

The new church president then will be expected to name a new apostle…. [Generally happens at a general conference but not always.]

Apostles serve for life and are, according to Latter-day Saint scripture, “special witnesses” of Jesus Christ to the world. Three apostles form the First Presidency. Twelve more make up the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Walch shares information about the length of apostolic interregnums. The shortest ones were four days (Joseph F. Smith to Heber J. Grant and Harold B. Lee to Spencer W. Kimball). The longest ones were the first three: Joseph Smith to Brigham Young (3 years, 6 months), Brigham Young to John Taylor (3 years, 1 month), and John Taylor to Wilford Woodruff (1 year, 9 months). The longest one in recent years is the one between Thomas S. Monson and Russell M. Nelson (12 days). Since it has already been six days as I drafted this essay, this interregnum may become the longest one since pioneer days.

I was born in the days when Heber J. Grant was the President of the Church of Jesus Christ, but David O. McKay is the first President that I remember. He was the Prophet-President throughout my childhood, youth, and early adult years and passed away after I married. He was the ninth President of the Church, and we are about to see the ninth President since President McKay.

I loved and sustained every President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I know that each of them was and is a prophet of God. However, I feel a closer connection to some of them than I do others: David O. McKay (first that I remember), Spencer W. Kimball (Prophet when I became a true disciple of Christ), Gordon B. Hinckley (reminded me a lot of my father), and Russell M. Nelson (who does not feel a special connection to the prophet who healed hearts physically and spiritually). I look forward to sustaining the next Prophet of God.

What Did Donald Trump Say at the U.N.?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns the need for a U.S. President who stands up for Americans and who is willing to use bluntness in facing foreign leaders with things as they really are. President Donald Trump appears to be such a POTUS as shown by his recent visit to the United Nations.

According to Victor Davis Hanson and numerous news stories, Trump did not receive a warm welcome at the United Nations when he, the First Lady Melania Trump, and their entourage arrived there. As soon as Mrs. Trump stepped onto the escalator, “it mysteriously shut down” – fulfilling a truth reported in a story in the London Times: “some members wanted to shut it down in protest of Trump’s cutting back on U.N. support.” 

If the escalator incident (1) had been the only problem that day, it could be understood – even though the escalator magically worked once the Trumps walked up the stairs. However, Hanson reported on three other situations that were odd: (2) The teleprompter suddenly stopped working, (3) The sound system did not work – no one could hear him. Hanson called it Deamplified, and (4) The translation to the membership came in Portuguese instead of English.

All four of those circumstances were almost impossible to occur in one session. So, what am I getting at? This is very serious. It means that the United Nations has employees, or perhaps administrators, who deliberately tried to sabotage an American president while on American soil.

So, Donald Trump, as he was experiencing the breakdown in the teleprompter, and had just gone through the escalator shock, decided to lengthen his speech from 15 minutes to about 55, and he had some blockbuster things to say.

First of all, the U.N. did not like it. They sat in stony silence. Why? First of all, he said the U.N. had been of no real importance when he was trying to negotiate peace, or at least a ceasefire, with the Congo and Rwanda, with Serbia and Bosnia, with Russia, of course, and Ukraine, Pakistan and India. I could go on, but he had seven separate conflicts that he at least got a temporary ceasefire. There was no U.N. praise, there was no U.N. input.

The subtext, what he was saying, is that most of their declarations of condemnation are against tiny Israel. In fact, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would follow his appearance at the U.N. and half – at least a lot of the contingents – just simply walked out. [There was no walk out for the Palestinians, for Chinese leader Xi Jinping (million people in a Uyghur labor camp), Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (for 50 years illegally occupied Northern Cyprus), or a Russian diplomat (killed more than 150,000 Ukrainians in the current war).]

It's only selective because Israel is tiny, it’s Western, and … it’s Jewish. But Donald Trump – so, he knows all that in advance and he has no respect for the U.N.

The other subtext that got the U.N. people very angry was that he talked about Europe – not Africa, not Asia, not Latin America. And they felt excluded. But he – it was very passive-aggressive. He said to Europe: I love Europe. I want you to fulfill, essentially, your shared Western heritage with us, but you’re not doing it, and you’re not doing it for three or four things.

No. 1, you’ve embarked on a suicidal energy policy that subsidizes inefficient and unsustainable green energy – solar and wind, specifically – and you’ve given up oil and natural gas and clean coal and nuclear, and you’ve lost your competitive edge and your consumers are hurting.

No. 2, you let in millions of illegal immigrants – and not just any illegal immigrants, mostly from the war-torn Middle East, who were Islamic and had no desire to adapt to, integrate with, or assimilate with Western civilization’s customs, cultural norms.

And therefore, you’ve got a terrible problem with immigration, you’ve got inefficient energy, and you’re disarmed. And I’m lecturing you, Trump said, because I love Europe and I want you to be a full partner.

And that offended the rest of the world that wasn’t – didn’t get that privilege of having a U.S. president talk directly to them, but it also got the Europeans angry because he was telling them the truth.

Why Are Red States Funding Rot on College Campuses?

Most Americans have long known that college campuses are like petri dishes for leftist rot. Many Americans thought that the rot was limited to liberal states, but Noah Wall at The Daily Signal says that the rot is far deeper on campuses in red states. He stated that “beneath the surface, a more pernicious sentiment lingers.” The American leftists who “cheered on Charlie’s unconscionable assassination, with a concerning number of them appearing to occupy key roles at American universities.” 

The vast majority of university employees have nothing to do with teaching or research – they’re bureaucrats. According to the National Center for Education Statistics in 2023, just over 64% of all university employees are anything but faculty. The college where Charlie Kirk was murdered, Utah Valley University, is a quarter-billion-dollar-a-year enterprise. It is also one of the largest employers in the state, with 6,000 employees on its payroll. Of that number, about one-third teach students.

This is an issue that red states have been failing on across the board. When measured on university employees per capita, 4 out of 5 of the worst offending states were red, with the average red state employing 100 more university employees per 100,000 residents than blue states.

It’s imperative to point out the bureaucratic rot: Republican governors are employing a fifth column of radical left ideologues that not only oppose American values like free speech but are taking a supplementary role in brainwashing our youth as well. Suppose an undergraduate wanted an internship with the Occupational Health and Safety Department at Clemson University. In that case, they may be interviewed by Robin “In a world full of Charlie Kirks and Brian Thompsons, be a Tyler Robinson or a Luigi Mangione” Newberry. Clemson has employed him for 30 years, working now as their chief environment, health, and safety officer.

How could students at Middle Tennessee State University feel safe when their associate dean was celebrating a murder on campus? In her own biography, Laura Sosh-Lightsy states, “… two decades of experience in student development, specializing in student conduct and support systems.” From her social media, it becomes pretty clear that she wouldn’t support conservative students, especially those who were impacted by Charlie’s assassination.

Or consider Winthrop University, where its Title XI coordinator shared a video calling Charlie Kirk a “weapon of the enemy” among other justifications for his murder. Could a conservative feel safe reporting on sex-based discrimination to somebody who is openly hostile to them for their world views?

One of the most blatant examples of the endlessly bloated bureaucratic patronage scheme is seen at the University of Kansas. There, an accessible print coordinator espoused on Facebook that Second Amendment supporters are “better in the ground as worm food” than expressing their God-given right to own a gun. No disciplinary action has been taken for an employee openly expressing hostile and violent inclinations toward those on campus.

These are just four of countless examples of state-funded leftist extremism.

Clemson has received over $330 million from state appropriations and grants, Middle Tennessee received $140 million, Winthrop received over $49 million, and the University of Kansas Lawrence campus $178 million in 2024. It can no longer go unanswered that Republican tax dollars are paying the salaries of people who encourage murdering Republicans.

Charlie Kirk’s assassination has undeniably revealed a complex of hate within publicly funded institutions. They are infested with a cultural rot of radical, violence-worshipping leftists that now staff endlessly growing administrative departments, and an even faster increasing bloat of ‘other professional’ positions. For every administrative staff member, such as associate deans, health officers, and labor coordinators, four “other professional” patronage jobs exist.

Wall concludes his article advising that the rot be cut out. States should “hinge funding to the reduction of nonessential staff.” His point is, “Republicans can no longer afford to fund a patronage scheme for people who want to murder them.”