Whether through The New York Times, CNN, Fox News, or even social media platforms, most Americans learn what is happening in their country and the world from one of the many news outlets that exist today. Without them, we would be largely uninformed; most people simply do not have the time or inclination to seek out this information independently. What many fail to realize, however, is that the media is, at its core, a for-profit business. It prioritizes stories that will attract attention and generate revenue. When covering Congress, that often means focusing on the most partisan and divisive bills, which are those that are voted on strictly along party lines and likely to end in stalemate. Because the average American relies on this coverage, they are left with a distorted perception of their policymakers’ productivity.

What I hope to do here is shatter that perception like a baseball through a window. While I cannot speak for every congressional staffer, office, or member, I can speak to what so often goes unseen: where the overwhelming majority of the work actually happens. The American legislative process is not defined by viral interview clips or the heated exchanges that dominate headlines for a day or two. Instead, it is defined by hours of research, drafting, revising, and negotiating, work that is methodical, often tedious, and rarely attention-grabbing. Almost no one sees the hours-long committee hearings that Congress regularly holds, as it does not make for compelling television, and for that reason, it is largely overlooked. Yet it is part of the very foundation upon which policy is built.

Behind every bill, amendment, and committee hearing is a network of staffers and interns who keep the institution running. These individuals routinely work well beyond a standard 40-hour week, not for impressive salaries or public recognition, but because they believe in the work they are doing. Interns, often under significant financial strain just to be in Washington, put in full-time hours with little to no compensation. Staffers, despite carrying substantial responsibility in shaping legislation, frequently earn far less than their counterparts on K Street. In a city where lobbyists can make multiples of their salaries advocating for particular interests, those tasked with writing and refining policy do so for a fraction of the pay.

And yet, these realities rarely make it into the broader narrative presented to the American public. Instead, what is amplified are moments of gridlock, partisan clashes, and dramatic failures to find common ground. The quieter but equally substantive work — the kind that requires patience, expertise, and persistence — goes largely unreported. As a result, many Americans are left with the impression that little to nothing is being accomplished, when in reality, the opposite is often true. This disconnect carries real consequences. When people believe their institutions are ineffective, trust inevitably begins to erode.

The problem, then, is not simply that Congress at times struggles with division or inefficiency. It is that the lens through which most Americans view Congress is fundamentally incomplete. If more people could see beyond the headlines and into the offices where the real work is done, they might reach a very different conclusion of their own.

Agriculture touches nearly every part of our daily lives. It provides the food on our tables, the fiber in our clothing, and even the fuel that powers parts of our economy. It supports millions of jobs and sustains rural communities that are critical to the nation’s success. Despite its importance, agriculture is often overlooked or misunderstood by those who are not directly involved in it. That is why moments like National Agriculture Day matter, they serve as a reminder of just how essential this industry truly is.

The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, more commonly known as the Farm Bill, addresses many of these areas and more. It works to clarify the legal rules of interstate agricultural trade so producers and businesses can operate with greater certainty and efficiency. It invests in and strengthens rural communities, many of which are home to the farmers and producers who feed the country. It provides tools that help farmers manage risk, respond to market volatility as well as changes, and reduce input and energy costs. At the same time, it encourages innovation through precision agriculture and technology while expanding conservation programs to ensure that American agriculture remains sustainable for generations to come.

Beyond economic support and innovation, the Farm Bill also emphasizes transparency and consumer confidence. Working alongside the United States Department of Agriculture, it aims to ensure that Americans know where their food comes from. This is particularly important in industries like beef, where labeling such as “Product of USA” allows consumers to make informed decisions. When Americans choose to purchase goods produced within the United States, they are directly supporting farmers who operate under some of the highest safety, environmental, animal welfare, and regulatory standards in the world.

These efforts reflect a broader commitment to transparency, accountability, and healthier outcomes for consumers within the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) movement. Policies like the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act seek to ensure that young students have access to nutritious options that support growth and development while also strengthening dairy markets at home. By reducing unnecessary barriers in interstate trade, measures like those included in the Farm Bill can help make these products more accessible and affordable for schools and communities alike.

Agriculture is not just one sector of the economy, it is indeed the foundation of the American way of life. Without it, the United States would not be able to function, let alone thrive. Our country was built by farmers, and to this day, it continues to be sustained by them. From rural towns to urban cities, agriculture connects us all in ways that are often invisible but always essential.

So, for those who care about the success of rural communities and the strength of our nation, the answer is clear. Agriculture is all around us and deeply embedded in our everyday lives. As the House Agriculture Committee puts it, “when rural America thrives, we all thrive.” That is why the answer is to pass the Farm Bill for the betterment of the United States and the agriculture that supports it. If we don’t, this country can not succeed. Make Agriculture Great Again!

War is a construct that predates history, a manner older than the written word. Ever since men have wielded spear and bow for hunt and game, so too have they taken arms against their foes, beast and man. It has been romanticized and feared, ushered in and forced, and seen by some as a game of skill against skill. With this, scholars have long debated not just the nature of war, but what brings it about, and by what right man has to command it.

Just War Theory is an idea put forth by men such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, which quantifies in its tenets how war should begin, be carried out, and ended. These titles, respectively, are jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum - justice in resorting to war, justice in conducting war, and justice after war.

To each of these stages belong criteria that, when taken holistically, determine if a nation has acted in justice, or without justice, in their deliverance of war. Seeing as how the American-Iranian war is scarcely a month old, it is best to analyze jus ad bellum - the actions by which war was brought about. Let these be the facts available, presented for each tenet, where a rational man may determine for himself if the United States has acted righteously in war.

Just Cause is the tenet that wars must be initiated with reasonable intentions, such as self-defense, protection of allies, or a response to aggression. In the instance of the American-Iranian war, combat began with preemptive airstrikes from allied American-Israeli forces, making precision attacks against combat infrastructure and ranking politicians. These preemptive strikes were made, as stated by President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, in fear that Iran would utilize their nuclear program to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Opponents claim that the Iranian regime had no intention of developing nuclear weapons, while supporters point to the high-enrichment sites Iran had developed. These sites were destroyed by American-Israeli targeted attacks during the 12-Day War. Such sites include Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. However, the Iranian regime declared their intentions of rebuilding these sites, which could produce uranium of an enrichment level only utilized in nuclear weapons.

Legitimate Authority is the tenet whereby war must be declared by those with the power to do so, as structured. As declared by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, only Congress has the explicit power to “Declare War”. Article II, Section 2 also designates the President as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

The Constitution clearly states that Congress shall be the decider of when to go to war, and that without a resolution of that elected body, actions in war may not be allowed. However, in the modern era, there has been a precedent that presidents may act outside of Congress in pursuit of combat operations. This is why the current actions in Iran have been designated “Combat Operations” and not certain war. Other combat operations include American intervention in Kosovo (Clinton), Libya (Obama), and Yemen (Biden).

Such is why the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was established as a means to check the president’s power. Congress put forth a War Powers Resolution, yet it failed to pass the House of Representatives.

Right Intention is the idea that war must be waged in pursuit of a righteous cause. Supporters of American intervention claim that the goal of the operations in Iran is to prevent the Iranian regime from producing and using nuclear weapons, maintaining the safety of the world. Those in opposition claim this war is yet another attempt to capture Middle Eastern oil.

Reasonable Chance of Success is the tenet where war must only be conducted if the combatant nation can reasonably achieve the goals set forth. Hegseth claims the goals of the United States are to “Destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure.”

These goals have mostly been achieved by the American coordinated airstrikes. However, as demonstrated in the past, the Iranian regime has no issue rebuilding, even after catastrophic loss. Those in opposition of the war declare there is no possible way - barring permanent occupation - the Iranian regime will fully lose their offensive capabilities.

The final relevant tenet of Just War Theory is Last Resort. A nation may only enter war if all other options - such as diplomacy - have been exhausted. Supporters of American intervention claim that the United States has been in constant negotiation with the Iranian regime for over a decade, and little actual progress has been made against their declaration to achieve nuclear weapons. The JCPOA established guardrails for Iran, but failed to account for the fact that Iran would refuse to comply, and would ultimately end with the Iranian regime acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Such is why the JCPOA was dissolved, and subsequent talks have proved equally fruitless.

However, those in opposition claim that Iran was in direct negotiations with the United States during February 28th, the day that began the “Combat Operations.” This would reject the idea that war was the last resort of the United States.

With these relevant ideals of Just War Theory paired with current facts, it is still difficult to determine if the United States has acted in absolute accordance with the theory. It can, however, be ascertained that they have acted righteously, minimizing civilian damage whilst pursuing an aggressive end to hostilities, with a goal of safekeeping the world at large. Yet, it is still debatable whether or not war was the only resort, and if its goals, as presented, are achievable.

The left’s answer to this issue is to replace the missing births with immigration. This is somewhat of a coherent short-term economic patch, but the real reason they’ve taken this position is the bonus of a considerable political advantage in generating a new constituency. It also happens to be civilizational suicide, as the substitution of one people for another is not viable long-term. But that is a separate issue. The point here is that even on its own terms, mass immigration does not solve the birth rate problem. You cannot import your way out of a domestic failure to reproduce.

On the right, there has been an emergent pronatalist movement — a handful of think tanks publishing papers about natalist policy and a small clique of podcasters and X-posters — but they’ve not grappled honestly with the scale of what reversal would require. A baby bonus does not fix a society in which a median-income couple cannot afford a three-bedroom house within commuting distance of a city with jobs.

The societies that have successfully maintained or recovered fertility have generally done so through some combination of strong religious institutions, tight cultural norms around family formation, or direct state intervention in reproductive and family life. The structural changes that would actually move the fertility rate are expensive, politically dangerous, and require taking things from constituencies that show up on election day. Consider what reversal would actually require: fundamentally restructuring zoning laws in every major American city to make family-sized homes affordable near jobs, and directly attacking the asset values of the homeowning majority, making it economically viable for one parent to step back during child-rearing years — meaning either dramatically raising the single wage and with it a significant share of GDP declines. Each of these changes attacks an entrenched interest with votes, money, and institutional representation.

Hungary has tried the softest version of a genuine natalist program with direct cash transfers, mortgage subsidies, tax exemptions for large families, spending roughly five percent of its GDP doing it. The fertility rate went from 1.23 in 2011 to roughly 1.6 by 2021. Still well below replacement. Fiscal incentives such as these can move the needle modestly at enormous cost, but they cannot overcome the structural conditions that make children expensive.

The honest version of the conservative position has to acknowledge something it keeps avoiding: The American economic program for forty years has been structurally anti-natal in consequence. The choice on the surface, if there is one, appears to be between an economic model that has made Americans extraordinarily wealthy and a demographic future. However, economics and birth rates are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be. The answer is that there is an obvious systematic struggle to hold both in mind. Economic growth has constituencies while the unborn do not. That asymmetry, more than any specific policy failure, is what the last forty years have demonstrated. What would actually change the trajectory is if the party is willing to make family formation the organizing principle of domestic policy rather than an afterthought of it. The window for reversal narrows with each year it goes unaddressed.

When these strikes began last week, I was truly surprised, not by what the targets were, but by their sheer scale. There had been an observable buildup of U.S. military assets in the region for weeks, but seeing the United States once again involve itself in another large-scale direct conflict with an adversary in the Middle East was still a shock. As a senior in college, preparing to graduate this spring, I have to say it has grown old very quickly watching us repeatedly attempt to fix problems that are not our own. Whether in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan, we have lost thousands of Americans in these direct conflicts. With so much to handle back home, including strengthening our economy, reducing nonstop excessive spending, and passing key domestic legislation, I hoped the Trump administration would focus more directly on issues here at home.

I have to admit, though, that witnessing pure American military dominance is a bit intoxicating. Regardless of whether one approves of American involvement in Iran, our forces are obliterating Iranian military assets with little to no resistance. We eliminated their leader on the first day, like it was a normal Thursday. We are so many leagues ahead of this adversary that reports suggest we knew Iran’s Supreme Leader was dead before Iran itself did. Very few countries could achieve such a feat, if any others can.

But for young people like myself, who often joke that if a third world war started right now, we would be the first to fight in it, the real question is whether this conflict is worth it. Will it solve the problems Iran faces, whether economically or politically? Will it create a larger problem than the one we faced while attempting to negotiate with Tehran? Are the reasons for initiating this conflict truly justified? And perhaps most importantly, will it leave us vulnerable if we face an adversary of closer to equal strength, such as China?

There is a lot to unpack in those questions. Right away, two of them stand out most: whether this conflict is justified and whether it will achieve its apparent primary goal of regime change in Iran. On both counts, the answer appears shaky at best. From a legal standpoint, the argument that this war is a preventative measure is weak, given that Iran was still years away from potentially acquiring a nuclear weapon and that there was no immediate direct threat back home in the States. As for whether regime change will succeed, history has repeatedly shown that regime change through military action is highly unlikely and often produces long-term instability.

Then there is the question of whether this conflict will create a larger problem for the United States, either in the region or at home. The situation has already begun to affect the Strait of Hormuz, which will inevitably raise oil prices given its central role in global energy trade. There is also the possibility of the conflict spreading beyond Iran. Whether it be the attacks on U.S. bases in neighboring countries or what may be an act of terrorism in Austin, Texas, could just be the beginning of the retaliation we might see. For Republicans specifically, this could become an issue they will have to answer for not only in the midterm elections but also in the next presidential race.

In my view, however, the greatest concern is that while we are engaged in a strategic competition with China for global supremacy, we are diverting time, money, and resources into a potentially unnecessary conflict. We are already burning through munition reserves that have been depleted by the war in Ukraine and the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. Although the United States still possesses the most powerful military in the world and is supported by NATO, an escalation could stretch us thin in multiple ways. And as mentioned earlier, we are diverting our attention away from the very strength that makes us who we are: our massive economy. In the months ahead, Trump and his Republican allies will face difficult choices: whether to pursue rapid de-escalation, whether to be prepared for a wider regional war, and whether the collapse of the Islamic Republic is truly an outcome the United States is willing to manage. The answers to those questions may ultimately matter far more than the success of the first round of strikes.

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to dance at Penn State’s annual THON, the culminating event of the world’s largest student-run philanthropy. Each year, more than 700 dancers remain on their feet for 46 straight hours in support of the fight against pediatric cancer. Being selected to dance, whether through a student organization or as part of an Independent Dancer Couple (IDC), is both an honor and a privilege. In THON 2026, I represented the Penn State College Republicans alongside our Engagement Director, Ben Fry.

This was not my first experience with THON. I have attended every year since my freshman year at Penn State, and during my sophomore and junior years, I participated through my fraternity, Alpha Chi Rho (AXP), which also fundraises annually and sends dancers to the event. While I thought I understood the physical, mental, and emotional toll THON demands, actually dancing was an entirely different experience.

Before the official 46 hours begin, dancers report to the Penn State football program’s Holuba Hall to receive their dancer kits, which includes customized long-sleeve shirts, dancer bibs, and Nike backpacks filled with supplies, merch, and small distractions meant to help get through the weekend. From there, dancers head to the Bryce Jordan Center through what is known as the Human Tunnel. Hundreds, if not thousands, line the path, cheering as dancers walk toward what will be their home for the next two days. Seeing friends and complete strangers offering encouragement was surreal. That surge of energy, a sort of pre-THON boost, sets the tone for everything that follows.

Once inside, dancers gather on the floor waiting for the countdown to begin, fully aware that once it starts, there is no sitting or sleeping. The mix of nerves and excitement is hard to describe, but it’s something nearly every dancer feels.

The first 20 hours are relatively manageable. Fueled by adrenaline and excitement, Friday night and Saturday morning move quickly. Between watching the National Music Act(this year’s act, Fitz and the Tantrum, was phenomenal by the way), trying every available snack, and seeing friends during the first 24 hours, the time passes faster than expected. I especially enjoyed showing visitors around the floor, explaining the locker setup, and catching up with people I hadn’t seen in a while.

Then the weekend stopped being about endurance.

The Penn State College Republicans were assigned a Four Diamonds family for THON starting last year: the Nolfs. Getting to learn the story of Chloe Nolf and everything she has done so far in her life was a reminder of why every hour matters. Her strength at such a young age makes the exhaustion feel small. It makes you want to push harder, fundraise more, and give everything you have, because the effort you’re putting in directly helps kids like her. If she can fight the way she has, then so can you.

The first real wall came Saturday afternoon, when the fatigue of being awake for nearly 24 hours set in. At that point, it becomes about how you respond. You keep moving, eat something, find your dance partner, or splash cold water on your face. THON is as much a mental challenge as it is a physical one, sometimes more so. The key is focusing on small milestones: making it to the next hour, the next meal, or the next line dance.

Speaking of the line dance, this particular activity is one of the most iconic parts of THON. Happening roughly every hour, it keeps dancers moving and stretched while incorporating pop culture references (i.e. CHICKEN JOCKEY) and Penn State moments. It’s a consistent morale booster and one of the best ways to reset during the first half of the weekend.

Once you reach the second half of THON, the mindset shifts from passing time to finishing strong. After the Pep Rally on Saturday night, the physical toll becomes harder to ignore. For me, staying upright meant walking the floor and seeing more visitors. By early Sunday morning, I had taken an ice bath, had my ankles taped by trainers, and put on a compression sleeve for my right knee along with compression socks. I was fortunate to make it as far as I did before needing extra support, especially knowing how many others were struggling at that point.

The most important stretch of THON is known as the Final Four, not because it’s close to the end, but because Four Diamonds families share their stories with the entire BJC, followed by the In Memoriam honoring those we have lost. After being awake for more than 42 hours, this moment cuts through the exhaustion and re-centers everything. It reminded me exactly why I was there and carried me through the final hour.

As the last act finishes and everyone joins for one final line dance, the countdown toward 46 begins. Hugs are exchanged, emotions run high, and cameras come out to capture the moment the timer finally hits zero. At 4:00 PM, we finally sat down. Forty-six hours earlier, I had stepped onto the floor knowing I would not sit or sleep again until the weekend was over. What I didn’t know then was how much that time would demand, or how much it would give back. We had completed something physically and mentally demanding, yet deeply rewarding.

This year, Penn State THON raised $18,841,726.53, more than $1.1 million over last year’s total. The Penn State College Republicans contributed $14,513, the second-highest total in the organization’s history. After everything, the dancing, the exhaustion, and the fundraising, one message stands above the rest:

It’s for the Nolfs, and it’s For The Kids. Always.

“Let me be clear: No human being is illegal,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on X (formerly Twitter) in response to Joe Biden’s State of the Union Address on March 7, 2024. Omar’s statement is a very common mantra in the Democrat orthodoxy, but those who are uninitiated to the absurdity of progressive politics may ask what prompted her proclamation. The X post was made because Joe Biden correctly identifying Laken Riley’s killer as an “illegal,” and such language is tantamount to heresy to the American left.

Omar was not the only one to take issue with that excerpt of Biden’s address, as the Democrats were quick to scold their leader. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) said “[Biden’s] rhetoric about immigrants was incendiary and wrong,” and other “Squad” members Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Cori Bush (D-MO) echoed Omar’s maxim.

The obvious thing missing in all of the popular Democrats’ statements is any compassion for Laken Riley and her family. The most pressing matter to the left was making sure that the illegal immigrant who murdered Laken Riley was not referred to as an “illegal” because that would be “dehumanizing.” The 22-year-old nursing student’s life was simply a footnote to these people in a competition to see who could score as many virtue-signaling points among the left.

Biden would maybe deserve a modicum of respect for going against his party and admitting that a violent illegal immigrant snuffed out the life of a promising young woman ...if he could say her name correctly. Our ‘energetic and forceful’ commander-in-chief mispronounced Laken Riley’s name as he confused it with Lincoln Riley, the USC head football coach.

Biden quickly reverted to his programming, saying, “But how many thousands of people are being killed by legals?” Regurgitating one of the more ludicrous progressive talking points that a nation should not be concerned with properly vetting migrants if the nation already has criminals in it. He also corrected himself the next day by saying the killer was “undocumented,” not “illegal.” Biden may have been close to stating the ultimate ridiculous leftist immigration talking point that “no human is illegal on ‘stolen’ land,” but this is only speculation.

Sadly, Americans being murdered by illegal immigrants is not a new occurrence. The Mollie Tibbets case made some waves in the mainstream media during 2018, but the thing that made Laken Riley’s story too big to be ignored by the establishment was the grisly details that emerged shortly after. The New York Post published a report from an affidavit that provided readers with graphic details of the murder and sparked even more exposure to the case.

A damage control report by NPR was also published shortly after the State of the Union Address, which said that research indicates immigrants commit less crime than American-born people. The report uses a common left-wing tactic of conflating legal and illegal immigrants and misses one key fact about crimes committed by illegal immigrants ...Approximately 0% of crimes committed by illegal immigrants on American soil need to happen as they, by definition, should not be in this country.

The fact of the matter is that Laken Riley’s blood is on Joe Biden and the Democrats’ hands. They have shown they are willing to trade innocent American lives for votes and seats in the House. Not one Democrat witness during a recent Senate Judiciary Hearing on the John Lewis Voting Rights Act would say that only citizens should vote in federal elections, showing that their “compassion and empathy” is just a political tool.

Most immigrants just want to be a part of and contribute to the greatest country in the world, but completely unvetted immigration, like the many illegal border crossings that the Biden Administration is allowing, also attracts violent criminals like Laken Riley’s killer. The border crisis needs to be fixed for the safety of all Americans, and it begins with voting out the people who are more concerned about the words used to describe a murderer than a promising young woman’s life. Her life mattered to us.

THON, which began in 1973 as a way to raise money for children battling cancer, is now the single largest student-led philanthropy in the world. Student organizations that participate in fundraising for THON may elect up to several dancers to represent them on the floor. For weeks, these dancers prepare themselves for 46 consecutive hours in the Bryce Jordan Center, where their goal is to remain standing for the entire duration of the weekend.

It is an event that gives hope, awareness, and financial assistance to countless children suffering from cancer. But to one student organization, the cause carries a particular meaning.

The Penn State College Republicans, which is the only political organization on campus to raise money for THON, nominated two seniors, Collin Jones and Ben Fry, to represent them on the floor. In addition to having two dancers, the College Republicans raised over $14,000 in donations through their members’ THON drives, breaking last year’s total and becoming the second-highest total in their organization’s history.

“I dance for all those we’ve lost in the fight for a cure,” said Jones in a statement, shortly after being nominated as one of the College Republicans’ dancers. “THON is a way to remember them, keep their memories and spirits alive, and keep us focused on fighting for those still fighting the good fight.”

Fry, the second nominee for the College Republicans, had also been looking forward to the weekend all year.

“It’s something I never even imagined I would have the ability to do,” he said. “Being chosen to represent CR’s in THON means so much to me. It’s all FTK (For The Kids).”

Day One was marked by visits from dozens of members of the College Republicans, including President Tristin Kilgore, Vice President Hunter Steach, and other members wishing to show their support for the dancers.

“I think the second day is probably the hardest for them,” said Kilgore as he prepared to step onto the floor. “At that point, they’ve been standing for over twenty-four hours. It’s definitely a mentally taxing ordeal, maybe even more so than physical.”

Members of CRs were eager to meet the organization’s THON Family, who were present for opening night and the pep rally, and were amazed by the scale of the event.

By Hour 24, the two seniors were fighting off sleep while also grappling with the physical toll of standing nonstop. Fortunately, countless students designated as Dancer Relations volunteers were ready to assist with any of the dancers’ medical, logistical, and hospitality needs. Although battling exhaustion, Jones and Fry were “very grateful” for the on-site athletic trainers and volunteers.

“THON is definitely something everybody looks forward to,” said Steach, as the first day waned to a close. “But more than that, it represents something very close to home for a lot of families and their children. It’s easy to lose sight of it, and it’s important that we’re cognizant of what this all really means to the kids.”

Before long, the final four hours of THON arrived. Family Hour is reportedly the most difficult; not only because of the physical toll the dancers had endured by this point, but also because of what that hour really meant to students and families alike.

During this hour, the music wanes, and the entire Bryce Jordan Center stills, and what follows is several personal accounts from THON families, a musical performance, and a video memorial dedicated to all those who have succumbed to cancer. Many students describe it as an incredibly difficult, but important, part of the event.

“When our guys are ready to drop from exhaustion, after nearly two days, Family Hour reminds them of who they’re dancing for in the first place,” said Kilgore.

And just like that, it was over. Jones and Fry, alongside over 700 other student dancers, had now been standing for 46 consecutive hours, battling sleep, exhaustion, and the limitations of their own minds and bodies. THON 2026 had come to an end, raising a grand total of $18,841,726.53 for Four Diamonds towards cancer treatments, physical therapy, and research into a cure for cancer.

Many of the College Republicans had remained in the stands nearly the entire weekend, cheering on their dancers.

“It’s a big campus, so people do not always agree on everything,” Kilgore said. “However, when it comes to THON, I’m glad we can all come together and do it For The Kids.”

The American education system needs drastic, totalizing changes to save the future of the nation’s youth. As University students, we have a front row seat to one of the main catastrophes in American society. Our students have fallen behind. The same system that once produced the greatest inventors, mathematicians, artists, and leaders has fallen to produce students with scores either below or near the global average. Children are not motivated in their schooling. A common trend is that students believe almost nothing they learn each day will be useful to them in their careers. Education for the youth of a nation is supposed to achieve a few main objectives. First, to create a mutual understanding between students on a linguistic, cultural, and moral basis, so that they can integrate into society. Second, schools must build students who have the basic skills and knowledge of the world to function and be productive in society and their careers. Lastly, the education system is supposed to find the talented geniuses, from whatever class they may have originated, and give them the opportunity to rise and change the world. However, the American school system is failing on all counts, and parents know this, with more than one million children leaving U.S. public schools between 2020 and 2021. And yet none of the solutions proposed has been able to remedy this.

As traditional education systems have receded and begun to be increasingly criticized in the United States and abroad, new progressive and experimental education has tried to replace them. The issue is that school districts and states are unable to implement this type of education in its full scope. Instead, what is created are classes in which the teacher takes a backseat and little learning gets done compared to previous styles, or students work independently, and teachers’ reading slides to students is replaced with students doing that themselves. This solves none of the problems of the American education system and very well could create a situation that is the worst of both worlds. A lackluster attempt at implementing change will not be able to resolve this crisis in education. It is only when students see the future benefits of education that we will be able to refocus both students and teachers alike on success and resolve these issues.

Another fundamental problem that this has created is the collapse of a shared worldview in American youth. Some thinkers claim that where we went wrong was when we stopped allowing students “to listen and understand; to question and disagree; to treat no proposition as sacred and no objection as impious.” This, however, may not truly be the issue, but it may be the cause of the crisis. If, as Heraclitus says, ideas are reality, then a society that has no shared ideas or moral basis will not have a reality to function in. Why was it that Plato and Aristotle or Locke and Rousseau could disagree? It was because they had a common experience, a shared moral basis, and were not arguing radically different worldviews. Qualities that Americans not only do not have today, but qualities whose lack is a direct consequence of the liberal education that many want a return to. This is not to suggest there should be no dialogue, but to say that if a nation is willing to question whether its society should exist or was founded on evil and oppression, then there is no way it can survive or remain united. The debate of Americans previously was over policy, not the moral basis of our worldviews or the existence of our Nation.

Today’s debate about bathroom policies is not a question about bathrooms but about whether gender exists. If the nation cannot agree on something as basic as whether there are two genders, the idea that a respectable debate will lead to a middle ground being found is ridiculous. There is no issue in debating whether Congress or the states should regulate a certain product. However, an issue will inevitably arise if you promote questioning everything that Congress and the states are based on. A man may claim to find reality alone in his thoughts, but ideas only truly bring reality into the world when an entire people share them and act on them, whatever their disagreements may be on the best way to implement them. The “dialogue” that some allege was everything that America was about has done nothing but destroy the reality that the nation had in its foundational ideas. Our education system must take a stance in favor of the truth and not leave it up to the interpretation and deliberation of teachers and administrators. It is up to education to restore these ideals to the forefront of the American consciousness or risk losing America itself.

For over a century, America has been looked upon as the leader in innovation, technology, and industry. She has led the world in medicine, literature, film, art, and physics, yet today we are falling behind. Our best students, who drove the great innovations of the past, are dropping in the international rankings. Data from the National Science Foundation found that the United States has increased the investment in innovation and science by five times what was spent in 1970, but our productivity, which is driven by innovation, is lower than it was 100 years ago. Only a refocus on building great students will be able to counter this decline.

This seems almost obvious. How can a nation survive without the men to lead it? It was due to the actions of great men in every generation that we can stand here today. Without Tesla, Newton, or Einstein, would we have any of the technology necessary for life today? We can look back on the storied Western tradition because our people dedicated everything to ensuring that Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas were able to formulate the founding ideals of a civilization. Our governance and laws are due only to the genius of Caesar, Justinian, and Napoleon. If America does not take heed of the message of history and ensure our geniuses, who bring us greatness, are given every opportunity and resource needed to succeed, we are destined to collapse.

This is not to diminish the necessity of the common man. Great progress only comes from the cooperation of both the leaders and innovators of society and those who are crucial to providing them with that ability and upholding society itself. If not for the men of the 13th Legion, Caesar never would have been able to cross the Rubicon and deliver Rome from the brink of disaster. However, those same legionaries would never march in triumph in the Roman forum if not for the guidance and tactical genius of their general. Our education system must ensure that the average student is prepared to channel their abilities into building the future and success in their own life. Every student needs to have their strengths focused on the creation of a better world.

To have the best educational outcome and experience for students, schools must foster an active and engaged community. Both inside and outside of the classroom, students must be active and engaged in discussing and demonstrating the ideas and skills that they are learning. This would allow students to remember the lessons more easily and stay focused in the classroom. The teacher must be active in the classroom, as we are trying to pass on the knowledge of the past for the sake of the future. Some argue for a progressive education in which students learn by their own prerogative and experience, but students cannot find this on their own. Why attempt to create experience from scratch when there are centuries of information, techniques, and experiences that our students can learn from? All our children need to be given an education that prepares them for their lives. This means the skills needed in their everyday life, and an understanding of the country’s history and culture. If schools abdicate the responsibility to make moral declarations and show students a true worldview, we will continue to see more confused, disengaged, and lost children who are unable to push themselves or the nation to a better place. The American education system should also give the ability and resources for the best and brightest students to succeed. We will be able to see a rebound in our education system when all students are given the chance to fulfill their potential and when they can push boundaries and change the world. Our schools must do everything in their power to help them. By implementing this and reshaping how we view education, the American school system will once again be able to produce the best students in the world who can improve the quality of life for everyone and lead our Nation to even greater heights.

Penn State is home to nearly 25,000 out-of-state students, many of whom are from states like New Jersey, New York, and Maryland. And many of these students often tell me that they wish someone had warned them about just how crazy the winter season can get up here.

So without further ado, here is everything that I wish someone had warned me about winter at Penn State.

1. Pack Warm

As a freshman from Texas, I was very much caught off guard during my first winter in State College. People had told me it would be “cold”, sure, but if there’s one thing you need to remember, it’s this: no matter where in the country you’re from, winter in State College is different from winter in your hometown. Even my Pennsylvanian friends tell me that it’s unlike anything they’ve ever experienced before. Maybe it’s the wind, the dry air, or the altitude – all these factors come together and create a very unpleasant experience for the unprepared.

Take a look at the clothes you’ve packed for your first year. Whatever it is, I guarantee you it’s not warm enough. I would fully recommend investing in a single, good puffer jacket, something that’s easy to put on and take off. Everything else (gloves, scarves) is at your discretion. I did fine without them. But you need the puffer jacket.

And don’t forget, you need to find a good pair of waterproof (not water-resistant) boots. This was one of my biggest mistakes. I got cheap, refused to buy snow boots, and ended up wearing out my good shoes in the rain and snow.

And one last thing. This might seem like overkill, but if you’re planning on going to a lot of football games (I sure did), then do yourself a favor and order a bunch of shake-to-activate handwarmers.

2. Live Close

Forcing yourself out of bed to walk twenty minutes through an active blizzard is probably not an ideal start to your day, but if you intend to go to Penn State, it’s a reality you have to accept.

Every freshman can choose between one of several on-campus dorms for their first year. And if you’re not quite yet acclimated to Happy Valley winter, then proximity to your classes should be a major factor in your decision. And this definitely depends on your major. Business majors will have most of their classes up north, and engineers and liberal arts majors will be primarily around the west campus.

In my case, I put down East Halls as my first choice, but I was tragically dropped into Pollock. At first, I was quite disappointed, but safe to say, when it got into the negative temperatures around February, I was very grateful to be living so close to campus. Not to mention, I lived right next to what was probably one of the best dining halls. In other words, living on campus can have its advantages.

Now, if you don’t mind the long walks through the blistering cold, then be my guest and pick whatever dorm you want. If that’s the route you’re choosing, then be ready for some character-building marches to your 9 AM classes through rain, sleet, and snow. Remember what I mentioned about snow boots?

3. Don’t Get Hooked on Caffeine

When it starts to get chilly out, a lot of students’ first instinct is to run to the closest Edge and buy themselves a hot drink. It seems like a good idea, at first: coffee gives you a much-needed boost of energy, keeps away the cold, and (allegedly) improves cognitive function. And in moderation, it’s just fine. But trust me: getting yourself addicted to coffee will backfire quickly.

Several of my classmates have told me that, after indulging throughout their first semester, they have found themselves literally addicted to caffeine. At one point, one of my close friends was spending over twenty dollars a day on coffee alone. Now, she says, she’s reached a point where she can’t get through her morning classes without her daily double shot.

I am no health expert, but there is no way that is good for you. Normally, people don’t become caffeine addicts until they’re forty, so my personal advice would be to wait until at least your late twenties before jerry-rigging your own cardiovascular system.

If you need something to get through the cold January mornings, I fully recommend investing in an electric kettle and buying those big packs of tea packets. Hot tea has all the same energy-boosting effects as coffee, it is far cheaper, and you won’t be cursing yourself twenty years down the line. It is also great for improving your focus and keeping the mind sharp, so if you ever find yourself with an 8 PM test at the Pollock Center, you can make yourself a hot cup without worrying about the crash afterward.

And did I mention it’s a lot cheaper?

4. Seasonal Depression

This is a big one. Around January, a lot of Penn Staters report increased feelings of loneliness, emptiness, and overall lack of motivation. There’s a lot of research going on with this, but personally, I believe the weather is a big factor.

Winter at Penn State has a way of sapping your energy and your mood with it. Classes start to pile up, you see your friends less and less often, and you start to miss club meetings. It’s a lot harder to drag yourself to socialize when it’s ten degrees out.

I cannot emphasize this enough, but it is very important that you stay involved in your clubs and activities, even when it gets cold. Consistent involvement in student orgs is the best way to fight back the seasonal depression; maintaining those connections is often what gets people through the winter.

Another thing that helps immensely is staying active. Exercise does wonders for the mind, helps you clear your head, and keeps you laser-focused. So keep on hitting the gym, no matter how cold it gets.

The thing is, everybody and their mom had the same idea as you, so the gyms get extremely packed around this time of year. Try to work around your schedule and go around midday (if possible), and avoid peak times. If you try to go mid-morning or late evening, prepare to be disappointed.

That’s everything I could think of. My last word of advice to my fellow out-of-staters would be to be adaptable. Things are going to be very, very different than what you’re used to, especially if you’re not from the East Coast. But you quickly learn that there are fun things to do in the snow, too – skiing, snowboarding, even ice fishing if you join the right club. Not to mention those late nights right after a fresh snow, riding a makeshift toboggan down the HUB lawn. If you’re like me and you’ve never seen snow before, then your first year will definitely be an experience you’ll remember for the rest of your life.

If you prepare adequately, winter at Penn State can be very enjoyable. And if you don’t, then you can always take a bit of advice from Coach Franklin and hit that transfer portal.

Stay warm, everybody!

I should acknowledge my own bias at the outset, given that I interned in Congressman James’s Washington, D.C. office this past summer. That experience has, of course, shaped my understanding of his leadership style and approach to public service. But it also provided a firsthand opportunity to observe what he brings to the table should he succeed this November.

A story I often tell about Congressman James came during the first week of my internship, when he came to quiz the interns, myself included, about his district and the surrounding ones. However, there was a stipulation: if we answered incorrectly, we owed him three push-ups; if we answered correctly, he would do three himself. As you might guess, a few minutes later, the Congressman was doing push-ups in his own office. The moment was lighthearted, but it revealed something important. He holds himself to the same standards he sets for others. He did not have to take that time with interns, nor did he have to follow through on the condition so literally, especially given that we were all in suits and ties. But he did. Leadership, especially at the highest levels, often comes down to accountability and example-setting, qualities that are harder to manufacture than campaign slogans.

Character alone, of course, does not win statewide races. Record and relevance matter. In Congress, James has advanced policies that align closely with many of Michigan’s economic priorities. His Secure America’s Critical Minerals Supply Act, which recently passed the House, addresses supply chain vulnerabilities that directly affect manufacturing-heavy states like Michigan, where the auto industry depends on reliable access to key materials. His effort to overturn California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule through the Congressional Review Act reflected concerns shared by many manufacturers and consumers about regulatory burdens and rising costs. And his App Store Accountability Act, aimed at protecting children online, seeks to balance innovation with responsibility in a world where digital access is nearly universal.

Since announcing his gubernatorial candidacy, James has also faced calls from President Donald Trump to remain in Congress rather than pursue the governorship. The argument is understandable given that Michigan’s 10th district is highly competitive, and Republicans would face a more difficult battle to hold the seat without him. But statewide strategy requires a broader calculation. Capturing a governorship in a true battleground state carries long-term policy and political implications that extend beyond a single House district. From my perspective, James stands to be among a very select group of Republicans capable of winning a statewide race in a competitive state in 2026. And with a strong top of the ticket, he could help strengthen Republican performance across Michigan.

The emerging field suggests a competitive three-way race: James as a leading Republican contender, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson as the likely Democratic nominee, and Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan running as an independent. Early polling indicates that James is highly competitive in this potential three-way matchup. If those trends hold, and if he successfully builds a coalition that extends beyond the Republican base to include independents and suburban voters, Michigan could very well find itself under new leadership in 2026.

And yet, despite this rare governing trifecta, there is a growing sense that Republican control may prove fleeting. It does not feel inevitable, nor even likely, that it will survive the coming midterms.

To be clear, the party has not been idle. Republicans can point to a list of tangible accomplishments during the first year of Trump’s second term. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed last summer, delivered sweeping reforms long sought by conservatives, from changes to the social safety net and tax policy to immigration enforcement. President Trump, meanwhile, has taken an aggressive approach to governance, disrupting entrenched bureaucracies as promised, redefining elements of American foreign policy, and enforcing immigration law with a severity unseen in recent presidencies.

But not everything in the promised land is as secure as it appears.

Trump’s already-low approval ratings have slipped further. The federal debt continues to balloon, with no credible long-term solution in sight. Relationships with longtime allies appear strained, and government shutdowns have become so routine that they feel almost inevitable. More troubling still is the rise of political violence and the normalization of rhetoric that excuses, or even celebrates it. The public reaction to the death of Charlie Kirk, in which some on the left openly mocked and cheered the loss of life, was a chilling reminder of how degraded our political culture has become. Closer to home, at Penn State, a flyer depicting an ICE agent being lynched appeared on campus. One year into Trump’s term, this is not the country I hoped to see.

Which brings me to the question I keep returning to: How does the Republican Party not merely survive the next midterms, but position itself for a post-Trump future?

The latter question is a complicated one, and I will leave it for another day. For now, the more immediate challenge is whether Republicans can retain control of Congress beyond its 119th iteration.

The answer, if there is one, begins with Trump himself. His political willpower has undeniably enabled the GOP to enact much of its agenda. But that same force often veers into self-sabotage. Reckless social media posts, the casual blurring of personal grievances with official power, and the perception, fair or not, of using government resources to settle political scores have all contributed to a loss in political capital. Discipline, not domination, may be the difference here between sustaining power and squandering it.

The second element lies with Republicans in Congress. Senators and representatives must be willing to push back when Trump’s demands conflict with their own priorities or with institutional norms. When legislation is rammed through without resistance, Congress risks reinforcing its worst public image: not merely ineffective, but submissive. Lawmakers must reassert themselves as a coequal branch of government, one that, among other things, controls the power of the purse.

Finally, there are the policies themselves. No amount of messaging can obscure the reality that several recently implemented measures have failed to resonate with the average American. While the administration has made some meaningful progress, credit card interest rate caps, for instance, pretending that everything is going well has never been a successful political strategy. If Republicans are serious about governing beyond the next election cycle, they should start by confronting the country’s most pressing challenges, particularly health care and the exploding federal debt.

None of this is easy. But politics rarely is. And perhaps, just perhaps, if Republicans make the right choices now, they may do more than just survive beyond 2026.

Operation Tidal Wave, a massive joint immigration enforcement operation spearheaded by Governor Ron DeSantis, has exceeded 10,400 lawful arrests as of January 2026. The success of this initiative demonstrates that when federal and state governments cooperate, immigration law can be enforced effectively, safely, and with precision. By expanding on this federalist approach, the Trump Administration can make good on its campaign promise to restore public safety by removing illegal immigrants from our country.

DeSantis has made it his mission to make Florida the “tip of the spear” in state support for federal immigration enforcement. The results of Operation Tidal Wave are proof of his commitment. During the operation, federal, state, and local partners helped arrest illegal immigrants around Florida. ICE used field office resources, in coordination with federal partners, to identify priority targets for enforcement action. Law enforcement partners included ICE Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, and the U.S. Marshals Service. Deportations were intelligence-driven, targeted, and legally executed.

Despite their increasingly negative portrayals in the media, ICE is like any other law enforcement agency. Its job is to enforce the law. However, ICE officers face a particularly steep challenge in doing so, as they must restore law and order following the open-borders policies of the Biden administration. Well over ten million illegal immigrants have been allowed into our country during Biden’s term alone, and this consequence must be reversed. Because what is a government, a country even, without the imposition of its borders?

If ICE fails to enforce our immigration laws, the message will become clear that there is no law and order in the United States. Borders are optional, and legal entry is irrelevant, assuming one doesn’t commit a major crime when they get here. However, crossing our borders illegally is a major crime. And it bears a direct threat to the law and order of our country. A sovereign nation cannot operate without this idea at the heart of its policy. After all, the rule of law is the spine of our country. If it breaks, everything else will collapse.

For ICE officers to fulfill the difficult but necessary duty of immigration enforcement, they must be able to do so without obstruction or political intimidation. The real danger doesn’t come from ICE; it comes from the attempts of governments and citizens alike to make their jobs impossible. Florida’s cooperative approach proves this outcome isn’t inevitable. Smooth operations are entirely within our reach.

Our Founding Fathers designed a system in which states and the federal government were intended to work together as partners. Acting as one coalition united on behalf of the American people and the legal frameworks that protect them. Florida’s success shows that when that partnership is honored, immigration enforcement can be both firm and fair. Citizens can be protected while the law is upheld.

It is up to state governments to do what they can to replicate Florida’s success. If these numbers can be matched across the country, a significant dent will be made in the illegal population in the US. This isn’t solely a federal issue; it will require cooperation across sectors to achieve the Trump administration’s mission.

Currently (as of 2026), Iran’s protests are entering their third month. The regime has survived perhaps the most lethal internal challenge since 1979, as this current wave of unrest has proved qualitatively different from those of 2009 or 2022 in scale. The clerical establishment no longer fields any meaningful deference beyond its shrinking core; Iranians born after the 1990s have no memory of the Iran-Iraq War, no nostalgia for the founding era, and no attachment to the regime. For them, the Islamic Republic is the inherited order, and a bad one at that. Social unrest is exacerbated by yet another currency collapse, as inflation has made basic foodstuffs unaffordable, mass youth unemployment, and a middle class whose savings have deteriorated over the past decade. For Iranians, the map of everyday life is shaped by the visible prosperity of neighboring states that have normalized relations with the West. Outside of Iran, Iran’s “axis of resistance” is fragmenting. Syria no longer fields a reliable forward theater for Russian and Iranian influence, Hezbollah has been steadily weakened by Israeli operations, the Popular Mobilization Forces are splintering, and Tehran’s ability to decisively shape crises in Gaza and the West Bank has diminished. Iran’s geopolitical isolation is increasing. However, this is not a “terminal phase” as the news purports it to be. Authoritarian regimes can endure mass killing and repression so long as no defection from leadership occurs. The only thing that could tip the scale is the United States—facing another narrow but real window to move beyond indefinite containment toward a strategy that accelerates the emergence of a new Iran.

Iran is not an Arab country in any civilizational sense. In 1501, Shah Ismail adopted Shiism—the foundation of the modern Islamic Republic—because it drew the sharpest distinction for Persia against Arab homogenization, which would later produce Pan-Arab and Ba’athist projects in Iraq and Syria. U.S. foreign policy has viewed these conflicts through a one-size-fits-all liberal universalist lens, assuming that democratization is the only path to stability and cooperation. This ignores Iran’s distinct ethno-historical context. Optimistically assuming civil unrest will magically produce a democratic Iran is unrealistic. The successor state to modern Iran will almost certainly remain illiberal and centralized, perhaps with restricted political pluralism and a strong executive authority (some talk about reinstating the Shah). This may be scary for some of us on the old right, but it is a reality we are going to have to accept. Think: The Strait of Hormuz could be a shared commercial artery rather than a permanent hostage of Iran. Saudi Arabia would lose ground in dictating oil prices due to Iranian competition. Jihad auxiliaries would face a credible eastern counterweight, and China would lose its most promising foothold on the western Gulf. For Washington, the gains would be immense: lower energy prices, a sharp reduction in state-sponsored terrorism, decreased need for vulnerable land bases and rotations, and a strategic bandwidth redirected toward our priority theater—Asia. None of these outcomes requires Iran to become a liberal democracy.

The alternative: sustaining calibrated pressure without a transition theory—is no longer defensible. Sanction evasion has grown into a sophisticated parallel financial system spanning China, Russia, India, Turkey, and the UAE. Doing nothing, increasing strikes to cause temporary setbacks, or doubling down on pressure without a credible path to transition amounts to betting on a spontaneous, stable, non-hostile post-regime outcome. History offers us little support for that bet. This is the most dangerous long-term trajectory for U.S. interests; Not chronic proxy skirmishes or even boots-on-the-ground war, but the accidental consolidation of Iran into a low-equilibrium, isolated fortress akin to North Korea that has normalized indigent autarky and acquired nukes at the price of regime continuity. Once that threshold is crossed (primarily the nuclear acquisition), no realistic off-ramp remains. We will have created a proxy that will likely be sustained by Russia or China. The strategic imperative is to prevent that fortress consolidation from becoming a probable future. The question is how.

The only viable path forward is one that aligns with core national interests. Securing energy independence for the United States, reducing forward deployments that tie down American troops and risk lives, and redirecting finite military and budgetary capacity toward defense against Chinese sustained proxies. Pressuring adversaries like Iran to negotiate from positions of genuine weakness would work, but only through calibrated, low-risk means that avoid nation-building quagmires or endless proxy entanglements that drain American blood and money without a return on investment. Democracy promotion is out of the question; it has proven a costly distraction that confuses ideological crusades with national interests. The Trump administration has proven itself to reject that Obama-era obsession with multilateral containment, which the newly released National Security Strategy explicitly calls out as having allowed Iran’s regional networks to persist.

This is contingent on executing the current NSS’s framework: targeted coercion designed to exploit Iran’s internal fractures and succession vulnerabilities, paired with explicit off-ramps tied to verifiable, concrete concessions on nuclear capacity, ballistic missile ranges, and proxy supply lines. This approach leverages military signaling—such as the repositioning of our naval assets in the Arabian Sea—to restore credible deterrence without any prelude to invasion. Iran is perhaps the biggest test of Trump’s strategic discipline. Success means extracting more predictable global energy markets, defeating state-sponsored threats to U.S. personnel, fewer vulnerable bases, and delivering on his campaign promise of side-stepping forever wars. Failure to stay within these bounds risks repeating the very entanglements the NSS was written to escape. We cannot turn another weakened adversary into a permanent drain on America.

That is what you see before you, this horrendous poster. The poster, found last week on Penn State’s University Park campus and proudly displayed on a student’s story, called for the lynching of all ICE agents. It is the mark of the Mob, claiming, “Any who oppose us will be strung up with rope and hung until dead.”

There is a definite line between a strong Republic and the Mob’s yoke. But before an explanation is given, it is best to define what either party is.

The Republic is an organized coalition of the common man. That includes you, me, and everyone else. Given voice by the ballot to decide our nation’s fate, the perfect body of rule. Where we need not be lawyers or generals but ourselves, letting the compass of good guide our decisions to elect those with greater knowledge who, when chosen in good faith, guide our nation as we desire.

Whilst the Republic is virtuous, the Mob rule is anarchy embodied. There is no collective law, only the instantaneous will—a will of a people inflamed by passion. Yet passion is a fickle thing and easily lost. And when the hole of passion digs in the heart, our souls seek another vice to burrow into. Thus, a law from yesterday can be scrapped and rewritten as a law today, and again for tomorrow. There is no certainty under the Mob, only fear. Fear that you may gain their ire and be strung up for it.

Now that the line between the Republic and Mob rule is clear, how does this relate to the mortal threat against law enforcement? Well, if the objective of the Republic is to lay a common, enforceable law upon its upholders, then it is in mighty opposition to the Mob. Whereas the Mob desires complete control, so must it attack the institution and take its place.

And the Mob is no singular person, no rational collective of individual minds. Nay, it is a single soul, the closest man has come to a hive-mind organism. A creature vile, uncaring of its singular appendages, only of its beating heart.

Such is why the Mob does not care to put its people in danger. It burrows into the common man’s mind, convincing them to embrace danger and death all to further the Mob’s agenda.

This is why the deaths of Renée Good and Alex Peretti are such tragedies. Both souls were members of society, yet inflamed by the Mob to leave their good lives and move upon law enforcement. A choice of their own, yet planted within them by the Mob. And as they moved upon law enforcement and interrupted operations, the tragedy ensued that cost them their lives.

They ought to be alive today, if not for the Mob. If not for that terrible collective that is fostered by higher politicians who oppose the current order. But the Mob does not care. Instead, it cheers, it valorizes these martyrs, and encourages its many appendages to meet the same fate.

“Go, find these men of the law,” it commands. “Find these men, who have wives and sons and daughters. Find them and string them up. Fill them with their bastard law, so that we may rule in their place.”

Because that is all the Mob cares for: the right to rule. Rule in place of law, power in place of order. And until it is achieved, it will stop at no expense. It will attack those who enforce the law and bid them hang.

Such is why the Founding Fathers feared the governed. They feared the governed would reject the notion of the Republic and instead embrace the Mob.

And with each day, I fear, their nightmares grow nearer.

Rising dissatisfaction with the do-nothing party reached its boiling point in the 2016 election, evinced by the MAGA movement’s success. Trump’s victory in the primaries made the GOP seem like it could become an actual vehicle for some political reassertion, and if he lost or was diluted into another managerial faction, the post-political drift would continue until, inevitably, something else outside the duopoly attempted to break it up again. The momentum fell right into the hands of the MAGA insurgents. Whether this new faction would succeed internally depended on whether the MAGA base would remain mobilized long enough to force real structural change.

The de facto anti-national Old-Guard proved to be totally incompatible with Trumpism. America’s sovereignty is negotiable insofar as it serves global optimization, trade deals built on maximizing aggregate GDP, supporting global democracy, immigration flows calibrated for labor-market efficiency rather than prioritizing native Americans, and cultural questions left to private markets—this wasn’t conservative in any meaningful sense. MAGA didn’t so much attempt to counteract it as expose it for what it was: a foreign body in what was supposed to be a national-interest party. Managerial liberalism had been wearing a red tie for too long.

By 2021, Trump hammered the nail in their coffin when he burned his premier bridge to the old-guard: Mike Pence. Later that year, former President George W. Bush quietly maxed out donations to the two most visible impeachment holdouts facing Trump-endorsed primary challengers: Rep. Liz Cheney and Sen. Lisa Murkowski. The checks were symbolic lifelines thrown to the last institutionalists still clinging to the old procedural order, as coexistence was evidently impossible. The Trump personality cult instantly pulled the party rightward on economics and culture, while the remaining old guard dragged their feet behind him or co-opted just enough to stay relevant. The result: institutionalists majorly lost their moorings. Small government, global leadership, and pretentious color-blind merit got quietly abandoned to keep the coalition intact.

Today, the old-guard no longer fields an alternative platform. Their remaining power consists of residual donor goodwill, a few pieces of legislation through Senate holds, or House rules fights. The old-guard knows this, which is why so many are choosing quiet exits over public last stands. The insightful part is that this purge, brutal as it was, was the only way the GOP could become a functional vehicle for anything resembling 21st-century nationalism. The old-guard’s procedural fetish and globalist priors made the party structurally incapable of delivering on the things voters now demand. Keeping them in the coalition would have meant regurgitating the policies constituents were growing sick of or diluting the momentum by trying to play both sides. MAGA’s intolerance for that dilution is what gives the party teeth.

That doesn’t mean this transition was entirely risk-free or pretty. The 2026 midterms are the final stress test: if the commentariat’s anti-deportation disinformation campaign turns insufficiently loyal RINOs, if the House flips and the Senate goes to a 50-50 or worse, the finger-pointing will be vicious. Surviving institutionalists will whisper that the radicals scared off moderates. A bad cycle could stall MAGA’s progress long enough for the old-guard to ideologically claw back a little by 2028 or 2030. But even in that scenario, they can’t win back the party. The people have tasted Trumpism as a live option and won’t settle for managerial pseudo-conservatism ever again. The real long-term dynamic is absorption, not revival: the few old-guard survivors who want to stay relevant will have to rebrand as pragmatic nationalists. This is, of course, good. The pure proceduralists and free-trade diehards are dead or functionally Democrats.

Over 100 students from universities across the country signed up for the conference and had the opportunity to engage with elected officials from their local and national community, including Congressman Glenn Thompson, PA State Treasurer Stacy Garrity, State Senator Chris Dush, State Representative David Rowe, and Slippery Rock Mayor Jondavid “JD” Longo.

Day One of the Conference was held in the Lion’s Lair on Friday night. Kicking off the weekend was the founder and Chairman of the College Republicans of America, Will Donahue, with some impactful remarks on the state of American politics, the future of the Republican party, and the importance of fostering the growth of new leaders among the conservative youth.

Reflecting on this message and the path ahead for young conservatives, Penn State College Republicans Vice President Hunter Steach said, “In today’s political climate… It’s definitely tough, to say the least, but now more than ever, our generation needs to stand up.”

Following Mr. Donahue was President of Penn State College Republicans, Tristin Kilgore, the Treasurer of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, Jesse Milston, and Turning Point Field Representative, Will Versaw. The rest of the night was reserved for the attendees to meet and network with their fellow College Republicans.

Day Two of the Conference began early Saturday morning. Congressman Glenn Thompson started the second day strong, recalling his own experiences as a young representative and his successful efforts to pass the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, and offering several words of guidance to the youth leaders in the audience.

“I think young conservatives are in a perfect place. You want to be battle-tested,” Representative Thompson noted during a brief interview following his remarks on stage. “It’s an opportunity, too… I think it builds skills, it builds resiliency, it builds confidence.”

Other notable events on Day Two included a leadership panel featuring the Chairmen of the New York and Pennsylvania Federations of College Republicans, Steven Margolis and Gianni Matteo, respectively. Kevin Lynn of the Institute for a Sound Public Policy hosted a breakout session on the impact of legal immigration programs, specifically STEM OPT and H1-B visas, on American students. This was followed by speeches from Penn State College Republicans’ own Tristin Kilgore, State Treasurer Stacy Garrity, State Senator Chris Dush, Mark Krikorian, and the Mayor of Slippery Rock, JD Longo.

The Conference concluded with the long-anticipated debate between Chairman Will Donahue and Anthony Cacciato, Chair of the Pennsylvania Young Americans for Liberty, regarding the United States’ recent intervention in Venezuela and the future of American foreign policy.

The two-day event was widely praised by countless attendees, all of whom valued the opportunity to meet state and local leaders, network with fellow conservatives, and learn more about what it means to be a leader in today’s political landscape.

“It went really well. We just love that we’re able to bring everyone together like this,” remarked Kilgore as attendees began to file out. “Now we’ve got to start getting ready for the next one.”

The Penn State College Republicans are already preparing to host PCLC IV next year and look forward to bringing together aspiring young leaders once again for an event that will allow them to learn, engage, and gain valuable leadership experience within the conservative community.

​But my home state seems to have somewhat of a bad reputation up here in Pennsylvania. Oblivious northerners would interrogate me about my state’s economy, its recent natural disasters, and its residents. But rather than be insulted by my new friends’ lack of decorum, I started to wonder: is this really how people in the northern states see the south? As someforgotten corner of the country that’s been left to rot in the dust?

​“I just never hear good things about the south,” said my friend Ben, a native Philly resident, when I asked him about it. “No offense.” He didn’t take his eyes off the Eagles game as I interviewed him. He said it like it was just another fact of life, like he was talking about the weather, or something. And it broke my heart. All my life, I’d grown to love the south and the people I’d been raised with. How could it be that others looked down on my home with such disdain?

When I decided to text my friend Beau asking for help with some interview questions, he was more than happy to help. He recounted to me a personal experience he had amidst the devastation of Hurricane Harvey a few years ago.

​Beau and his dad had been in Houston buying storm supplies when Harvey decided to hit early. Beau and his dad were caught driving down a county highway outside the city when rainstarted pouring down, and the dirt road turned to mud. They ended up sliding into a ditch which was rapidly filling with stormwater. Their beat-up Jeep Wrangler found itself half submerged in the mud, and Beau and his dad started to panic.

​Just then, a lone white pickup truck rolled up behind them, and two men got out. They both sported hunting camouflage and had gaiters covering their faces. Beau initially thought they were looters coming to finish them off, but they weren’t. They were just two guys in cowboy boots and storm gear, driving around in their pickup, looking for people to help. And by some miracle, they had found my friend.

​As the rain started pounding down harder and harder, and the wind picked up to a hellish speed, the two men apparently forced the door of Beau’s jeep open and helped him and his dad get out. They proceeded to attach their Ford’s cable winch to the bumper of the Wrangler andpull it out of the mud with no trouble at all.

​“They wouldn’t accept any payment my dad offered,” Beau told me. “They just said, it’s what neighbors do, and went on their way.”

​The image of two southerners sporting hunting camo, work boots, and driving a pickup may be laughably stereotypical to some northerners, but to me it represents my home, and what most people overlook about it: its residents.

There’s an unspoken understanding in the south – it’s that, no matter your politics, personal reservations, or prejudices, when the storm hits, you set all that aside and do what needs to be done. I remember the storm myself. I remember riding around flooded neighborhoods with my friends, helping strangers clean up what was left of their homes, and seeing countless fellow Texans doing the same. I remember seeing one man, whose front yard infamously sported a confederate flag, helping a Hispanic family into his pickup to get them to dry ground. I saw anti-government family friends, outspoken critics of “those rich men north of Richmond”, clearing a road so FEMA and National Guard trucks could pass through.

​People can say what they want about the south, and some of those things just might even be true. But I agree with what Beau told me at the end of our interview: “I don’t think I’d ever want to leave.”

PCLC, as is commonly abbreviated, is an annual event hosted at Pennsylvania State University’s Main Campus. PCLC’s mission is to unite, celebrate and strategize the future of the youth conservative movement within the United States. First held in 2024, the conference has become a hallmark for the College Republicans of Pennsylvania, as well as several prominent conservative political figures.

The conference will begin at 6:30 p.m. Friday in the Lion’s Lair and continue at 10 a.m. Saturday in Alumni Hall.

President of the Penn State College Republicans Tristin Kilgore expressed his excitement for this year’s conference.

“We have people coming from New York, we have people coming from New Jersey, from D.C., flying in from California,” said Kilgore.

The theme of this year’s conference is “This Is Our Movement,” a slogan meant to instill resolve and excitement for the future of the conservative and MAGA movements. Many popular figures will be in attendance, such as Congressman Glenn Thompson, PA State Treasurer Stacy Garrity, Activist Cliff Maloney, State Senator Chris Dush, and others.

“The turnout’s looking better than ever, it’s really exciting,” Vice President of Penn State College Republicans, Hunter Steach, said. “This is going to be the first year that we have people coming from outside Pennsylvania to attend the conference… We’re looking upwards of 100 people between the two days. It’s going to be a good time.”

With such attendance, challenges have risen for the hosting Penn State College Republicans. Kilgore stressed the importance of scheduling and management of guests, and even the finer details such as food, refreshments and picking out tablecloths.

Many college students will be delivering speeches during the event, sharing the stage with major figures and activists. Kilgore shared insight into his premier speech during the interview.

“My speech is going to focus on how young people have made a difference in the past,” Kilgore said. “But now is the time for Gen Z - for young people - to define the future. It’s really going to be up to our generation to be the ones who are deciding the big issues, who are defining what it means to be a Republican, what it means to be a conservative.”

With excitement brewing among students and figures alike, plans for the future of the Pennsylvania Collegiate Leadership Conferences have already been discussed. Due to the location of Penn State University, Happy Valley will continue to be the meeting house for Pennsylvania’s conservative youth.

“We’re planning to keep it here at Penn State and host it every spring,” Kilgore said. “PCLC: this Friday and Saturday. Can’t wait to see you there!”