The right to life cannot depend on a baby’s zip code



Four years after the Dobbs decision, the pro-life movement faces a sobering crossroads. The end of Roe v. Wade was a historic victory. But abortion remains the leading cause of death in the United States, and the most vulnerable among us are still denied the basic human right to life.

Dobbs held that the people’s representatives at every level of government may pass laws protecting unborn children. That includes national leaders. Half the states have enacted pro-life laws since Dobbs, yet abortions have gone up, not down. A “states-only” strategy does not merely fail. It abandons unborn children in blue states to the same logic that once treated fundamental human rights as a local question.

We must extend equal protection and the right to life to all Americans, in every state, no matter how small.

As America marks its 250th anniversary, the pro-life movement and the Republican Party must move beyond half-measures. They should embrace national leadership for the right to life.

A national minimum standard — whether tied to a baby’s detectable heartbeat or the point at which a baby can feel pain — would not replace stronger state pro-life laws. It would set a floor for the whole country, including blue states, while allowing pro-life states to protect life more aggressively.

The Democratic Party has made abortion with no limits its de facto position. But public opinion is not with them. Only 10% of voters support abortion until birth. Fifteen states allow abortion at any point in pregnancy, including the seventh, eighth, and ninth months. The United States is one of only eight countries that allow all-trimester abortion, a list that includes China and Vietnam.

This is not hypothetical. Second- and third-trimester abortions happen in blue states. Babies who can feel pain and survive outside the womb are being killed.

In Washington, D.C., the bodies of five full-term babies were found in medical waste boxes outside the Washington Surgi-Clinic abortion facility. They are now known as the D.C. Five. Several abortion businesses openly advertise third-trimester abortions, including the DuPont Clinic in Washington, D.C.; RISE Collective in Colorado; Partners in Abortion Care in Maryland; and Hope Clinic in Illinois.

Planned Parenthood performs late-term abortions as well, and women have died alongside unborn children. An 18-year-old girl in Colorado died last year after a late-term abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility. According to her family, Fort Collins Planned Parenthood did not call an ambulance immediately and specifically requested no sirens on the way to the hospital.

RELATED: The judgment behind the abortion numbers

DREW ANGERER/AFP/Getty Images

The other side has a national strategy, and it is no secret. If Democrats gain power, they will try to pass the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act. That bill would block states from enforcing pro-life laws and push the country beyond the Roe status quo. In practice, it would make abortion available at any time, for any reason, in all 50 states. Almost every elected Democrat in Congress has voted for the bill, and party leaders have committed to eliminating the filibuster to pass it.

A leave-it-to-the-states strategy will not stop them. No great human rights cause in American history has been won that way. The GOP must commit to pro-life action at the national level.

The first step is to elect leaders who believe unborn children deserve protection no matter where they live. Those leaders must pledge to help America turn the page on its ugly chapter of late-term abortion. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is beginning that work by dedicating $160 million in 2026 and 2028 to elect candidates who will take pro-life action nationally.

After the midterms, the pro-life movement must rally around a presidential candidate who will take up this fight and fiercely defend mothers and their unborn children. That leader must act on the consensus of the American people and sign the most ambitious national protection for life possible.

On America’s 250th anniversary, we should remember that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution inspired great human rights triumphs, including the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage. With 1.1 million Americans losing their lives to abortion every year, this is the moment to confront the greatest human rights violation of our time.

We must extend equal protection and the right to life to all Americans, in every state, no matter how small.

JD Vance is ending the Medicaid gravy train



The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may have just signaled the beginning of the end for one of California’s most aggressive Medicaid financing schemes.

In late May, CMS proposed a rule that would limit many Medicaid payment arrangements to Medicare-equivalent reimbursement levels while targeting the financing mechanisms that shift excessive costs onto federal taxpayers.

The more states spend, the more federal money they receive.

The proposal specifically highlights intergovernmental transfers and similar arrangements that have allowed states to inflate federal reimbursement claims.

This rule comes as California health officials are asking CMS to approve a set of pending state plan amendments that would further expand reimbursement arrangements built around intergovernmental transfers — the very type of financing mechanism now facing increased scrutiny from federal regulators.

For years, states have exploited these loopholes in Medicaid’s financing rules to draw down more money from Washington. CMS now appears ready to put some limits on that practice.

Vice President JD Vance and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz deserve credit for cracking down on these kinds of abuses. Vance said the administration is withholding $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursements from California because the state does “not take Medicaid fraud very seriously.”

Oz warned that states have exploited “the cracks and crevices” between state and federal systems — describing California as a member of the “varsity team” of fraud alongside Massachusetts and New York.

The proposed rule makes the fate of California’s pending SPAs clear: They cannot survive. Approving them would directly contradict a rule CMS has already put forward, expanding the exact reimbursement scheme the agency has identified as a threat to Medicaid program integrity.

The only question now is whether CMS will formalize what its own rulemaking has already decided.

At the center of the IGT problem is Medicaid’s open-ended reimbursement structure. States spend money, and the federal government reimburses a percentage of those expenditures. Public entities recycle funds through multiple agencies to trigger larger federal Medicaid matching payments.

The more states spend, the more federal money they receive.

These arrangements may technically comply with federal rules, but they function as financial engineering schemes rather than legitimate health care financing. Medicaid was designed to fund health care for vulnerable Americans, not maximize revenue for governments and health care bureaucracies.

California’s ambulance reimbursement system provides a textbook example of the kind of payment arrangement CMS now appears determined to rein in.

RELATED: Trump’s next bill needs tax relief with teeth

Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Under current rules, a public fire district can hold an emergency medical services franchise while subcontracting the actual ambulance operations to a private company.

Even though the private contractor performs the transport itself, the public entity can still bill Medi-Cal at the elevated IGT reimbursement rate — around $1,168 per transport in 2024, with a proposed increase to nearly $1,600.

If that same private ambulance provider billed Medi-Cal directly, that $1,600 would become roughly $339 under the standard fee schedule.

Federal taxpayers are therefore paying nearly five times the normal reimbursement rate for operationally identical services, simply because the billing structure has been routed through a government intermediary eligible for enhanced federal matching funds. For ACA expansion enrollees, a large share of Medi-Cal, Washington covers 90% of that already inflated cost.

The fire district keeps the difference between the inflated Medi-Cal reimbursement and the private contractor’s actual operating payment. Taxpayers finance the excess.

Unlike these existing payment arrangements that may eventually be required to conform to the new federal standards, California’s pending ambulance SPAs have not yet been approved. Federal regulators should not authorize an expansion of a reimbursement model they have already identified as inconsistent with Medicaid’s future direction.

CMS has now made clear that payment arrangements built around inflated reimbursement rates, intergovernmental transfers, and excessive federal matching dollars are no longer business as usual. States have been put on notice.

California’s pending ambulance SPAs should be among the first tests of whether the agency intends to enforce the principles it has now announced. If CMS truly believes Medicaid exists to fund patient care rather than reimbursement gamesmanship, these proposals should not survive review.

Socialist antitrust activists killed Spirit Airlines — and learned nothing



It is a bad time to fly. Willie Walsh, head of the International Air Transport Association, drove home the point this week when he warned that “war-related disruptions in the Middle East and rising fuel costs have shifted the outlook for airlines to the worse.”

Walsh pointed to the recent closure of Spirit Airlines, America’s most iconic budget carrier, and warned that more airlines could suffer the same fate if current trends continue. That means fewer choices for fliers and higher prices at the airport.

Before Democrats demand that courts second-guess another antitrust settlement, they should reckon with the consequences of the last one they cheered.

But blaming the state of air travel solely on the Iran war is far too convenient. Airlines are also struggling because overzealous regulators and left-wing antitrust activists decided they knew better than the market.

Three years ago, Spirit had a plan to survive. It struck a merger agreement with JetBlue, another economy carrier, to create a new, globally scaled affordable airline. The Justice Department joined six states and the District of Columbia to file an antitrust lawsuit blocking the deal.

In early 2024, a federal judge sided with the Biden administration and blocked the merger. Biden officials and congressional Democrats cheered. Without JetBlue’s capital, Spirit’s struggles mounted. The airline filed for bankruptcy and earlier this year shut its doors.

Now many of the same officials who applauded the court order that killed Spirit are trying to shift blame to President Trump. The American people should not buy it, especially given what those same Biden officials said at the time.

Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland called the judge’s ruling “a victory for tens of millions of travelers who would have faced higher fares and fewer choices had the proposed merger between JetBlue and Spirit been allowed to move forward.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took to X to declare, “I’ve warned for months that a @JetBlue-@SpiritAirlines merger would have led to fewer flights and higher fares. @JusticeATR and @USDOT were right to stand up for consumers and fight against runaway airline consolidation. This is a Biden win for flyers!”

Pete Buttigieg, Biden’s transportation secretary, openly bragged about siding with the Justice Department and helping prevent the merger in the name of protecting “low fares” and “competition.”

The reality looks very different now.

Spirit’s shutdown was the first complete closure of a major U.S. carrier in 25 years. It was caused directly by the same actions the Biden administration once boasted about.

Travelers lost a low-cost option. Spirit’s more than 11,000 employees saw their lives upended. And Spirit’s disappearance will deepen the coming travel recession. The airline placed downward pressure on fares for years. Without it, prices are rising.

RELATED: Dear airlines, please stop pitching your credit cards at 33,000 feet

Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Travelers now face fewer choices at the airport. The remaining choices tend to be pricier, more consolidated carriers that no doubt welcomed Spirit’s demise.

One might hope antitrust enforcers would learn the obvious lesson: Bigger does not always mean worse. Sometimes mergers preserve competition. Sometimes they lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers. Sometimes blocking a merger kills the very competitor regulators claim to protect.

Unfortunately, many Democrats refuse to accept that reality.

Some of the same members of Congress and state attorneys general who supported blocking the Spirit-JetBlue merger now want courts to use the Tunney Act to second-guess other Trump administration antitrust decisions. The Tunney Act gives courts a limited role in reviewing antitrust settlements negotiated by the Justice Department. Democrats now want judges to stretch that role and challenge straightforward Trump settlements, including one merger backed by the intelligence community on national security grounds.

Historically, courts have deferred to the executive branch’s enforcement decisions. Democrats now want judges to intervene because they do not like the Trump administration’s policy choices.

Perhaps they should look in the mirror first.

Competition policy should protect consumers. It should not exist to punish private commerce, indulge ideological hostility to business, or let socialist antitrust activists pretend they can manage markets better than the people actually operating in them.

Spirit Airlines offers a painful lesson. The Biden administration, Elizabeth Warren, and other antitrust crusaders celebrated the decision that prevented Spirit from joining forces with JetBlue. Today, Spirit is gone, more than 11,000 workers have paid the price, and travelers have fewer choices at the airport.

Before Democrats demand that courts second-guess another antitrust settlement, they should reckon with the consequences of the last one they cheered.

The backlash against AI reveals it’s a terrible scapegoat



One day, not long ago — no one can recall exactly when — AI dropped from the sky, a deus ex machina springing fully formed from the head of, well, maybe its own head.

Or so it seems.

The context around the technology matters even more than the content.

In reality, AI’s origin story runs much deeper. So does the backlash against it. Both look stranger than they are because our shared memory of the recent past keeps shrinking.

AI has been a long time coming. In the mid-20th century, when human imagination still outran human and machine memory, artists produced vivid narratives about supercomputers and superintelligence. Scientists and engineers did the same, especially after World War II. Go back and read atomic-age Vannevar Bush, who mentored the namesake of Anthropic’s Claude, and the surprise is not that AI arrived. The surprise is that it took so long.

So why has AI produced such powerful future shock?

Not long ago, Americans rushed to embrace new technology. Yes, we were naïve about social media. We underestimated how people and governments would peep into our personal cyberspace. But when social media exposed our own questionable collective character, the reaction was not fury. Troubled? Yes. Shocked? No.

Even now, despite evidence that smartphones have entrenched bad habits and unhealthy temptations, we broadly regard the phone-and-app ecosystem as manageable. The trade-offs seem worth the bother if we clean up our act and make responsible choices.

AI is different. For millions participating in the backlash, AI differs from smartphones and social media not merely in power and scope, but in perceived injustice. Smartphones may rot our brains slowly. According to the backlash, even moderate AI use will swiftly destroy society.

The history we long to forget

Left-wing critics describe this destruction in terms of justice and the human nature Marx called our “species being.” Right-wing critics reach for the language of spiritual illness and stolen souls. The claim remains roughly the same: AI uniquely threatens our humanity, so the conversation about how to respond need not account for anything else.

Introduce any complicating factor outside AI and its creators, and critics may accuse you of distraction, dissembling, excuse-making, or apologizing for a permanent underclass — perhaps even human extinction.

I understand why so many people are so freaked out and so unwilling to pull focus away from AI. But the biggest reason lies outside AI and the AI debate.

Look at the arc Americans traveled with smartphones and social media. These transformative technologies became ubiquitous around the time of the 2008 financial crisis. Thanks to “innovative” monetary policy and frantic institutional improvisation, the world avoided penury, and technological development kept moving along its established trajectory.

Many Americans surely spent more time online as economic slack and stagnation spread after the crisis. Yet that shock was nothing like the blow that came during the COVID lockdowns.

Over those two decades, America’s fundamentals became dangerously unsound. Governance embraced can-kicking, corruption, patronage, fraud, and self-dealing legerdemain that cooked the country as much as it cooked the books. But the populist backlash — as veterans of Occupy Wall Street, the Ron Paul “rEVOLution,” or the Bernie Bro movement will remember — remained contained and controlled.

RELATED: There's a surprising fix for our AI oversight anarchy

sonmez karakurt/iStock/Getty Images

At least until Trump came along.

Even during Trump’s first term, few Americans felt like sitting ducks in the shadow of cataclysm. Times were tough, the middle class felt squeezed, and the dollar didn’t go as far. But those pressures had become baseline dynamics — the same problem set Ross Perot once explained with his chicken-foot pointer in populist third-party infomercials.

The lockdown era obliterated that holding pattern. It also wiped out many people’s ability to process the new normal. The socioeconomic malaise accelerated into territory so unsustainable that people simply stopped trying to understand it.

They blocked it out like an event too awful to remain in our memory.

Runaway inflation. Church closures. Rising living costs. Soaring entry costs for upward mobility. Devalued savings. Exhausted savings. The mathematical impossibility of building a middle-class life across family, education, and wealth formation within the given number of workweeks in a year.

That was the comprehensive catastrophe.

And it unfolded before robust AI asserted itself on the social scene.

Rebirth and return

That means we cannot understand the AI backlash unless we recognize that the context around the technology matters even more than the content.

For many millions across the political spectrum, the American dream was already destroyed before they could form real judgments about AI. In a national atmosphere of spiritual sickness, financial insolvency, economic weakness, and social disintegration, AI appeared as the final blow — especially as AI leaders themselves forecast the end of paychecks, jobs, careers, and perhaps humanity itself.

Deep down, many Americans feel that the habits, institutions, and confidence that might have allowed them to participate fruitfully in the AI era were stripped away years ago. AI seems big, alien, and wrong. Worse, it seems forced on them at a moment of unprecedented weakness, after any hope of recovery has already vanished.

Because they now feel they can fight the “clankers” and their makers in a way they cannot fight their own downward mobility and immiseration, AI has become the perfect scapegoat.

And that is the danger.

Killing AI will not regrow our spiritual and social roots. In fact, our structural situation has deteriorated so badly that leaning harder on the machines than we otherwise would may now be necessary.

We need a financial reboot. We need to dismantle the governance system that sucked us dry. We need to shift from overextended sole superpower to sustainable civilization-state fast enough to avoid the geopolitical spike pit between those two conditions.

Without those urgent needs, we would have more time and room to maneuver on AI. But we do need those things, and we do not have much choice or time — at least not if we want to hold the country together long enough to give Americans back the freedom to regrow their spiritual and social shoots.

The real way. The slow way. The human way.

Treating AI as the ultimate scapegoat for all our ills will distort and delay that process. Treating AI as the ultimate savior will derail and damage us in the opposite direction.

Nor will the fantasy of curing our national trauma by using AI to solve all human problems restore American life as a challenge worth living. Our new technology can be much more, and much less, than a replacement plan for people reduced to polyp status.

That is the opening for a constructive approach to AI that most of us can ultimately live with.

The left wants to put MAGA on the couch — then on trial



DEI is not dead. It survives because the left embedded it deep inside institutions, habits, grant programs, training regimes, and professional language. Even when the label changes, the ideology keeps moving.

One of President Donald Trump’s first actions in his second term was an executive order directing the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to eliminate illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The order put immediate pressure on organizations that built their funding models around DEI and what they call “victim-centered” ideology.

Democrats have already parroted the brainwashing narrative. If they win the midterms, many will try to turn it into impeachment-palooza and legal warfare.

Those organizations are now fighting back. They are filing lawsuits, mobilizing allies, and defending their grants. A federal court order has complicated the fight by forcing the government to keep funding some of them while litigation continues. In other words, taxpayers are still cutting checks to groups openly hostile to the president and his movement.

The Civil Rights Division should treat this novel doctrine as what it is: DEI with prosecutorial power.

The “victim-centered approach” is a federally funded prosecution doctrine. It carries a badge and wears judicial robes, but it rests on the same power-differential framework that drove DEI through human resources departments, universities, and activist nonprofits. It replaces objective proof with subjective harm and presents ideological assumptions as neutral expertise.

Nearly 12,000 American judges have been trained in this doctrine since 1999. The training does not teach law. It teaches trauma theory, “power and control” wheels, trauma bonding, and coercive-control frameworks imported from activist social work and repackaged as forensic science.

Judges emerge from the program describing themselves as “trauma-informed” members of a new generation of jurists who understand what victims are really experiencing — even when some of those alleged victims insist they were not victimized.

That is ideological preconditioning, not legal education. And the federal government has funded it for 25 years.

One major proponent is Freedom Network USA, an organization that trains law enforcement and certifies victim advocates nationwide. It has sued the Trump administration, arguing that the executive order prevents it from delivering trafficking-victim services because the order restricts words central to its curriculum.

RELATED: Trump’s Justice Department is shining a light on woke universities — finally

Angela Lewis/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Americans have already seen DEI in schools. They have seen DEI hiring programs raise serious questions about competence in public safety and aviation. The victim-centered approach shows DEI wearing a badge and sitting on the bench.

The left built this machinery for use against communities it has already labeled dangerous, irrational, or cult-like. And the left has made clear that it regards MAGA as a cult and Trump as its leader.

How do we know? Because they told us.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and a former impeachment manager, said publicly that he consulted cult experts to help him communicate with Republican colleagues. Hillary Clinton said MAGA supporters may need “formal deprogramming of the cult members.”

Those were not stray comments. They were previews.

Freedom Network USA is one node in a federally funded network of nongovernmental organizations that train law enforcement, write curriculum, and certify judges. These groups are not merely observers of the doctrine. They are its infrastructure. The same political coalition calling MAGA a cult built the legal machinery to act on that belief. Now it is suing the administration to keep the money flowing.

The public can already see how this victim-centered approach may play out in court. The government has relied on “cult expert” Steven Hassan, author of “The Cult of Trump,” to help shape prosecution theories. The Oversight Project has documented Hassan’s ties to Raskin, whom Trump has called on Congress to expel.

Real victims of horrible crimes deserve care and respect from the justice system. That is not in dispute. But this doctrine does not strengthen judicial decency. It undermines it by weakening the protections that should apply to all parties.

RELATED: How to fix the woke teacher problem

H. Rick Bamman/Pioneer Press/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

The victim-centered approach is what MAGA will face if the left regains power. Conservatives will be cast either as brainwashers or as the brainwashed.

Cassidy Hutchinson’s story shows what may come next. Her memoir about her time as a Trump White House staffer makes a specific psychological claim: Loyalty to Trump becomes coercion. Personal devotion becomes proof that a person cannot leave freely. Under the victim-centered approach, and with criminal precedents already in place, that claim no longer remains a social critique. It can become a theory of prosecution.

Democrats have already parroted this brainwashing narrative. If they win the midterms, many will try to turn it into impeachment-palooza and legal warfare. That makes it time to take unserious arguments seriously.

They are telling us what they think of MAGA. They see a web of cults and subcults led by pastors, celebrities, politicians, and activists, all supposedly brainwashing followers to obey Trump.

They will try to draw a web of influence and use the victim-centered approach to build a brainwashing case against Trump and his supporters.

How do we know? Because they told us.

CNN’s Turner memorial became a monument to its own delusions



Warner Discovery last week staged what it called a memorial ceremony for TBS and CNN founder Ted Turner, who died on May 6. What it delivered instead was a propagandistic pep rally — one that twisted Turner’s story into his beatification as a left-wing journalistic saint, amid an institutional chest-thump by Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Christiane Amanpour, and former CNN President Tom Johnson.

Johnson was a longtime aide to President Lyndon Johnson before becoming publisher of the Los Angeles Times. He ran CNN from 1990 to 2001. His remarks about Turner last week quickly veered into an anti-Trump sermon that also managed to mask the huge failures of the contemporary CNN.

Ted Turner was no saint. He was loud, brash, womanizing, hard-drinking, chance-taking, and wildly successful — an All-American original. That was exactly the sort of role model I admired in 1982 — and still do.

Johnson ended his diatribe with this declaration: “CNN will not bend and will not sway during this terrible, chaotic Trump era. We can best honor Ted by continuing to keep CNN as the most outstanding news network of them all.”

Really, Tom?

CNN “will not sway”? You mean the same CNN, under your watch, whose international news chief, Eason Jordan, admitted in the New York Times that the network had withheld reporting on Saddam Hussein’s abuses to keep its Baghdad bureau open?

CNN “will not bend”? You mean the same CNN that, under your successor, Jeff “Mother” Zucker, turned prime-time into a rolling psychodrama and allowed Don Lemon to become one of the network’s most embarrassing public faces? Lemon was fired in 2023 after a long trail of controversies and allegations of misogynistic behavior.

Zucker himself was pushed out after his sexual relationship with Allison Gollust, CNN’s chief marketing officer. Maybe that qualifies as not getting bent.

And “the most outstanding news network of them all”?

Maybe CNN deserved that description in the early 1980s, when I was there helping build the network. Maybe it still did in the 1990s, during Johnson’s tenure. But after Johnson left in 2001 and Turner lost control to Warner, CNN entered a quarter-century of decay and decline. And Johnson knows it.

How else would he explain the clown show created by Chris Cuomo and his brother Andrew, the disgraced former governor of New York? Or Jeffrey Toobin, the CNN legal analyst who humiliated himself and tarnished the network by masturbating on a Zoom call? Or the fact that Zucker turned the network Johnson helped bring to its zenith into a laughingstock of the news business?

Several CNN anchors used the memorial to mount their ego-steeds and blather about “editorial independence,” likely because they can feel the walls closing in. If — when! — Skydance and Paramount take over Warner Bros.-Discovery, Bari Weiss could gain real editorial influence and give CNN’s lefty stable the Scott Pelley treatment.

Christiane Amanpour phoned it in from Beirut, looking like Mother Teresa on life support, and delivered the expected sermon in her usual syncopated style.

“I am a complete and utter adherent to fighting for editorial independence and to being able to pursue independent news coverage without fear or favor, no matter who is in charge politically, no matter where we go,” she said. “That is our mission. That is Ted Turner’s legacy, and that’s one that I intend to fulfill in my life.”

Right, Christiane.

This would be the same Amanpour who, under wildly anti-Trump Jeff Zucker, compared the Trump administration to Kristallnacht. That was not “independent journalism.” It was journalism independent of facts, independent of fairness, and independent of good judgment.

RELATED: The left’s icons keep face-planting in public

Scott Kowalchyk/CBS/Getty Images

And no CNN self-celebration would be complete without Wolf Blitzer.

“Ted Turner was one of the greatest visionaries of our time,” Blitzer said, demonstrating his masterful command of the obvious. “He always told me to make sure we report the news fairly and accurately, and, if possible, break those stories first on CNN.”

Sure thing, Wolf. But while we are discussing fairness and accuracy, I do not remember CNN making much of your previous work for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Jerusalem Post when you covered the Middle East. That seems like relevant context.

Finally came the Man from Glad himself, CNN’s SOB — son of a billionaire — Anderson Cooper.

Cooper described Turner as “a complex man of passion and guts and daring and drive,” a man who “saw what was possible when others didn’t, when others couldn’t.”

Too bad Cooper did not bring that kind of precision to his coverage of Hurricane Katrina or the BP oil spill.

The strangest moment came when Cooper told Johnson he should come back to CNN.

“We just want you to stay here,” Johnson told Cooper.

“I’m not going anywhere,” Cooper replied.

I’ll take Bari Weiss and no points against that spread.

One last thought: Ted Turner was no saint. He was loud, brash, womanizing, hard-drinking, chance-taking, swashbuckling, creative, and wildly successful — an All-American original. You know, all the traits that make contemporary leftists, no kingsers, and me-too’ers gasp, cover their eyes, point, and scream “toxic masculinity!”

That was exactly the sort of role model I admired in 1982 — and still do. That was why I wanted to work for Ted Turner when I joined the CNN Special Assignments Unit. If Ted came back to life tonight, I would be first in line to join whatever he wanted to build next.

Trump’s next bill needs tax relief with teeth



A third reconciliation bill is becoming a central question in Republican economic policy. President Trump has called for one. House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) supports it. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is trying to assemble the votes. Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) is open to it if the numbers work.

Senate Republicans sound far less certain. Former Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been blunt: “I think it’s safe to conclude there will not be another reconciliation bill.”

The question congressional Republicans should ask is not merely what they can pass — it’s what they are willing to fight for.

Someone will win that argument. If House Republicans prevail, the real test will be what goes into the bill. Trump is right that defense readiness and election integrity are priorities. But neither is an economic growth agenda. Growth comes from removing barriers to work, saving, investment, and capital formation.

Supply-siders know what they want: lower corporate rates, zero capital gains, full repeal of the death tax, and a complete rewrite of how the tax code treats savings and investment.

Reconciliation in 2026 is not the vehicle for all of that. But it can still do real work.

Index capital gains to inflation

Investors now pay taxes on nominal gains from selling an asset. A family that bought a home in 2010 for $600,000 and sells it today for $1.2 million has not doubled its real wealth. Much of that increase reflects the dollar’s declining purchasing power. Taxing inflation on top of inflation is double taxation by another name. Congress should index all capital gains to inflation.

A practical fallback already has bipartisan support. Reps. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) and Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) have reintroduced the More Homes on the Market Act, which has 123 co-sponsors. The bill would raise the primary-residence exclusion from $250,000 to $500,000 for single filers and from $500,000 to $1 million for joint filers. Those thresholds were set in 1997 and have never been adjusted for inflation.

The 2026 Economic Report of the President identifies supply constraints as a major driver of housing costs. Either reform would reduce the tax penalty that discourages homeowners from selling, moving, or downsizing.

Tax tax-exempt wealth hoards

Universities and hospitals have spent decades accumulating vast tax-exempt wealth while pricing out the people they claim to serve. Harvard’s endowment exceeds $56 billion. Most of its investment earnings remain largely exempt from federal taxation. Economist Richard Vedder has called university tax subsidies one of the most regressive policies in the tax code.

Congress raised the endowment tax as high as 8% in the last reconciliation bill. A 15% excise tax on endowments above $100 million would send a clearer signal that tax-exempt status is a privilege, not a birthright.

The same logic applies to commercial activities at universities and hospitals. When a university runs a hotel, a patent-licensing operation, or a hospital system, it is engaging in commerce. Tax it accordingly.

RELATED: Trump’s new tariffs will put America’s rivals on notice

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Cap Medicaid fraud

Every dollar lost to Medicaid fraud is a dollar extracted from taxpayers and lost to the private economy. Capping federal Medicaid allocations to states with demonstrated high fraud rates is both fiscally sound and pro-growth. It belongs in any serious reconciliation package.

Redirect health care subsidies

The current system funnels public money through insurance intermediaries that extract rents at every step. The 2026 Economic Report of the President documents how lack of competition in physician markets drives up costs. Redirecting health care subsidies directly to individuals would restore price signals to a sector long insulated from them.

Republicans have a narrow window and a thin majority. The votes may not be there. But the question congressional Republicans should ask is not merely what they can pass — it’s what they are willing to fight for.

Every item here removes a barrier to capital formation or productive investment. That is not four different ideas. It is one growth agenda, applied four ways.

Don’t let Trump derangement ruin Flag Day



A UFC Freedom 250 event on the South Lawn of the White House — with a 5,000-seat temporary stadium and 85,000 tickets for viewing on massive screens on the Ellipse — has sparked controversy. The event is unprecedented, and it falls on President Trump’s birthday.

Put aside what you think of Sunday’s extravaganza. There is still a good reason to embrace June 14: Flag Day.

Those allergic to all things Trump should remember that Flag Day existed decades before he was born and, God willing, will endure for generations after.

Flag Day has a long tradition. Yet if not for its coincidence with Trump’s birthday, it would likely pass with little notice. That is a mistake. This is not a call to worship a colorful banner. It is a call to remember that Americans — left, center, and right — are united by founding principles from the Declaration of Independence, represented by Old Glory.

On June 14, 1777, the Second Continental Congress approved a resolution establishing a uniform national flag. The 13-star flag, commonly associated with Betsy Ross, became a rallying banner and a source of pride. It was not yet revered as it would be later, but it symbolized the freest nation in world history.

Then came the Civil War and the lowering of the flag over Fort Sumter. That image triggered an outpouring of love for Old Glory.

Jonathan Flynt Morris, a banker and strong Republican Unionist, urged Charles Dudley Warner, editor of the Hartford Evening Press, to write about the need not merely to respect the flag, but to revere it. On June 10, 1861, Warner followed that advice and proposed a new holiday: Flag Day.

“This flag is our dearest symbol of nationality,” Warner wrote. “It stands for civil liberty on this continent. To keep it full high advanced is our highest pride; to strike at it is to arouse all the passion of the nation to defend it, and to punish the perpetrators of the outrage.”

Flag Day celebrations began in Warner’s home state of Connecticut. They slowly spread to schools in Wisconsin in 1885, New York schools in 1889, and then to Philadelphia and public buildings in New York state in 1894. An American Flag Day organization was created to further the movement.

President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, issued the first federal recognition of the holiday on May 30, 1916. Wilson’s proclamation called for patriotic exercises that would “give significant expression to our thoughtful love of America” and our understanding of “the great mission of liberty and justice to which we have devoted ourselves as a people.”

RELATED: Damning poll reveals what Democrats ACTUALLY think of America ahead of its 250th birthday

Stan Grossfeld/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

He also called Americans to rededicate themselves to the principles of “independence, liberty, and right,” which no person “can corrupt” and no influence could draw away from their ideals. Finally, on Aug. 3, 1949, President Harry S. Truman, also a Democrat, signed an act of Congress designating June 14 of each year as National Flag Day.

Flag Day exemplifies our shared American creed. It was the brainchild of Republicans, spread outside party politics, and was instituted nationally by Democrats. Its purpose is to recommit us to the founding principles declared in the Declaration of Independence and embedded in the Constitution: equality, limited government, the rule of law, unalienable rights, the social compact, and the right to alter or abolish oppressive government.

America did not fully live by those principles in 1776, and we do not perfectly live by them today. But belief in those principles has inspired generations of patriots to move us closer to their fulfillment. Abolitionism, women’s suffrage, and the civil rights movement all called upon America’s first principles to push the country toward its promise. At its best, our flag stands for liberty and equality.

Those allergic to all things Trump should remember that Flag Day existed decades before he was born and, God willing, will endure for generations after. It is not about one man. It is a call for all Americans to unite around the principles that made the country possible.

We should answer that call.

The Trinity answers the Bible’s central question



One of the most common objections to Christianity is simple: The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. If that is true, why do Christians believe it?

Christians believe the Trinity because it is the inevitable conclusion of what Scripture teaches about God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore not an arbitrary invention. Nor is it a concession to polytheism. It is precisely the opposite: a refutation of polytheism.

The story begins in Genesis.

The Jewish Scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament, taught something unique among the religions of the ancient world. Pagan nations treated their gods as physical beings within the universe. Israel taught that God created the heavens and the earth. God was not part of the system. He brought the system into existence.

God is therefore not made of matter, not located at one point in space, and not one deity among many. He alone existed from eternity. Everything else had a beginning.

Israel was repeatedly tempted to compromise with the polytheistic religions around it. Time after time, the prophets called the nation back to the worship of the one true God. Through Isaiah, God declared, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5).

The God of Israel was understood to be eternal, immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. These are not properties material deities could possess.

That raises an obvious question. If Christians inherited this uncompromising belief in one God, how did they arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity?

John opens his Gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

John then tells us that all things were made through the Word. The Word is distinguished from God, yet the Word is also called God. John 1:3 says all created things came into existence through Him. If all created things were made through the Word, then the Word Himself cannot belong to the class of created things.

Then John tells us, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). The eternal Son of God became incarnate as Jesus Christ.

RELATED: Don’t let ‘Disclosure Day’ doom you to spiritual death by discourse

The New Testament repeatedly presents the same pattern. At Jesus’ baptism, the Son stands in the water, the Spirit descends as a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven. The three are clearly distinguished from one another, yet elsewhere in Scripture the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each identified as God.

Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Baptism is done in the name of God. Paul gives a Trinitarian benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14. Jesus, the Lamb of God, sits on the throne of God.

Jesus also claimed an existence that preceded Abraham: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). His words echo the divine name revealed to Moses. The Jews understood the implication and tried to stone Him for blasphemy. Elsewhere, they accused Him of making Himself equal with God.

Scripture also attributes personal qualities to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit teaches, speaks, guides, gives life, and can be grieved. He is not merely an impersonal force.

The early Christians therefore found themselves committed to three truths taught by Scripture:

  1. There is only one God.
  2. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
  3. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct from one another.

Deny any one of those truths, and you contradict the Bible.

Over the first several centuries, as pagan polytheists converted to Christianity or challenged it, the church debated how best to explain the doctrine of God from Scripture.

The Gnostics denied that Jesus was truly incarnate. They taught that He was a spirit who only appeared human. In doing so, they denied the incarnation.

Another early controversy involved Sabellius, who taught what later became known as modalism. According to this view, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely different manifestations of the same divine person.

The church rejected this because Scripture repeatedly distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit from one another.

Then came Arius, who taught that the Father alone is eternal and that the Son is the first and greatest creature.

As Christians reflected on the biblical evidence, the church clarified its teaching: The Father is eternally unbegotten. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and, in Western theology, from the Father and the Son.

The doctrine can be summarized simply: God is one “what” — one divine essence — and three “whos” — three distinct persons.

The church eventually summarized the biblical teaching as one God in three persons. Not one God and three gods. Not one person appearing in three forms. One God, three persons.

RELATED: Contentious theological debate erupts about Mormons over War Department faith list

Brent Asay/iStock/Getty Images

The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore not an arbitrary invention. Nor is it a concession to polytheism. It is precisely the opposite: a refutation of polytheism. The doctrine preserves the full teaching of Scripture and answers the questions Scripture itself forces us to ask about God.

What is striking is how often modern religious movements that spin off from Christianity repeat ancient errors. Some deny the full deity of Christ, as Arius did. Others collapse the distinctions among the persons, as Sabellius did. Still others deny Christ’s full humanity or full deity. Some even teach polytheistic material gods.

What has united Christians across denominations and centuries is their shared commitment to the biblical doctrine of God. By contrast, new religious movements often claim allegiance to Scripture while introducing another authority that corrects, supplements, or supersedes it.

When Jesus called people to believe in Him, He did not require them to master centuries of theological debate. But neither did He leave them free to invent their own Jesus. They were to believe true things about Him and reject false things about Him.

A person may sincerely use the name “Jesus” while holding beliefs about Him that contradict the Jesus revealed in Scripture. The issue is not sincerity but identity. Not, “What do I feel?” but, “What does the Bible say?”

The question is whether the Jesus a person believes in is the Jesus revealed in the Bible or a Jesus drawn from some other source.

The church’s long debates about the Trinity were not abstract philosophical exercises. They were answers to the most important question any person can ask: Who is Jesus Christ in the Bible?

The song that lets sorrow tell the truth



Last month, another family requested I play "It Is Well with My Soul" for their loved one’s funeral.

After nearly 50 years of playing the piano for funeral services, I've lost count of how many times I've played that hymn.

The sorrows like sea billows are a given. They arrive for all of us eventually. The question is not whether suffering comes. The question is what we have been taught to do when it arrives.

Those years at the piano have provided an unusual vantage point. Most people attending a funeral spend the service looking toward the front of the sanctuary or chapel. They see the pastor, the flowers, the family, and the casket. Sitting at the piano, however, I've spent much of my life looking in the opposite direction.

I see the faces. I've watched businessmen, ranchers, physicians, pastors, politicians, mechanics, celebrities, schoolteachers, and grieving children. I've seen estranged family members share a pew for an hour. I've seen old wounds temporarily set aside. I've watched tears fall from people who spent a lifetime convincing the world they didn't cry.

It's hard to lie during a funeral service. The face and eyes give it away.

For a brief moment, the distractions of life are suspended in the face of death. Everyone in the room is confronted with the same reality: Life is fragile, time is limited, and something had the final word over a life that may have loomed very large only days before.

When I offer to help select the music, I often ask the family’s favorite hymn. “It Is Well with My Soul” almost invariably stands out.

This year marks 150 years since Philip Bliss set Horatio Spafford's words to music. Ever since, grieving families have continued reaching for that hymn.

After hearing it and performing it for a lifetime, I've become convinced that something happens in the fifth measure where the word "sorrows" lands on the first minor chord of the hymn.

I leave room for that chord.

When I play the hymn, I take my time. I've had music ministers try to conduct me faster through it. I politely ignore them. Grief does not benefit from haste.

Not because I am trying to showcase the music, but because I have watched what happens in the room when people hear it. Heads lower. Shoulders sag. Eyes fill with tears. In that moment, the hymn permits grieving people to tell the truth.

The sea billows are rolling.

RELATED: What we lose when we rush past pain

iStock/Getty Images

Sometimes, when I invite the congregation to sing, I watch people exhale. Some simply mouth the words. Others sing through tears. Some stand motionless and stare straight ahead. I've watched grieving fathers, mothers, and spouses raise their hands heavenward as tears run down their faces.

Occasionally, I stop playing altogether on the last chorus and let the congregation carry the hymn themselves. There is something profound about hearing a room full of grieving people give collective grief a collective voice.

The hymn was written from within great sorrow. It never hurries people through it. It doesn't offer clichés or pretend pain isn't pain.

It acknowledges sorrow while refusing to grant it the final word.

Then comes the line that has occupied my thoughts more than any other: “Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say ...”

Taught me.

The sorrows like sea billows are a given. They arrive for all of us eventually. The question is not whether suffering comes. The question is what we have been taught to do when it arrives.

What do we reach for when things around us feel so unsteady?

I've played this hymn for people who sang it with confidence and for people who could barely get the words out. I've watched some sing it as testimony and others sing it as prayer. Some seemed to embody it. Others seemed to aspire to it.

Yet, the requests keep arriving.

After nearly 50 years at the piano bench, I've never lost my sense of wonder at what happens when a room full of grieving people stand together and sing: It is well with my soul.