Per USA Today columnist Chris Brennan, the Rededicate 250 event, held on the National Mall to rededicate our country as One Nation Under God, violated both our national spirit and our Constitution. Per Brennan, the Christian character of the event, and the Protestant content, flies in the face of the national value of religious diversity. The bottom line on the religious diversity claims points to religion not being a national value at all. I am perplexed how this squares with the rights noted in our Declaration of Independence asserted under the authority of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and the appeal of the signers at the Declaration’s conclusion to “the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions.” The Constitution’s preamble notes its objective is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” The late Claremont Institute scholar Harry V. Jaffa noted, in this context, that “What is a blessing is what is good in the eyes of God.” Lincoln spoke, in his second inaugural address, to a nation that accepted God, but was no longer “one nation.” “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other.” Today we have something very new with profound implications for our future. Our social and political tensions are increasingly not rooted in different understandings about what God wants from us but in whether the Creator is relevant at all. True and false, good and evil, are among many different, equally legitimate, possibilities. It’s all relative. This gets back to the objections to Rededicate 250. Our differences about religion are now increasingly partisan. Per Gallup, in 2001 the percentage of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who identified as having “no religion” was 11%. The percentage of Republicans/Republican-leaning independents identifying as “no religion” was 7%. This made a difference of 4 points. By 2023, Democrat “nones” was up to 33% and Republicans 12%. The difference increased to 21 points. Per Gallup, in 1980, among 30- to 50-year-olds, among those identifying as Republican, 84% were married, and among those identifying as Democrat, 82%. This made a difference of 2 points. By 2024, the percent of Republicans married was 67% and of Democrats 49%—a difference of 18 points. Growing divergent partisan attitudes about religion translate into significantly different partisan results regarding marriage, family, and children. In 2025, Gallup reported differences in attitudes among Republicans and Democrats regarding capitalism and socialism. Among Republicans, 74% said they have a positive view of capitalism. Among Democrats, 42% said they have a positive view of capitalism. Among Republicans, 14% said they have a positive view of socialism. Among Democrats, 66% said they have a positive view of socialism. The dramatically different views among Republicans and Democrats regarding capitalism and socialism flow logically from the different dispositions among the parties regarding religion. The Eighth Commandment says “Thou shalt not steal.” It recognizes private property. The Tenth Commandment says “Thou shalt not covet.” It recognizes that your business is what is yours, not what your neighbor has. Socialism is the opposite. It is secularism. It erases the sacred nature of private property and is driven by redistributing wealth—concern with what your neighbor has. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the new progressive socialist face of the Democratic Party, exclaimed: “You can’t earn a billion dollars. You just can’t earn that. You can get market power, you can break rules, you can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than their worth, but you can’t earn that.” Apparently, Bill Gates did not build Microsoft, or Jeff Bezos Amazon, or Elon Musk Tesla with super hard work, creativity and risk-taking. They are all scoundrels. Progressives think we need AOC, who can draw on her work experience as a bartender, to straighten everything out. Never has what party rules in Washington meant so much to our country’s future. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.   The midterm elections are about five months away, and we’re having here in California a hotly contested governor’s race. And of course, everybody’s heard about the mayor’s race. They all have something in common if we examine them. There is no Democratic agenda.  There’s no antithetical agenda to the Republicans.   What I’m getting at is if you watch the debates between Spencer Pratt, Karen Bass, and Councilman [Nithya] Raman, none of them run on their records as incumbents. Karen Bass does not say, “I solved the homeless problem, and here’s how I did it.” She’s not saying, “I’ve stopped crime, and here’s how I did it. I have solved and rebuilt Pacific Palisades after the fire, and here’s how I did it. And here’s my new fire prevention plan. Here’s my new water plan, so we don’t have empty…” None of it.   And when you see Councilman Raman, she doesn’t either. She doesn’t offer—all it is, is personal invective against Spencer Pratt.  When you look at the governor’s race in California, you have two Republicans in this jungle primary: Chad Bianco, the sheriff from Southern California, and Steve Hilton, Northern California entrepreneur who’s running. They’re both conservative, but they’re up against a whole array of Democratic candidates.  So if you look at what Xavier Becerra says, Kathleen Porter says, Tom Steyer says, there’s no agenda. They don’t say, “I want to continue Gavin Newsom’s program. High-speed rail has been a great success. I know we’ve had some controversies, but I want to finish it, and I can come up with the $250 billion to do it. We should be proud that we have the most illegal aliens in the country. Gavin Newsom allotted $500 million to illegal alien medical care. I’d like to boost that and improve on it. We have a very sophisticated penal system. I know crime is high, but when you treat criminals humanitarily, in a humane way, crime goes down.   “So when Governor Newsom, which I second, allowed iPads for people in prisons to use, and maybe some of them abused them a little bit, that’s a good idea and I’ll build on it. And we have the homeless, half the homeless people in the country because they like our weather and we’re a humane people. We’ve got to improve on that. We have the highest gas prices, but that means less pollution. And we have the highest taxes, that’s share the wealth. And we’re going to tax accumulated wealth of billionaires. Why not? They can pay their fair share.”  But they, they don’t defend the record in any specificity. None of them do. And none of them do in the Democratic Party on these congressional elections. They never say that we had a president. What happened?   We had Joe Biden, and we had a very orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was a model operation. Or why do we need a border? Joe Biden showed you that we could let in ten thousand people a day, ten million over four years. Nothing was wrong with that.   We had a few criminals here and there, but it was a very humane policy. And we want to open that border, tear down that wall, and resume the Biden immigration policy.  Now, as far as crime, why would we want to be punitive? Some people, you know, they commit violent crimes, but they have to come up with cash to get out of jail. We got rid of cash bail because society, society is guilty, not the criminal. We should understand that by now.   And, you know, before Trump came in, we had DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion. And what it was is that we took into account, in a preferential manner your race, superficial appearance, your ethnic background, your sexuality, your gender, etc.   And that was a wonderful thing because the country had been founded by white males. The Founding Fathers were all white males. And ninety-five percent were white males. And you know how bad the country is now. So why don’t we, kind of, reverse the process. And let other people have preferences to make up for systemic bias and racism? So we want more DEI. That’s what we’re going to do if you elect us.  Now, there’s been a lot of attack on government, DOGE, etc. But whatever you say about the fraud in Minnesota or the fraud in California or the fraud in Chicago, notice that a lot of the people who are allegedly committing it are people of color.   So this is a Right-wing racist campaign.   But more importantly, even if it wasn’t DEI, what is so wrong with taking government money from wealthy people, taxing it, and then spreading it around? Do we really care if somebody is on electronic banking transfer or food stamp card and he has two or three of them? He’s in need. He’s not a billionaire like Ken Griffin.  Here’s what I’m getting at. They don’t take the Biden record or the Obama record and defend it. They don’t give specific anecdotes to the Republicans, so that they can win.   So what do they do? When you listen to these debates, you look at these congressional races, they say the following. Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump. We are not Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a Nazi. No, he’s a fascist. No, he’s an Epstein molester. No, he’s a pedophile. No, he’s a rapist. No, he’s a terrorist. That’s about all they have. And to the degree they do get specific, they call people fascists and Nazis.  Why do they do that? They do that because they know the agenda was not popular with the American people. And so their agenda is not going to be defended. And they know that Donald Trump is a counterrevolutionary. He’s doing things that are shaking up the United States that we haven’t seen in 100 years. And that offends a lot of entrenched interests. And so they think by just saying Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, fascist, fascist, Nazi, they can get that message across.  More importantly, they do one other thing, one other thing in these elections. They talk about changing the system. Not working within it when they’re out of power.   When they lose power, the Left, they say, the system, not us, lost our power. So if we get back in power, we’re gonna start lawfare again, just like the five civil and criminal cases that went after Donald Trump.   You know what else we’re gonna do? We’re gonna pack the court. We’re gonna get 15 justices to nullify the, since 1869, nine-justice court.   We’re gonna get rid of the Electoral College through the National Popular Vote Compact. We’re gonna let in Puerto Rico. We’re gonna let in D.C. as states. We’re gonna get four senators, as well. We’re gonna get rid of the 180-200-year Senate filibuster. That’s what they talk about.  They talk about changing the system because within the system they’re not successful.   So we have not heard agendas that are positive, that counter the Republican agenda. This is not the party of JFK or Bill Clinton. This is something very different. This is a revolutionary socialist agenda that wants to change fundamentally the United States. It’s what Barack Obama said he wanted to do. But he didn’t, yet, have the power to do so. And now they want to reify that radical socialist agenda.  And the only way they can do it is by demonizing other people and calling them names or changing the system. Otherwise, they’d have to have a positive agenda, and that would be equivalent with defeat.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Despite Gov. Gavin Newsom expanding Medi-Cal to record levels, community hospitals across California have been closing pediatric inpatient units, according to a new report from Defend Forgotten America. Since Newsom took office, total Medi-Cal spending has roughly doubled and is now approaching $200 billion annually. Yet multiple community hospitals have eliminated their inpatient pediatric departments in recent years. In March 2026 alone, Providence Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital closed its pediatric unit, and UCI Health shut down pediatric services, including its pediatric intensive care unit, at Fountain Valley Regional Hospital. Similar closures occurred at Los Robles Health System in 2025 and Adventist Health White Memorial late last year. As Medi-Cal covers about half of California’s children, the report argues that these closures are leaving families in several regions without local inpatient care for children. The report was first obtained by the Daily Signal. “Children’s inpatient care is foundational to a functioning healthcare system. California’s current trajectory reflects a failure of leadership and prioritization. Expanding coverage without ensuring access to care is not a success; it is a systemic failure,” the report states. “The true measure of healthcare policy is not how many individuals are enrolled in a program, but whether care is available when needed,” the report adds. “Right now, in California, that standard is not being met.” According to the report, the closures, particularly in Northern and Central California, have created major access problems. Families now face multi-hour ambulance transfers, longer emergency department boarding times, greater concentration of care in overburdened regional children’s hospitals, and reduced surge capacity during respiratory illness seasons. The report also points to emergency department congestion, noting that children often remain in emergency departments longer while awaiting transfer. This leads to increased clinical risk, higher provider burnout, and reduced emergency capacity for all patients. “As pediatric units close, specialists relocate to larger systems, leaving entire regions without adequate pediatric expertise,” the report states. “Once these workforce ecosystems collapse, they take years—if not decades—to rebuild.” But prior to the new reports of the state’s program failing in various ways, Medi-Cal had been under the media spotlight in recent years due to its expansions. Under Newsom’s Medi-Cal expansion, the program’s growth included full-scope coverage for undocumented immigrants, first for adults ages 19 to 25, then for those over 50 in 2022, and for those ages 26 to 49 by 2024. The expansions increased the number of Medi-Cal enrollees and shifted more of the financial burden onto the state, as coverage for undocumented immigrants is funded entirely by California. However, the report states that Medi-Cal reimbursement rates for inpatient pediatric care did not keep pace with the growth in enrollment. Medi-Cal reimbursement rates for hospital services have long been a point of tension in California, with hospitals criticizing them as falling short of the actual cost of providing care. According to the California Hospital Association, Medi-Cal reimburses hospitals roughly 80 cents for every dollar spent on patient care. “The structural challenge is clear: Policymakers expanded coverage without adequately ensuring the healthcare system could sustainably deliver care,” the report states. The key failures, according to Defend Forgotten America, include the failure to align pediatric inpatient rates with post-pandemic labor costs, the lack of meaningful pediatric-specific stabilization funding, the absence of a rural pediatric preservation strategy, and the lack of enforceable transparency around pediatric unit closures. “When state leadership dismisses pediatric closures as ‘local operational decisions,’ it deflects responsibility from the policies that created the crisis,” Defend Forgotten America states. “Hospitals do not set reimbursement policy—the state does.” The report recommends several steps to address the issue. These include aligning pediatric inpatient reimbursement rates with actual costs, creating a pediatric infrastructure stabilization fund, expanding workforce incentives for rural areas, requiring advance notice and community impact assessments before closures, and conducting a statewide pediatric capacity audit. Newsom’s office did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

After vanquishing multiple Republicans in primaries for having crossed him in the past, President Donald Trump is still as dominant as ever with his party’s electoral base. But are his battles with incumbent Republicans costing him power on Capitol Hill? Trump is on a hot streak with primary challenges. Last weekend, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, placed third in the Senate primary, with Trump-backed challenger Rep. Julia Letlow advancing to the runoff round. On Tuesday, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., a libertarian-leaning House rebel who has defied Trump on key votes, lost by nearly ten points to the Trump-endorsed Ed Gallrein. Massie has been in the House since 2012. But Trump didn’t stop there. On Wednesday, he endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to take the Senate seat of incumbent Republican Sen. John Cornyn, paving the way for the die-hard Trump loyalist to become the Republican nominee after the May 26 runoff. By targeting multiple incumbent senators from his own party, Trump is engaging in a style of politics unheard of since 1938, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt supported multiple challengers against senators in a bid to reshape the Senate. However, it was also a week of trouble on Capitol Hill, where the Republican-controlled Congress defied the president. On Tuesday, shortly after losing his primary, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., voted to advance a resolution to restrain the president’s power to use military force against Iran.  The resolution advanced 50-47, with four Republicans voting for it: Cassidy, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine. Additionally, Congress failed to advance a party-line budget reconciliation bill which would have injected funds into border security.  Instead, the Senate broke for recess until June, as Republicans were divided over whether to support funding for security at the White House’s East Wing, where the president is attempting to build a ballroom. Again, Cassidy played a role in this debate, refusing to support the funding.  “I think this is a spit-in-the-eye insult to all my taxpayers in Louisiana to spend a billion on a ballroom when we should be doing something about the high price of gas, groceries and health care,” he said Tuesday. He was not the only member of the Senate’s growing retirement caucus to be in opposition. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who announced his retirement in July shortly after the president called for a Republican to challenge him in his primary, has been a staunch opponent of the funding. “I’ve got a lot of questions that need to be answered,” Tillis told NOTUS of the funding. “If I’m in the Democratic marketing department, I’m probably thinking of a lot of ways I would use this to target senators that vote for it,” said Tillis, who added he thought “the timing and optics are really bad.” Republicans were also unable to settle disagreements on the Department of Justice’s announcement of “anti-weaponization fund” as part of a settlement agreement in Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The $1.776 billion fund is meant to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare,” per the DOJ. Tillis and Cassidy were opposed. “I think it’s stupid on stilts,” said Tillis. “People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” said Cassidy. Trump has defended the fund, writing on Truth Social that he is forgoing money he could have received from the settlement. “Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden administration, receive, at long last, Justice!” he wrote. Republicans, unable to settle disagreements, decided not to hold any vote on their ambitious budget bill at all.  GOP Senator Thom Tillis on Trump’s proposed “Anti-Weaponization” fund: “I think it’s stupid on stilts. When you take money from me to give to a purpose I vehemently disagree with, that’s tyranny.” pic.twitter.com/PLa2vvxzDN— TheBlaze (@theblaze) May 21, 2026 The House likewise went into recess, avoiding a vote on whether to restrain the president’s military power in Iran. The growing flock of Republican lame ducks in the Senate defying the president could be a problem for the president going forward, given Republicans’ already slim majority. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., asked if the budget flop was related to Trump’s targeting of incumbents, replied, “I think it’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us.” On Friday, Trump lashed out at Tillis, whom he called a “weak and ineffective Senator,” but argued the Republican party will have a new start with the senator and his ilk gone. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO [Republican in name only] friends, screwing the Republican Party,” said Trump. “In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!!!” Related PostsTrump Endorses Paxton in Texas Senate RacePresident Donald Trump weighed in Tuesday on the Texas Republican Senate primary runoff, backing the state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton over Sen. John Cornyn. “Ken is a true MAGA Warrior who has ALWAYS delivered for Texas, and will continue to do so in the United States Senate,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday. He…Senate Tussles Over Ballroom Security FundingA Senate referee struck funding for security at the White House’s East Wing from a Republican budget bill on Saturday, in what Democrats are celebrating as a blow to President Donald Trump’s ballroom ambitions. Republicans, however, argue that the security funding is unrelated to the White House ballroom and will soon be restored. Republicans are…Massie Loses Primary to Trump-Backed Challenger GallreinRepublican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky lost to a primary challenger backed by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, denying the libertarian rebel an eighth term in Congress and reaffirming the president’s dominance of the Republican Party. The Associated Press declared Ed Gallrein the victor shortly before 8 p.m. when he held an almost eight-point lead…

A Maryland murder case involves a suspect ruled not competent to stand trial and a civil negligence lawsuit against a suburban Washington, D.C., senior living center that asserts the crime could have been prevented. Robert Gorham Fuller Jr., 87, was shot and killed on Feb. 14 at Cogir of Potomac in Potomac, Maryland. Fuller was a retired Navy Reserve officer, an attorney, and a millionaire philanthropist in Augusta, Maine, largely responsible for funding a new hospital, a new YMCA center, and the expansion of a high school there, according to news reports. He had reportedly moved to Maryland to be closer to family members. Last week, a Maryland judge determined the suspect, Maurquise Emillo James, 22, was not competent to stand trial in the case. James was also charged in February with attempted first-degree murder for shooting at a state trooper in a traffic stop in Baltimore. Police believed the same gun was used in the Fuller shooting after recovering one of the bullet casings, Montgomery Community Media reported. The judge ordered that James be placed in a psychiatric facility under the Maryland Department of Health until his next evaluation on Nov. 9, WTOP News reported. Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Karla Smith said, based on his evaluation, “James at this point is not competent to proceed to trial.” The judge determined he “presents a danger to himself, to others, to the property of others. And based on that, the court will have him committed to work on competency.” After the Fuller shooting and before the incident with the police officer, James reportedly continued working at the senior facility for several days. The Montgomery County Attorney’s Office, which oversees prosecutions in the area, did not respond to the Daily Signal for this story by the time of publication. A charging document said James administered Fuller’s medication to him the night before the killing, which police allege James committed, the Baltimore Sun reported. A nurse at Cogir Potomac warned the senior living center in a written complaint 11 days before the homicide about unusual behavior by James, according to a negligence lawsuit filed by Linda Buttrick, who lived with Fuller. The nurse was not identified by name in the lawsuit filed in Baltimore County Circuit Court on March 19. But the lawsuit said another employee made similar verbal warnings about James. The case was filed in Baltimore County, because Cogir operates in Baltimore and James lives there. Buttrick’s attorney, Michael Belsky, said at this point he and his client are just waiting for a response from the defendants. “We are continuing to move forward with the civil case and investigate the matter,” Belsky told The Daily Signal. The facility in Maryland referred the Daily Signal to Cogir spokeswoman Heidi Brashear, with the Arizona-based parent corporation. Brashear did not respond to the Daily Signal for this story by publication time. However, a spokesperson for the company told the Portland Press Herald that the well-being of residents is the company’s highest priority. The Cogir spokesperson added, “We take all concerns raised by staff, residents and residents’ families seriously, and have clear processes to ensure every report is thoroughly reviewed and addressed.” The lawsuit alleges the death was “entirely preventable,” and also names James as a defendant. The lawsuit says that James’s mother is Cogir Health and Wellness Director Shenise James-Dubose. The civil complaint says that Buttrick identified James as a suspect in the Fuller murder. According to the lawsuit, James continued to enter her apartment after the death of Fuller to dispense medication to Buttrick, the Portland Press Herald reported. “Ms. Buttrick, a woman with Parkinson’s disease who had just discovered her partner’s body, was required to receive medications from the hands of the man she had identified to police as a suspect, alone in her home, which was still a crime scene, with zero protection and no recourse,” the lawsuit says.