Where did we come from? What are we made for? These two questions cut to the core of what it means to be a human person. We instinctively desire to know the answers to the deepest questions about our existence. Despite meaningless doomscrolling or gossiping, we ultimately desire to know where we came from and what we are made for. On May 31, the Catholic Church celebrates the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity. This formal name and feast can sound outdated and irrelevant to our ordinary lives. However, nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the feast holds the answers to our questions about where we come from and what we are made for. God is the ground of our existence. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, God is “ipsum esse subsistens,” Being Itself. His nature is to exist. God is the only absolutely necessary being, for God did not exist, nothing would exist. Abstract—or even dated—as this all might sound, contemporary evidence for God’s existence continues to grow. Whether that is the argument from causality (something cannot come from nothing), the argument from morality (if there is no God, there is no absolute right or wrong), or the growing field of intelligent design (the world’s order implies an Intelligence who formed it), the story of where we came from is found in God. We were made by God, and we were made for God. But who is God? The celebration of the Most Holy Trinity helps us to understand who God is. One of the central claims of the Christian faith is that there is one God, yet that God is three persons. To be clear: Christians do not believe in three gods but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share in the one divine nature. God is Father. He is creator. God is Son. He is savior. God is Holy Spirit. He is ever-present and with us. St. Augustine famously depicted the Trinity in several ways in his work “Dei Trinitate,” and these can help deepen our understanding of God. He said that God is the lover (the Father), the beloved (the Son), and the love they share (the Holy Spirit). The love between the Father and the Son is so powerful that it is its own divine person. Augustine also depicted the Trinity through the image of human intellect. He wrote that there is a kind of trinity that “exists in man, who is the image of God.” Augustine explained that in man’s mind is “the mind, and the knowledge wherewith the mind knows itself, and the love wherewith it loves both itself and its own knowledge; and these three are shown to be mutually equal, and of one essence.” There is one essence (the intellect) and three equal aspects which are intrinsically connected and necessary in order for it to be the intellect. All of the above words on the Trinity can allow us a glimpse into the reality of God. At the same time, we must always remember that nothing we can say about God can come close to defining Him. In his “Commentary on Boethius’ De Trinitate,” Aquinas explains this truth by noting that “the ultimate consummation of human knowledge of God is to know that we do not know God, inasmuch as we realize that what He is transcends all that we can conceive.” Before the grandeur of God, we are not called to completely understand Him but to be immersed in His love and to become like Him: wrapped up in communion. For this reason, the Greek word for faith (pistis) means trusting reliance on the other. Faith is intrinsically relational, and the human being was made for relationship. That is why the most important aspects of one’s life are our friendships. On this celebration of God’s identity (who is perfect relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) may we focus on our friendship with Him and have that drive our love for those we are closest to. Because that is what we were made for. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Winston Churchill made 16 visits to America in his lifetime. He traveled here as a soldier, a tourist, and a lecturer, but his winter visit to America in 1941 as a wartime leader was perhaps his most important. The story of that trip—and the speech he delivered to a joint session of Congress the day after Christmas—is worth telling. It revealed Churchill’s status not just as a statesman but as a salesman too. The day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Churchill, who’d just turned 67, packed his bags and headed for America. It would be the most important sales trip of his life—and one of the most important sales of the 20th century. The stakes could not have been higher. “With the fall of France, Britain stood alone, decisively inferior in military power to the Nazis,” said Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College and author of “Churchill’s Trial.” “The only thing that could save it was the English Channel—and entry into the war by the United States.” Few understood that stark reality better than Churchill. It was why he was on a boat crossing the Atlantic after one of America’s darkest days. His plan: strengthen relations with President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress and the American public—and prepare them for the exigencies of war. It was a 10-day trip through cold, storm-tossed seas. And a dangerous one too: U-boats filled the Atlantic. There were serious concerns about Churchill’s safety, but he wasn’t deterred. This was work that couldn’t be done by phone. Churchill’s boat docked in Norfolk, Virginia, two weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack. He flew to Washington, D.C., where Roosevelt greeted him. Churchill spent the next few days at the White House as a house guest, talking, drinking, joking, and smoking—and keeping Roosevelt up late into the night. “It was astonishing to me that anyone could smoke so much and drink so much and keep perfectly well,” Eleanor Roosevelt said of the prime minister. Having successfully bonded with Roosevelt, and having mapped out some important wartime planning, Churchill moved to an equally important objective: bonding with Congress and the American public and selling them on the importance—the inevitability—of combining America and British forces to combat the Axis powers. For days, Churchill worked on his speech. It would become, once spoken, one of his masterpieces. Here’s how it began: “The fact that my American forebears have for so many generations played their part in the life of the United States, and that here I am, an Englishman, welcomed in your midst, makes this experience one of the most moving and thrilling in my life, which is already long and has not been entirely uneventful. I wish indeed that my mother, whose memory I cherish, across the vale of years, could have been here to see.” Churchill then made clear that our countries were connected by more than a common language. “I may confess that I do not feel quite like a fish out of water in a legislative assembly where English is spoken. I am a child of the House of Commons. I was brought up in my father’s house to believe in democracy. ‘Trust the people.’ That was his message. Therefore, I have been in full harmony all my life with the tides which have flowed on both sides of the Atlantic against privilege and monopoly, and I have steered confidently towards the Gettysburg ideal of government of the people, by the people, for the people.” He then addressed America’s greater angels, more certain about the true character of our nation than many of our leaders are today. “I should like to say first of all how much I have been impressed and encouraged by the breadth of view and sense of proportion which I have found in all quarters over here to which I have had access. Anyone who did not understand the size and solidarity of the foundations of the United States might easily have expected to find an excited, disturbed, [self-centered] atmosphere, with all minds fixed upon the novel, startling, and painful episodes of sudden war as they hit America. After all, the United States have been attacked and set upon by three most powerfully armed dictator states, the greatest military power in Europe, the greatest military power in Asia—Japan, Germany, and Italy have all declared and are making war upon you, and the quarrel is opened which can only end in their overthrow or yours. But here in Washington in these memorable days I have found an Olympian fortitude which, far from being based upon complacency, is only the mask of an inflexible purpose and the proof of a sure, well-grounded confidence in the final outcome.” The speech then took a tough turn as Churchill walked Americans through the difficulty of the task ahead. And the nature of our enemies. “The forces ranged against us are enormous. They are bitter, they are ruthless. The wicked men and their factions, who have launched their peoples on the path of war and conquest, know that they will be called to terrible account if they cannot beat down by force of arms the peoples they have assailed. They will stop at nothing. They have a vast accumulation of war weapons of all kinds. They have highly trained and disciplined armies, navies, and air services. They have plans and designs which have long been contrived and matured. They will stop at nothing that violence or treachery can suggest. It is quite true that on our side our resources in manpower and materials are far greater than theirs. But only a portion of your resources are as yet mobilized and developed, and we both of us have much to learn in the cruel art of war. We have therefore, without doubt, a time of tribulation before us. In this same time, some ground will be lost which it will be hard and costly to regain. Many disappointments and unpleasant surprises await us. Many of them will afflict us before the full marshaling of our latent and total power can be accomplished.” Churchill then spoke of the brutal path forward, invoking Scripture in this part of the speech. He understood the battle ahead wasn’t merely physical and material; it was a spiritual battle too, and he wasn’t afraid to define it in those terms. “Some people may be startled or momentarily depressed when, like your president, I speak of a long and a hard war. Our peoples would rather know the truth, somber though it be. And after all, when we are doing the noblest work in the world, not only defending our hearths and homes but the cause of freedom in every land, the question of whether deliverance comes in 1942 or 1943 or 1944 falls into its proper place in the grand proportions of human history. Sure I am that this day, now, we are the masters of our fate. That the task which has been set us is not above our strength. That its pangs and toils are not beyond our endurance. As long as we have faith in our cause, and an unconquerable willpower, salvation will not be denied us.” Churchill closed out his speech by invoking the spiritual dimension of the battle one last time, and the unique relationship that two great allies—England and America—shared: “If you will allow me to use other language, I will say that he must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below, of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants. It is not given to us to peer into the mysteries of the future. Still, I avow my hope and faith, sure and inviolate, that in the days to come the British and American peoples will, for their own safety and for the good of all, walk together in majesty, in justice and in peace.” The crowd in the chamber roared with applause. Churchill responded by flashing the V-for-victory sign that would become his signature gesture. “Study history, study history. In history lie all of the secrets of statecraft,” Churchill once told a student who asked a question about the subject, according to historian Andrew Roberts, author of “Churchill: Walking With Destiny.” Churchill’s statecraft—and salesmanship—were on display days after the speech to Congress. On New Year’s Day, he visited Mount Vernon to lay a wreath on the tomb of our nation’s first president and one of our greatest soldiers: George Washington. He also met with diplomats from several Allied countries to sign a joint declaration to fight the Axis powers. None, they agreed, would negotiate a separate peace. On January 14, 1942, after nearly a month away from home, Churchill left for war-torn London. “His visit to the United States has marked a turning point of the war,” a London Times editorial said upon Churchill’s return. “It would take the New World, the United States, to come to the rescue of the Old,” the late Churchill biographer Sir Martin Gilbert told an audience at Hillsdale College in 2006. “And emerge as the defenders of freedom.” Few could better understand Gilbert’s words—spoken a half-century after the prime minister’s 1941 Christmastime speech to Congress—than Churchill himself. Originally published in Newsweek We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The following is a lightly edited transcript of a speech delivered on May 28, 2026, at the “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” Reenactment at The Heritage Foundation. Britain’s seven year war with France came at a great cost. Its consequences would alter the world. England accumulated a substantial amount of debt throughout the war. Parliament began to look to the American colonies, long used to governing themselves, as a solution to its problem. It imposed the Sugar and Stamp Acts of 1764 and 1765 to raise revenue from their “subjects.” The Americans found the Stamp Act particularly grating. Not only was Parliament introducing taxation without representation, but colonial forms of communication—newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, and other documents—would need stamps to circulate. While the stamps were of little financial cost, they impeded freedom of speech and deliberation, beliefs and practices central to the American character—a character fit for citizenship, not subjugation. The back-and-forth between the colonies and Great Britain continued: with moves and countermoves, rising rhetoric, and emerging patriots. Tensions grew following the Boston Massacre of 1770, when British troops fired on a group of protesters, wounding 11 and killing five. In the final month of 1773, the Sons of Liberty dumped tea into the frigid waters of the Boston Harbor. With the Intolerable Acts, Parliament closed the port of Boston, infested Boston’s streets with British troops and forced their quartering, and replaced elected officials with ones appointed by the royal governor. American principles—freedom of speech, of representation, of consent—were being violated. And Paul Revere was at the ready. The Boston native rode for five days from Massachusetts to Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia. In his hands was the response to the Intolerable Acts, the Suffolk Resolves. With him, he carried a question: Would the other colonies join Massachusetts against Great Britain? Was an attack on one part an attack on the whole? Other localities had passed resolutions against Parliament, but perhaps none were as substantive as the Suffolk Resolves. The people of Massachusetts urged their fellow colonists to form local militias and boycott British goods. But more than that, they contended that Parliament had committed “gross Infractions of those Rights to which we are justly entitled by the Laws of Nature, the British Constitution, and the Charter of the Province.” The ongoing dispute was not about mere manmade laws or the rights of Englishmen, but about natural law and the inalienable rights of mankind. On Sept. 17, a day that now lives in our memory as Constitution Day, the first Continental Congress unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves. In 1774, George Washington, Patrick Henry, John Adams, and Sam Adams were there, uniting Virginia and Massachusetts in Pennsylvania. That brings us to Virginia. Many of the ideas of the Revolution spread through churches to the 70% to 80% of colonists who attended services on a regular basis. (The religious revival known as the Great Awakening had swept through America in the 1730s and 1740s, and the most referenced work of the Founding generation was the Bible.) On March 20, 1775, a month before Lexington and Concord, the Second Virginia Convention gathered in St. John’s Church in Richmond. Its main objective was to elect delegates to the Second Continental Congress. The course of that weeklong convention would further solidify America’s principles. Not to be out spirited by those Massachusetts Puritans, Anglican Patrick Henry introduced resolutions to form a Virginia militia. But that was not the only point of commonality between the Suffolk Resolves and Henry’s endeavors. By 1775, the question of Revolution was upon America. The Declaration of Independence describes the revolutionary act not simply as a right, but as a duty. A duty to whom? The Suffolk Resolves provides the answer: “[I]t is an indispensable Duty which we owe to GOD, our Country, Ourselves and Posterity, by all lawful Ways and Means in our Power, to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious Rights and Liberties for which many of our Fathers fought—bled—and died; and to hand them down entire to future Generations.” Knowing the same, Virginia’s orator spoke “freely and without reserve,” a “responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” The Declaration of Independence was indeed an expression of the American mind, threading itself through Suffolk County, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Richmond, Virginia. It carries itself forward on the hearts of today’s citizens: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

The recent Trump-Xi summit in Beijing featured grand ceremonies, red-carpet pomp, and diplomatic flair, but it produced no major breakthroughs. This has allowed some media and analysts to promote distorted narratives about U.S.-China relations, the Iran conflict, and global power dynamics. Here is a clear-eyed debunking of the three most misleading myths. Myth 1: The Iran War Weakened the US and Trump Sought China’s Help Critics claim the conflict bogged down U.S. forces, depleted munitions needed for a Taiwan contingency, kept the Strait of Hormuz closed, and drove up American gas prices, while China’s strategic reserves and green energy push supposedly insulated it and even strengthened its geopolitical leverage. President Donald Trump’s conciliatory language toward Chinese leader Xi Jinping is cited as evidence of a weakened president seeking China’s help. The U.S. has faced real costs, including higher energy prices fueling inflation. But it is misleading to ignore the war’s heavier impact on China. Despite its green energy investments, China remains the world’s largest oil importer, with consumption still rising. Most of its crude comes from the Middle East via the Strait of Hormuz. Since the start of the year, the Trump administration’s actions, including the removal of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and military operations with Israel against Iran, have limited Beijing’s access to discounted crude oil from key sources. Consequently, rising oil and gas prices have significantly impacted China’s manufacturing economy, slowing exports, triggering factory closures, and weakening consumer spending. It is reasonable to conclude that the Iran conflict has harmed China more than the U.S. This explains why China pressed Iran to reopen the Straits of Hormuz “as soon as possible” before the Trump-Xi summit. The war also showcased American military superiority while exposing failures in China-linked equipment. Just days before the summit, former defense Ministers Wei Fenghe and Li Shangfu received suspended death sentences for bribery and corruption—a stark sign of Xi’s lack of confidence in the People’s Liberation Army’s fighting ability and loyalty. Trump’s flattering rhetoric toward Xi follows his first-term pattern: personal compliments paired with tough action. Back then, Trump praised Xi while launching trade wars against China and shutting down the Chinese consulate in Houston. Last week, while Trump was making flattering remarks to Xi, the U.S. took significant steps against Chinese agents: Arcadia, California, Mayor Eileen Wang agreed to plead guilty to acting as an illegal agent for China, and Lu Jianwang was convicted in New York for running a covert Chinese “police station.” Before leaving Beijing, the U.S. delegation discarded Chinese-issued items, including badges, credentials, souvenirs, gift bags, and especially burner phones, into a trash bin at the foot of Air Force One. The directive was clear: Nothing of Chinese origin was permitted on the plane. This precaution was necessary to guard against potential hacking or tracking by Chinese operatives, especially considering that China is ranked as the most active and daring state actor in cyber espionage. These developments show that rhetoric is theater. President Trump and his team recognize China as a serious adversary and are prepared to meet this challenge head-on. Myth 2: China Is a Rising Power, the US Is Declining Xi referenced the “Thucydides Trap” (a concept popularized by Harvard professor Graham Allison) in remarks, evoking ancient Athens vs. Sparta to imply a declining America that is fearful of a rising China could potentially lead to conflict, especially over Taiwan. This framing ignores China’s mounting internal crises under Xi: a collapsing property market, crushing local government debt, a self-inflicted demographic disaster from the one-child policy, high youth unemployment, and a surveillance state that stifles innovation. While China leads in electric vehicles, solar, and some AI hardware, these gains have not offset the drags from the rest of the economy. All of these suggest China is in a structural decline more than inexorable rise. Xi’s historical analogy is also ironic: Athens was a democracy; China is an authoritarian one-party state. The U.S. retains clear advantages in energy independence, dynamic innovation, free markets, and the rule of law. Trump arrived in Beijing with roughly 17 CEOs whose companies represented a combined market capitalization of approximately $16 trillion—larger than many countries’ entire GDP. That is a powerful demonstration of American economic strength. Xi’s reception of Trump further undercuts his own “America is declining” narrative. Xi often treats leaders of perceived weaker powers as subordinates—see the recent diplomatic humiliation of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Trump, by contrast, received full state honors, including a rare personal tour of the secretive Zhongnanhai leadership compound. One Chinese netizen commented on X: “In fact, Chinese people should be grateful to Trump. If it weren’t for his visit to China, ordinary Chinese people would never have known what the Zhongnanhai looks like in their lifetime! You can’t even get into Xinhua Gate.” It seems that Xi’s flattering of Trump might have backfired. Myth 3: The Summit Was a Failure Because There Were No Major Breakthroughs Although Trump mentioned the potential Chinese purchases of Boeing aircraft and U.S. soybeans, the highly anticipated summit ended with no major breakthrough. Critics called the summit a failure due to the absence of sweeping deals on trade, Iran, Taiwan, or technology. Furthermore, no major announcements meant no unwise concessions on core U.S. interests. During the summit, Xi warned Trump that mishandling Taiwan could create “an extremely dangerous situation.” Yet neither Xi’s flattery nor threats altered the U.S. official position on Taiwan. Xi’s emphasis on Taiwan may even have backfired. On the flight home, Trump said he would speak with Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te before deciding on a major arms sale package. A direct presidential call between the U.S. and Taiwan has been unprecedented since 1979, and would itself anger Xi. The recent summit between Trump and Xi illustrates how great-power diplomacy functions: surface-level flattery and spectacle masking underlying firmness and vigilance. Narratives of American decline and Chinese inevitability overlook concrete actions the Trump administration has taken, including energy leverage and enforcement against espionage, as well as Beijing’s serious domestic constraints. Given China’s track record of signing agreements it later fails to honor (as with the Phase One trade deal), tempered expectations, consistent pressure, and realistic engagement remain the wisest approach for long-term U.S. strategic success. Originally published by Confucius Never Said We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

GOP members in Congress are joining TikTok after years of speaking out against the app and are going viral. Following in the footsteps of Democrat lawmakers who have been on the app for years, Republican lawmakers are gaining millions of views and reaching the younger generation of voters. Last year, TikTok, the social media platform known for its short-form video content and addictive algorithm, was at the center of a data privacy concern. The platform was created and founded by a Chinese technology company, ByteDance, with links to the Chinese Communist Party. Many in the Republican Party were concerned the CCP had access to billions of Americans’ personal data. The Trump administration, along with conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation, saw this as an immediate threat. In 2025, Congress voted to force the sale of the company, which was finalized in January 2026. ByteDance sold 80% of the American app to TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, where Oracle owns the largest stake, at 15%. However, ByteDance still controls roughly 20%. “We shouldn’t underestimate [TikTok] as a tool for election [interference.] ByteDance has a vested interest in countless races across this country because their company is on the line.” – @RealJDenton This is your daily reminder to delete TikTok. pic.twitter.com/nfrR4vmSCX— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) February 2, 2024 Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., joined the app just a few weeks ago and has gained more than 500,000 followers, quickly surpassing Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who has gained about 21,000 followers since joining in February. Clips of Kennedy and his quippy comedy often went viral on the app, so now he has his own account to collect them. “I’ve seen videos of where other people have recorded what I’ve said on TikTok. … So now I have a TikTok account. I just want to use it to tell you a little bit about me, to the extent that you care, and tell you a little bit about what it’s like to be a United States Senator,” Kennedy said in one video posted to the app. “My staff keeps telling me to make videos, [to] ‘just be normal,’ and I tell them, ‘Hell, nobody’s normal in the United States Senate.’ In fact, the United States Senate only works when everybody isn’t crazy at the same time,” Kennedy said in another. Listen some people gripe that Senator Kennedy doesn’t do enough to get the agenda we want passed. Maybe that is true. Is it wrong that I am grateful he isn’t living high on the hog, insider trading&lining his pockets with lobbyist money? I appreciate him&his humor pic.twitter.com/9zyL9v367C— Michelle Maxwell (@MichelleMaxwell) May 28, 2026 While most members use their accounts to repost news clips, Kennedy and his staff have found what really works on the video app: real, raw, original content. Just this week, he posted a video about his home decor and workout elliptical, which he named “Margaret,” after former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, because they both “kick butt and take names.” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., has also found his niche on TikTok. He often films daily videos explaining policy or a vote that just took place while he walks around the Capitol. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, has a combined following of more than 400,000, where he often shares viral clips from congressional hearings and content with his family back in his district. Another House member on the rise on the platform is Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, who joined in January after the sale was finalized. The White House, President Donald Trump, and Vice President JD Vance have been on the app since August 2025 and have millions of followers. Former Vice President Kamala Harris launched an account during her campaign, quickly gaining millions of young followers. Democrat lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Elizabeth Warren also do well on the app. I’m voting NO on the TikTok forced sale bill.This bill was incredibly rushed, from committee to vote in 4 days, with little explanation.There are serious antitrust and privacy questions here, and any national security concerns should be laid out to the public prior to a vote.— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 13, 2024 The average TikTok user is age 18-34, a highly sought-after voter demographic. With campaign season upon us and midterm elections right around the corner, it’s no wonder that so many politicians are using the platform.