Welcome to the first in our series, Landmark Speeches in American History. Over the next several months, we will celebrate America’s 250th anniversary with articles by prominent authors about how some of the greatest speeches in our history—by celebrated orators like Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr.—honored the vision of our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. George Washington’s Farewell Address is, in effect, the culmination and fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence. Washington had been commander in chief of the Continental Army on July 4, 1776, when Congress declared the grounds for American independence. He was commander in chief again when he circulated his Farewell Address in the autumn of 1796—but he was more than that, too. He was the president of a new republic born under arms yet now living free under a constitution citizens had made for themselves. The declaration had risked all—“our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor,” as the document says—on the wager that Americans could not only win their freedom but also keep and use it wisely. To do that required a new form of government led by a statesman of superlative virtue. The United States had such a man in Washington. He had taken the great Roman commander Cincinnatus as his example by retiring to private life after winning the war. As he prepared to retire a second and final time after two terms as president, Washington considered it his duty to teach his countrymen how to preserve their republic and live up to its promise. Yet the nation was bitterly divided in 1796 as it faced its first contested presidential election. Europe was at war, and America was very nearly so, divided between factions sympathetic to Britain or revolutionary France. Washington had controversially issued a neutrality proclamation on his own authority as president, an act Thomas Jefferson and James Madison considered unconstitutional and a betrayal of our treaty of alliance with France. Alexander Hamilton argued we had no treaty with regicide France: our treaty had been with a monarchical regime now overthrown. Washington was outraged at attempts by French agents and “self-created societies” of Americans to draw the country into the war on France’s side. Jefferson believed Americans had to support the revolution across the Atlantic, for its principles were the same as those of our revolution—against kings and for the rights of man. The stirrings of America’s first political party were being felt in the popular movement Jefferson led. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton feared the rise of an American Jacobinism. Washington was not neutral, yet not partisan, either: he used his Farewell Address—drafted with some input from James Madison, but more from Hamilton—to express his judgment in terms all his countrymen might respect. He cautioned against allowing the Union to fracture: “The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people … is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize.” He warned against regional as well as partisan division, calling on citizens to “indignantly frown[] upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest.” He urged Americans to remember that “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.” Yet Washington did not presume that would be enough to safeguard the nation’s unity: “These considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest.” So, Washington made his case in terms of the self-interests that wedded the nation’s regions together, north to south and east to west. Washington was a man of deepest principle, but always a realist. His explanation of constitutional principles left no room for a “living Constitution”: Though Americans had a right to amend it, “the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” In words that should shame many activists of our own time, who resemble the radical “self-created societies” of Washington’s day, he condemned “All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations … with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities.” Such activity puts “in place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community.” Washington at times sounds like Edmund Burke, reflecting that “time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions” and “experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country,” in contrast to the instability arising from “the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion.” He also sounds like someone who has read Federalist 10 and does not entirely agree with Madison’s account of factions counteracting other factions. Madison compared faction to fire, which can burn destructively but without which there is no breath of life. Washington writes: “There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true” but “there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage” factionalism. “A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.” What a republic needs is not perpetual faction, but the salutary influence of religion. “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.” A good statesman must recognize this—“The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.” Nor is enlightened education an adequate substitute: “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in the exclusion of religious principle.” Washington reaffirms the principles behind his neutrality proclamation, commending his countrymen to “observe good faith and justice towards all Nations” and to avoid “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others”—timeless advice that was, however, also very timely in the context of American feelings toward Britain and revolutionary France. “The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave,” he warned. And with that French treaty perhaps in mind, he recommended, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” though existing obligations must be upheld.  His realism is apparent again in his assertion that “there can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.” Interest could never be ignored in foreign affairs, whether in trade or diplomacy. Yet love was at the very core of Washington’s understanding of what a citizen owed and should feel toward his own country—“that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man, who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations.” That was what Washington felt toward America as he bequeathed to posterity his presidential farewell.

On Sunday, May 17, I had the privilege of kicking off the Rededicate 250 gathering in Washington DC by declaring the following “America is not done with God and God is not done with America.  God is up to something. Hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered together, not for a protest or a political rally, but to pray. They gathered to give thanks and to rededicate this nation to the God who blessed it when it was founded. The media may not have seen it coming. The polls did not predict it. But people of faith showed up anyway. The idea that spirituality is dead in America is a misnomer. I don’t believe America is in a spiritual decline, but rather, that we are right on the precipice of awakening. We are seeing Generation Z turning to Jesus in record-breaking numbers. Bible sales continue to increase, and church attendance is rising.  But we shouldn’t be entirely surprised.  Young people are exhausted from doomscrolling. Celebrity culture is dying. I’ve talked to many members at my church who confirm that the vain pursuit of wealth is unfulfilling. When people reach these epiphanies, they begin to search elsewhere, and for something more wholesome and eternal.  This represents a spiritual hunger in this country that no government program can fill. Every day, more people are recognizing the simple truth that they have a soul to tend to, not just a body. While we are seeing hopelessness, despair, moral relativism, and spiritual apathy, underneath it all, a hunger for God is present. Hunger means life. You do not hunger for something that is already gone. As Americans undergo these personal paradigm shifts and softening hearts, they begin to realize that America was not founded on agnosticism, atheism, or as some sort of secular utopia. It was founded on a Judeo-Christian value system that cannot and will not be denied. In fact, the principal reason our founders fled Europe centuries ago was that they were tired of being told they had to worship a certain way. They wanted to express their faith freely, without the government telling them how to do it. And by God’s grace, that’s what they got. God over man and man over government is not a political platform; it is at the core of our great nation. Through genuine repentance, revival, and reformation, America is now rediscovering its roots. The number one battle in America today is not between the donkey and the elephant. The battle is between the serpent and the Lamb. Colossians 2:15 reminds us that the Lamb, Jesus Christ, already defeated the serpent. The most powerful spirit on this planet is not division. Not fear. Not darkness. The most powerful spirit in America is still the Holy Spirit.  That is not a talking point or an empty analogy. That is a track record. Every time this nation has faced its darkest hour, faith did not retreat. It advanced.  I have advised three presidents. I have led the Latino evangelical community for more than two decades. To have the reset this nation needs, we have to make the main thing the main thing. It begins with humility. Acknowledging that we have a sovereign God who created us. Then we must pursue righteousness and justice, truth and love. Seeking God’s Word changes everything.  This is not a religious sentiment. This is the only reset that has ever worked in American history. The founders would be optimistic if they could see America today. But they might also sound the alarm. They would be disappointed to see the discord, the chasm, the perpetual victimization that is consuming our culture today. They would loathe the dependency on a government that was never meant to be our savior.  But, still, they would look at what happened on that Mall on Sunday with hope. Because the America they built was always meant to be a nation that knelt before God, not before its own ambitions. Because there is still spiritual hunger in America. And where there is hunger, revival often follows. Every great awakening this nation has experienced did not begin with legislation, but in the hearts of ordinary people who decided that God was worth returning to. We are there again.  We can’t let this past Sunday be a memory. It ought to be a mandate. Because God is not done with America, and America is not done with God. This article was originally published by RealClearReligion and made available via RealClearWire. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

My inclination when learning about the proposed mega-utility company that would be created when NextEra Energy acquires Dominion Energy—and yes, that is what is proposed—was that this is the predictable growing distance from the consumer of companies that expand and merge and acquire in order to keep up with a federal regulating body that is way ahead of them. However, I try to talk to people who know a thing or two regarding issues like this, and so I reached out to Dr. Bonner Cohen. Dr. Cohen is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He earned his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D.—summa cum laude—from the University of Munich and is the author of two books, “The Green Wave: Environmentalism and Its Consequences” and “Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War,” and he takes my calls frequently. Attached is an MP3 of the conversation we had, which is transcribed here. It has been lightly edited for clarity: JOE THOMAS: Talk about the peril of a megalithic company. Their explanation is, oh, we have to merge because data centers. I’m getting a little weary of everything that happens in electricity these days being the fault of, or caused by, data centers. Am I wrong? BONNER COHEN: Data centers certainly provide an excuse in some cases, a reasonable explanation for some of what is going on. But what we have here, of course, is, as you pointed out, a mega-merger. Two very large utilities—Florida-based NextEra being even larger than Dominion—want to merge. If they’re allowed to do so, and, by the way, that’s not a done deal, this thing has to pass regulatory muster in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Florida. You can count on lawsuits—primarily from environmental groups—also being launched against this because even though NextEra and Dominion have paid proper homage to so-called green energy, both also have very strong commitments to natural gas. That is something that the environmental groups obviously oppose. They will take this to court. This thing isn’t going to happen overnight. What is true in the data center angle of it is that Northern Virginia is, of course, ground zero for data centers, not just in the United States, but actually around the world. These data centers do demand a lot of electricity, and electricity ultimately is going to have to be created on-site. We can’t have a system whereby data centers draw electricity away from residential and commercial customers. I think we are moving in that direction nationwide, irrespective of the proposed merger, simply because it’s going to be a necessity. There is also, I think, a very considerable chance that ultimately data centers may end up orbiting the planet—something Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are going to put a lot of intellectual property into—but there are engineering problems of a serious nature that need to be solved. That’s several years away at best. JOE THOMAS: The idea that it’s going to sap into the average Joe and his radio show’s electricity is really, if I understand it—and we’ve had this conversation a little bit on abstract, Bonner—because of these Green Agenda, Clean America of 2030 restrictive plans that have had Dominion. And I don’t know about NextEra, but Dominion certainly has been shuttering power plants and now trying to open new ones, and they keep facing headwinds on that. If data centers are tapping into my electricity, it’s because these groups, the green groups, have restricted that output. Am I wrong? BONNER COHEN: Oh, no, not at all, in fact. Data centers require electricity 24/7, 365. They cannot deal with any interruptions whatsoever. In the current climate, you get that kind of electricity from natural gas. You get it from coal-fired power plants, and where possible, you get it from nuclear. Currently, there’s no other source for that. JOE THOMAS: Bonner Cohen is on with CFACT, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Bonner, and I appreciate your time going into this Memorial Day weekend. Is there an upside to the fact that this megacompany will probably be based out of Florida? That’s where NextEra is right now—and that Florida is, let’s just say, “more evolved constitutionally” than Virginia is at this moment? BONNER COHEN: Yes, there’s certainly a much friendlier business climate—by the way, tax climate—in Florida than there is in Virginia. We say that with great regret, but that’s simply reality. If I were a Virginia-based employee of Dominion, I would have worries about future employment opportunities. I must leave the state with the company because it makes a lot more sense to have the employees in Florida than it does in Virginia, because things are simply cheaper there. The various regulations that are being imposed statewide in Virginia that raise the cost of employment are simply going to make Florida look more attractive. Yes, I think having the company based in Florida is simply better than having the company based in Virginia, which has emerged in the past couple of decades as certainly more blue than red, more hostile to entrepreneurship, and a less business-friendly climate than Florida. JOE THOMAS: So, Bonner, you were saying there are no other sources that can be that reliable. What about the data centers that say, hey, we’ll build our own? They all seem to be OK with this. I’ve talked to some industry groups that say, “We don’t have a problem building our own electric grid,” if you will, to feed just our needs and not bother the local utility at all—and, in some cases, generate power that can go back into the grid and actually strengthen it. Why aren’t we talking about that more? BONNER COHEN: Actually, we should be, because the Trump administration is pushing for this. They recognize that data centers—which are not the most architecturally beautiful things in the world; you don’t really want to live next door to one—are absolutely essential when it comes to American competitiveness in the latest iteration of the Industrial Revolution, which is AI development. We don’t have the choice of doing these things or not doing them. It’s a matter of how it is to be done. We put ourselves in a very disadvantageous position by shutting down so many coal-fired power plants, and the Biden administration was very eager to shut down as many natural gas-fired power plants as it could get away with. So developers now recognize that they’re going to have to produce this stuff on-site. The practice is called “behind the meter,” so that you’re not drawing electricity from other people. This can and will be done. Currently, there are 4,000 data centers in the United States, with another 3,000 pretty well along in the development process, though many are being challenged in court and what have you. But they are going to have to become self-sustaining with respect to energy. I think they have absolutely the financial wherewithal to make that possible. And so that’s going to make them less of a threat to energy security than is currently the case, simply because they’ll be producing their own power. JOE THOMAS: Well, you talk about security as well. I would rather have these data centers on American soil than, say, Russian or Chinese soil—because of our Bill of Rights, because there is an abstract ability to protect people’s privacy and that kind of thing in a data center that’s in the United States more so than there is one that’s in Beijing, certainly, Bonner? BONNER COHEN: Oh, certainly. We have something in the United States called the rule of law. Now, as we all know, it’s imperfect. We get judicial decisions with which we agree and judicial decisions with which we do not. But nevertheless, there’s a rule of law here. There is none in China. There is none in Russia. We also have a level of technological sophistication here that is superior to what you will find in Russia—and, by the way, also superior to what you’ll find in China. We can do things that they cannot do, and we can also do them with participation from the public—something that is not possible in China. Not all that participation here is desirable, because that also means endless lawsuits, but that’s the world in which we live. JOE THOMAS: Bonner, what is the peril to a Virginian, a Floridian, or anyone in the Carolinas of this merger blowing up our rates and making it even more expensive to get our electricity? BONNER COHEN: That isn’t necessarily going to be the case, provided that this new entity puts a focus on real energy—not wind, not solar, not batteries. In its infinite wisdom, the Virginia General Assembly just amended the Virginia Clean Energy Act to provide more battery storage. No energy is produced by battery storage. That’s making a utility put resources into something that does not really produce energy. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The 2024 presidential election autopsy, which the Democratic National Committee commissioned and was shamed into releasing this week, is absolutely pathetic. Even in releasing it, the DNC felt honor-bound to mark it up, noting that some of the claims run counter to real evidence. The DNC will doubtless move on from this shameful embarrassment, but the autopsy revealed something rather important: Democrats are still unwilling to seriously reconsider their worst political liability. The autopsy, written by Paul Rivera and not endorsed by the DNC, went on and on about bolstering political efforts on the local and state level, even in red states—advice Democrats would do well to consider. It suggested focusing on economic issues, another salient point. It also recommended reaching out to male voters. Yet the document tiptoes around the key reason why Americans are rejecting the Democratic Party. Woke ideology is a 10-ton albatross around the party’s neck, and until Democrats get serious about reconsidering it, they’ll just keep sinking into the mud. Woke Makes Democrats Radioactive Why do men increasingly reject the party? Perhaps because it leaned so far into feminism that it’s alienating most of us with a Y chromosome. Why are more black voters rejecting the party? Perhaps because it focuses so much on demonizing commonsense conservative policies like voter ID as racist, rather than actually providing solutions to improve their lives. While the autopsy noted that President Donald Trump’s campaign ads hitting then-Vice President Kamala Harris over transgender ideology resonated with voters, it failed to consider why that might be the case. Rivera’s autopsy also noted that Republicans successfully branded Harris the “border czar,” but it never even so much as mentioned that President Joe Biden effectively opened the border and created a massive crisis. Ultimately, the Democrats lost big in 2024, not because they failed to campaign enough in swing states or because they swapped out one unpopular candidate for another, but because of the ideology at the core of their message. It’s not enough for Rivera, at his most cogent, to urge Democrats to “focus less on abstract issues and identity politics, and connect with voters on the issues they say matter most, including the economy, disaster relief, and addressing housing affordability.” Democrats are wedded to that identity politics. Theirs is the party of transgender ideology, even when that means allowing boys to compete in girls sports and enter girls’ restrooms. Theirs is the party of critical race theory, which led them to claim racism is so “systemic” in America that we need to abolish the police. Theirs is the party of climate alarmism, which allows them to set up green slush funds to enrich cronies in the name of saving the planet. To make matters worse, Democrats and their allies demonize those who disagree with their increasingly radical stances. Any dissent is “disinformation,” “Jim Crow,” or “hate.” They even have the gall to openly discuss changing the rules of the political game to ensure permanent power—all in the name of championing “democracy.” Harris recently held a “No Bad Idea Brainstorm,” suggesting Democrats should run on abolishing the Electoral College and packing the Supreme Court. The Institutionalization of Woke These ideologies aren’t incidental to the Democrats—they form the heart of their belief system, and their vast nonprofit apparatus institutionalizes them. In “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” I traced how the nonprofits pushing these woke ideologies formed the policy infrastructure that explained Biden’s least popular policies, from climate boondoggles and aggressive promotion of transgender issues to the weaponization of government against conservatives. I've been following the Southern Poverty Law Center for years. I wrote the book "Making Hate Pay" about their corruption. When I saw their influence in the Biden administration, I wrote my second book, "The Woketopus."https://t.co/ZKxnn7X8FD https://t.co/fXRUxF4HA8 pic.twitter.com/TrFv3s5aGa— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) April 24, 2026 I demonstrated how critical race theory, transgender ideology, climate alarmism, and a preference for technocratic government—the constellation of issues I define as “woke”—drove policy under Biden. The Left has yet to distance itself from this vast nonprofit infrastructure. Take the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. If there was ever an organization the Democrats should sacrifice in order to demonstrate their dedication to truly becoming moderate, it should be the SPLC. The SPLC has a Mad Libs of scandals, from a massive racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal in 2019, to accusations of union-busting in 2024, to longstanding concerns that it exaggerates “hate” by falsely branding mainstream conservatives and Christians, and now by funding members of the very hate groups it claims to exist to oppose. The SPLC has even branded a group of gays and lesbians—Gays Against Groomers—an “anti-LGBTQ+ hate group” because they oppose sexualized lessons for kids. The SPLC is one of the most aggressive activist groups pushing the woke ideology that Americans find so nauseating. Surely, a Democrat Party truly committed to winning moderates should be willing to drop the SPLC. Yet, when the SPLC faced an indictment for wire fraud, Democrats came to its defense. They seemed not to care about the SPLC’s scandals or its role in worsening America’s polarization. With all due respect to Paul Rivera and the DNC, a few more dollars to local Democrat operatives won’t paper over their party’s massive problem. Democrats don’t need to tinker around the edges—they need to reconsider their commitments to woke ideology. That’s how they might win back the American people, but the SPLC is Exhibit A of why it won’t happen anytime soon.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The Congressional Black Caucus, which frequently complains that Congress is silencing black voices, has denied the application of four congressional black voices. The four black members of Congress include Reps. Burgess Owens, R-Utah; Wesley Hunt, R-Texas; Byron Donalds, R-Fla.; and John James, R-Mich. “Unfortunately, for the Left, their priorities are power and profit” Owens told the Daily Signal. Owens and Donalds pushed to rename the Capitol’s press gallery after civil rights icon Frederick Douglass, a Republican, but caucus members refused to co-sponsor the resolution. “Democrats know Douglass was a Republican,” Owens said. “They don’t stand up for the things that really should make a difference. They stand up for everything the Democratic Party wants, which means the black community is not always in a good place.” Owens, who sits on the House’s Education and Workforce Committee, said the Congressional Black Caucus will advocate against the things that could strengthen the black community, such as education. “That means they are going to vote against school choice,” he said. “Our kids are going down so fast, so far because they’re not getting the right education. … The Black Caucus doesn’t want [school choice] to happen because the Democratic Party doesn’t want that to happen.” Owens said he grew up in the 1960s deep South, where his community “was doing well” and people believed in faith, family, and the free market. However, he added, the Left doesn’t value those ideals today. “Marxists and socialists hate faith, family, and free market education because that sense of independence takes away their power and ability to make profit,” he said. “When they make profit on people’s misery, that’s a big business.” Owens added, “They allow people not to feel good about themselves, feel hopeless, feel desperate, then they depend on you. … And when people have that kind of mindset, and they have no concept of what it is to believe in God or have empathy, they’ll do everything selfishly.” The Congressional Black Caucus is pushing legislation asking young black athletes to avoid playing college sports for universities in the South, as a method of retaliating against states that redrew congressional maps. Owens, who was the third black athlete to receive a football scholarship from the University of Miami, criticized the effort, saying it’s a move by “black elitists” who want to “take the dreams of young black people away so that they can keep theirs.” The caucus has received criticism for other decisions, including denying membership to Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., a white congressman who nevertheless represents the largest black community in Tennessee. Other black conservative members of Congress, such as Donalds and Hunt, claim they were shunned by the caucus because they don’t approve of race-based politics. “Democrats always use race [as a] political crutch,” Donalds said in an interview with the Daily Signal. “Their ideas aren’t logical, so what they try to do is use the emotions tied to the history of our country and weaponize those emotions for political gain. It’s sick.” “I think that’s why you’re seeing more and more people walk away from the Democratic Party,” he added. The Congressional Black Caucus did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.