Photo Credit:

AT via Magic Studio

Economic and technological transformations have almost always delivered transformative change for the better for ordinary people: cheap clothing, cheap transportation, clean cities, safer work, free information.

Photo Credit:

SPLC

For those who have long watched Southern Poverty Law Center and the extraordinary influence it has with the media, the last few weeks have been positively beautiful to behold. 

Photo Credit:

American Thinker

As a victim of its tactics, MassResistance has always known how that disgraceful organization operates.

Last week, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) announced it had gathered more than 1.5 million signatures—nearly double what it needed—to put a sweeping new wealth tax on California’s November ballot. The initiative is called the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act.

The name is designed to make you stop reading. Don’t.

SEIU has spent months positioning itself as the champion of nurses, teachers and caregivers. What it has actually done is run a $24 million campaign to put a measure on the ballot that could eventually be used to tax virtually any Californian who owns assets—with no return trip to the ballot box required.

The measure would impose a 5 percent tax on the total net worth of California residents worth more than $1 billion as of Jan. 1, 2026. Buried in the fine print is a provision allowing the California legislature to expand the tax—lowering the threshold, adding asset categories—by simple majority vote, without voter approval.

The Tax Foundation has warned that the measure’s design could push the effective rate on some taxpayers well above the advertised 5 percent.

SEIU leaders will tell you pensions and retirement accounts are excluded. That’s true … for now. What the union won’t tell you is what happens to those pension funds when California’s investment climate deteriorates.

CalPERS—the pension system for California public employees—manages roughly $556 billion in assets and is already facing more than $179 billion in unfunded liabilities.

CalSTRS, the pension fund for California’s teachers, manages a portfolio of more than $400 billion. Both depend on a functioning private economy and stable financial markets.

When founders and investors are forced to sell equity stakes to pay a tax bill, and when the state’s wealthiest residents continue to leave, the damage doesn’t stop with them.

It reaches the pension checks of the workers the SEIU claims to speak for.

The Hoover Institution estimates the permanent loss of income tax revenue from departing residents will leave California worse off—not better off — by $25 billion.

Nearly 30 percent of the billionaire tax base had already left the state before the initiative even qualified for the ballot. Six billionaires departed publicly before the Jan. 1 residency deadline, including Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

More have reportedly followed without any fanfare.

Every departure costs the state years of income tax revenue, capital gains and related economic activity California can’t afford to lose.

SEIU and its enablers call this a health care funding measure—a response to federal Medicaid reforms. It isn’t.

California already has the highest income tax rates in the nation. Its budget problems aren’t a revenue problem. They’re a spending problem that’s outpaced even California’s substantial tax base for years.

SEIU claims to speak for hundreds of thousands of workers whose retirement security runs through CalPERS, CalSTRS and a California economy that keeps generating jobs and investment.

A measure that accelerates capital flight and weakens pension fund returns, then hands Sacramento the tools to expand asset taxation without a vote is not a benefit to those workers.

California voters should read past the name of this initiative before they decide whether to support it. The SEIU is counting on them not to.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolicy 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.

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a “60 Minutes” interview airing Sunday that President Donald Trump wanted to remove Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.

The United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on Feb. 28 after talks regarding the Islamic regime’s nuclear program broke down. Netanyahu told CBS News reporter Major Garrett that, while the campaign had achieved “a great deal,” he believed there was still “work to be done.”

“There’s still nuclear material—enriched uranium—that has to be taken out of Iran. There’s still enrichment sites that have to be dismantled,” Netanyahu said. “There’s still proxies that Iran supports, there’s ballistic missiles that they still want to produce. Now, we have degraded a lot of it, but all that is still there and there’s work to be done.”

“How do you envision the highly enriched uranium will be removed from Iran?” Garrett asked.

“You go in and you take it out,” Netanyahu replied.

WATCH:

Iranian state media claimed the rescued crew of a downed F-15E Strike Eagle was part of an operation targeting Iranian nuclear materiel kept at Isfahan, where Iran has a research center. Iranian outlets also claimed the U.S. lost multiple aircraft, but United States Central Command confirmed only one A-10 Thunderbolt close-air-support plane was lost and its pilot was safely recovered.

“With what, special forces from Israel, special forces [from the] United States?” Garrett asked.

“Well, I’m not gonna talk about military means, but the president— what President Trump said to me, ‘I want to go in there and I think it can be done physically,’” Netanyahu responded. “That’s not the problem. If you have an agreement and you go in and you take it out, why not? That’s the best way.”

“What if there isn’t an agreement? Can it be taken out by force?” Garrett asked.

“Well, [if] you’re gonna ask me these questions, I’m gonna dodge them because I’m not gonna talk about our military possibilities, plans, or anything of that kind,” the prime minister replied.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright claimed during a Sunday interview on “Meet the Press” that Iran had material for ten nuclear devices and over 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%. Wright also asserted that ending the Iranian nuclear program would lower energy costs in the long term. Trump Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff made similar allegations in a March 2 interview with Sean Hannity, but the administration has not offered evidence to corroborate the assertions from Witkoff or Wright.

Trump and other administration officials asserted the Iranian nuclear program was “obliterated” after the June 2025 strike against multiple Iranian nuclear sites, but maintained Iran posed a threat to the U.S. without providing specific details. Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously said the U.S. launched strikes because an Iranian response to Israel’s planned attack could have potentially targeted American forces.

The New York Times reported April 7 that, despite skepticism from administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Trump was convinced to launch strikes against Iran during a Feb. 11 visit to the White House by Netanyahu.

Former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kent resigned March 17 over the conflict, claiming the war began “due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” He also argued in an X post that Iran posed no “imminent threat” to the United States.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Energy Secretary Chris Wright deflected when asked by “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker about when gas prices would start to drop.

The average price of a gallon of gas in the United States on Sunday was $4.52, according to AAA, up over $1.50 from $2.98 on Feb. 26, days before the start of military operations against Iran. Welker asked Wright about his prediction from his previous appearance in a March episode that the price of gas would return below $3.00 per gallon before the summer.

“Do you think it’s still very possible that gas prices will dip below $3 a gallon in time for summer which is about six weeks?” Welker asked Wright.

“I can’t make any predictions about, you know, oil prices or gasoline prices,” the energy secretary responded, “The military part of the conflict took about what we expected; I think the president was guiding four to six weeks, it took five and a half weeks. After the military main military operations have ceased, now we’re in a negotiating period. We’re using economic leverage against Iran, and this regime is trying to cling on to their nuclear program, so obviously this part of the conflict has gone a little longer.”

“Just to go back to this central question, though, do you anticipate gas prices will drop below $3 a gallon this year?” Welker shortly thereafter asked.

“I can’t make predictions about that,” he responded. “I can say that when we start to get free flow of traffic through the Straits of Hormuz, energy prices will come down. And by ending Iran’s ability to get a nuclear weapon, they are the biggest threat in the world to the flow of global energy.”

During a March 8 appearance on Fox News Sunday, Wright told host Shannon Bream that “energy will flow soon” and called reports that prices would climb as a result of the conflict with Iran “fiction.”

Responding to an earlier question about if ending the Iranian nuclear program or reopening the Strait of Hormuz was the administration’s top priority, Wright claimed Iran had material for 10 nuclear devices and over 1,000 pounds of 60% enriched uranium. Wright also asserted that ending the Iranian nuclear program would lower energy costs in the long term.

Trump Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff made a similar claim in a March 2 interview with Fox News, but the administration has not offered evidence to corroborate the assertions from Witkoff or Wright.

“So you’re saying that ultimately gas prices will start to come down once the [Strait of Hormuz] is reopened?” Welker said. “Here’s what analysts are saying about how high gas prices could ultimately go: ‘U.S. gasoline prices have a legitimate chance of rising to $5 a gallon as refiners prioritize jet fuel production at the expense of other products, according to analysts at JPMorgan Chase.’ Should Americans be prepared for the possibility of paying $5 a gallon for gas?”

“Look, again, I can’t predict the price of energy in the short term or even the medium term, but what we’re doing is ending a 47-year conflict. Iran has fought—‘Death to the United States,’ for 47 years, ‘Death to Israel’—and as we saw when the conflict broke out, they attacked all of their neighbors in the Middle East that had no involvement in the conflict whatsoever,” Wright deflected. “If you have a hostile, unstable power like that, you simply cannot allow them to have nuclear weapons. That was a consensus opinion all my adult life.”

Trump and other administration officials declared the Iranian nuclear program had been “obliterated” after the June 2025 strike on multiple Iranian nuclear sites, but still asserted Iran posed a threat to the U.S. without providing specific details. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. launched strikes because American casualties resulted from an Iranian response to Israel’s planned attack.

The New York Times reported April 7 that, despite skepticism from Vice President JD Vance and other officials, Trump was convinced to launch strikes against Iran during a Feb. 11 visit to the White House by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kent resigned March 17 over the conflict, claiming the war began “due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” Kent also argued in an X post that Iran posed no “imminent threat” to the U.S.

“I know you’re saying you can’t predict how high gas prices will go, but I don’t hear you ruling out the possibility that they could in fact go to $5 a gallon,” Welker responded.

“Well, I’m just avoiding price predictions, but I will say the United States is in a tremendous position,” Wright replied, “We’re by far the world’s largest producer of oil. We’re by far the world’s largest producer of natural gas. There’s been no rise in the price of natural gas: that’s the largest primary energy source for the United States, that’s for home heating, that’s for electricity. Gasoline, diesel prices are up, and they will remain up while this conflict’s in place, and then they will come back down. And, ultimately, they’ll come back down lower than they were before.”

Wright also told Welker oil supplies from Venezuela and Guyana would help lower prices, adding that, around the world, there was “an extremely bright outlook” when it came to energy production. He made similar arguments during his March 8 interview with Bream.

Wright also said the Trump administration would support suspending the 18-cent-per-gallon federal gasoline tax, following states like Utah, Indiana and Georgia, when asked about it by Welker.

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“My mother was an angel upon earth. …Her price was indeed above rubies,” wrote John Quincy Adams about his beloved mother, Abigail. Mourning her death in his diary, the secretary of state at the time and later America’s sixth president echoed the words of Proverbs 31:10 in a fitting tribute to a remarkable woman of faith.

As we approach Mother’s Day, few lives more fittingly embody the strength, sacrifice, and spiritual depth of motherhood than Abigail Adams.

While she is mostly remembered as the wife of John Adams and the mother of John Quincy Adams, Abigail’s legacy reaches far beyond her proximity to presidential power. During the American War for Independence, she stood on the homefront as a pillar of resilience, supporting her family through an unshakable faith in God. Consequently, our celebration of America’s 250th birthday would not be complete without remembering and honoring the vital role that women played.

If men like John Adams and George Washington declared and fought for the independence of our nation, it was women like Abigail Adams who sustained it. Indeed, Abigail urged John and those men in Philadelphia to “Remember the Ladies.” It is fitting that we do that as well, yet with a particular focus on her faith that was the defining quality and contribution of her amazing life.

A Faith Forged by Family

Born on November 22, 1744, Abigail was raised by devout Christian parents. Reverend William Smith was the Harvard-educated pastor of the North Parish Congregational Church of Weymouth, Massachusetts. Though Abigail did not receive a formal education, she was schooled at home mostly by her mother, Elizabeth, the daughter of John Quincy, a prominent member of the colony.

Abigail and her siblings were taught to read and write, and her father made available his extensive library. However, the Bible was the basic textbook, and Abigail absorbed its words deeply into her life. Throughout her copious correspondence, we see plenty of evidence of her biblical worldview, with abundant allusions and citations of Scripture. True to her biblical namesake, Abigail grew up to be a woman of incredible courage and wisdom.

A Faith Deepened by Loss

At 19, Abigail married John Adams on October 25, 1764, combining her family’s considerable social standing with the Adams family’s rising status. Together, they would have six children, but only four lived to adulthood. In 1770, they lost Susanna, affectionally called “Suky,” when she was only two years old.

When John Adams left Massachusetts to serve in the Continental Congress in 1774, communication came only through letters that often took weeks to arrive. She wrote assuring him of her prayers for God’s wisdom: “You have before you … the greatest national concerns that ever came before any people; and if the prayers and petitions ascend unto heaven which are daily offered for you, wisdom will flow down as a stream, and righteousness as the mighty waters, and your deliberations will make glad the cities of our God” (Psalm 46:4). 

Yet while John Adams was weighing in on the growing crisis in the colonies, Abigail was left at home to manage the family farm, educate their children, and navigate the uncertainties of an impending war with Great Britian.

While the public rightly remembers John and the other statesmen in Philadelphia, the private burden of sacrifice fell heavily on Abigail. During these years, she endured devastating losses, including the death of her mother and the stillbirth of a child — griefs compounded by her husband’s absence. John Adams, writing from afar, responded with philosophical resignation: “It is not uncommon for a Train of Calamities to come together.” But Abigail’s response reveals the deeper well from which she drew strength, which was not stoicism, but Scripture.

“It has pleased the great disposer of all Events to add Breach to Breach,” she wrote. Then she pleaded, “How long O Lord shall the whole land say ‘I am sick’[Isaiah 33:24]? O shew us wherefore it is that thou are contending with us [Job 10:2]?”

Her grief was real, but so was her faith. She drew encouragement from the image of her sympathetic Savior, weeping at Lazarus’s tomb (John 11:35-36), and declared with Job-like resolve, “Yea tho he slay me I will trust in him” (Job 13:15). She added: “But blessed be the Father of mercies [2 Corinthians 1:3]. … Still I have many blessings left, many comforts to be thankful for and rejoice in. I am not left to mourn as one without hope” (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

This was not simply abstract theological reflection. It was lived faith in the crucible of suffering. The word of God was woven into the fabric of her being.

A Faith Revealed by Fire

Abigail Adams did not merely endure hardship, she interpreted it through the lens of divine providence. Her letters consistently reveal a woman steeped in Scripture, who saw both personal sorrow and national struggle under the sovereign hand of God.

When British troops threatened nearby Boston, she wrote to Mercy Otis Warren with confidence drawn directly from the Psalms: “Tho an hoste should encamp against us our hearts will not fear [Psalm 27:3]. Tho war should rise against us, in this will we be confident, that the Lord reigneth [Psalm 97:1]. Let thy Mercy o Lord be upon us according as we hope in thee” (Psalm 33:22).

Following the bloodshed at Lexington and Concord, she wrote John:

“The Lord will not cast off His people, neither will He forsake his inheritance [Psalm 94:14]. Great events are most certainly in the womb of futurity, and if the present chastisements which we experience have a proper influence upon our conduct, the event will certainly be in our favor. … Pharaoh’s [i.e., King George III’s] heart is hardened, and he refuseth to hearken to them and will not let the people go [Exodus 8:32]. May their deliverance be wrought out for them, as it was for the children of Israel” (Exodus 12-14).

A few weeks later, as militia units from all over Massachusetts and adjacent colonies converged to surround occupied Boston, Abigail encouraged herself and John from the example of Nehemiah:

“We live in continual expectation of hostilities. Scarcely a day that does not produce some; but like good Nehemiah, having made our prayer unto God and set the people with their swords, their spears, and their bows, we will say unto them ‘Be not ye afraid of them; remember the Lord, who is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives and your houses’” (Nehemiah 4:14).

She added a prayer: “Almighty God, cover the heads of our countrymen [Psalm 140:7], and be a shield to our dear friends [Psalm 3:3]! … May we be supported and sustained in the dreadful conflict.”

After the British burned Charlestown and the costly Battle of Bunker Hill, she reminded her husband: “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong [Ecclesiastes 9:11]; but the God of Israel is He that giveth strength and power unto his people [Psalm 68:35]. Trust in him at all times, ye people, pour out your hearts before him; God is a refuge for us [Psalm 62:8].”

During the continued occupation of Boston, she offered this prayer, “And unto Him who mounts the whirlwind and directs the storm [Nahum 1:3] I will cheerfully leave the ordering of my lot; and whether adverse or prosperous days should be my future portion, I will trust in His right hand to lead me safely through [Psalm 139:10], and after a short rotation of events, fix me in a state immutable and happy.”

Her faith was active, interpretive, and sustaining. It gave her a framework for understanding both suffering and purpose. Notably, she did not see history as random or chaotic, but as guided by “the great disposer of all Events.”

After Boston was ultimately evacuated by British forces on March 17, 1776 — a moment that could have come at tremendous cost — she credited the Lord: “The more I think of our enemies quitting Boston, the more amazed I am that they should leave such a harbor, such fortifications, such intrenchments, and that we should he in peaceable possession of a town which we expected would cost us a river of blood, without one drop shed. Surely it is the Lord’s doings, and it is marvelous in our eyes” (Psalm 118:23).

Just two weeks before the vote on the Declaration of Independence, Abigail wrote with confidence in God: “I feel no great anxiety at the large armament designed against us. The remarkable interpositions of Heaven in our favor cannot be too gratefully acknowledged. He who fed the Israelites in the wilderness [Deuteronomy 8:16], ‘who clothes the lilies of the field [Matthew 6:28], and feeds the young ravens when they cry’ [Job 38:41], will not forsake a people engaged in so righteous a cause, if we remember his loving-kindness.”

Even in moments of deep anxiety—fearing for her husband abroad and her son traveling across the Atlantic—she anchored herself in God’s promises:

“In contemplation of my situation, I am sometimes thrown into an agony of distress. Distance, dangers, and oh, I cannot name all the fears which sometimes oppress me, and harrow up my soul. Yet must the common lot of man one day take place, whether we dwell in our native land or are far distant from it. That we rest under the shadow of the Almighty [Psalm 91:1] is the consolation to which I resort, and find that comfort which the world cannot give” (John 14:27).

This awareness of God’s presence sustained her through years of uncertainty. It also shaped the spiritual atmosphere of her home. Abigail did not merely teach doctrine; she modeled dependence on God in every circumstance.

A Faith That Formed Her Family

Though married, Abigail Adams effectively lived as a single mother for much of the Revolutionary era. With John frequently away—first in Philadelphia, later in Europe—she bore the full responsibility of raising their children.

She managed finances, oversaw the farm, and maintained order in a time of chaos. Yet her greatest labor was not economic or logistical—it was spiritual. “Our Little ones… shall not be deficient in virtue or probity if the precepts of a Mother have their desired Effect,” she assured her husband.

However, she also recognized the challenge of raising children without a father’s daily example. In a gentle but pointed rebuke, she wrote: “They would be doubly in-forced could they be indulged with the example of a Father constantly before them.” Abigail understood that motherhood required both instruction and example. And though she bore the burden alone, she refused to lower the standard.

From his earliest years, Abigail instilled in John Quincy Adams the habits of prayer, moral discipline, and a sense of duty to God and country. After he left with his father for Europe, she wrote:

“Tis almost four Months since you left your Native land and Embarked upon the Mighty waters in quest of a Foreign Country. Altho I have not perticuliarly wrote to you since yet you may be assured you have constantly been upon my Heart and mind.

“It is a very dificult task my dear son for a tender parent to bring their mind to part with a child of your years into a distant Land… You have arrived at years capable of improving under the advantages you will be like to have if you do but properly attend to them. They are talents put into your Hands of which an account will be required of you hereafter, and being possessd of one, two, or four, see to it that you double your numbers [Matthew 25:14-30]…

“Great Learning and superior abilities, should you ever possess them, will be of little value and small Estimation, unless Virtue, Honour, Truth and integrety are added to them. Adhere to those religious Sentiments and principals which were early instilled into your mind and remember that you are accountable to your Maker for all your words and actions [Ecclesiastes 12:1,14; Matthew 12:36]… I would much rather you should have found your grave in the ocean you have crossed, or that any untimely death crop you in your infant years, than see you an immoral, profligate, or Graceless child.”

In June of 1780, Abigail Adams wrote to then 13-year-old John Quincy reminding him about the foundations for personal character and civil society:

“The only sure and permanent foundation of virtue is religion. Let this important truth be engraven upon your heart, and that the foundation of religion is the belief of the one only God, and a just sense of his attributes as a Being infinitely wise, just, and good, to whom you owe the highest reverence, gratitude, and adoration, who superintends and governs all nature… , even to clothing the lilies of the field [Matthew 6:28] and hearing the young ravens when they cry [Psalm 147:9], but more particularly regards man whom he created after his own Image [Genesis 1:27] and breathed into him an immortal spirit [Genesis 2:7] capable of a happiness beyond the grave, to the attainment of which he is bound to the performance of certain duties which all tend to the happiness and welfare of society and are comprised in one short sentence expressive of universal benevolence, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”” (Leviticus 19:18).

Indeed, years later John Quincy would testify to the enduring impact of her influence: “She taught me to repeat daily, after the Lord’s Prayer, before rising from bed, the Ode of Collins on the patriot warriors who fell in the war to subdue the Jacobite rebellion of 1745. … Of the impression made upon my heart by the sentiments inculcated in these beautiful effusions of patriotism and poetry, you may form an estimate by the fact that now, seventy-one years after they were thus taught me, I repeat them from memory.” Such was the curriculum of Abigail Adams, who was a mother shaping not only a child, but a statesman.

A Faith That Impacted the Future

What sets Abigail Adams apart is not only her godly endurance and her biblical instruction but also her clarity of vision. She understood the inseparable connection between private virtue and public life. In another 1775 letter to Mercy Owen Warren, Abigail expressed a principle that she clearly held dear—that patriotism and belief in providence went hand in hand:

“A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real good will towards man, can he be a patriot who by an openly vicious conduct is undermining the very bonds of society, corrupting the morals of youth, and by his bad example injuring that very country he professes to patronize more than he can possibly compensate by his intrepidity, generosity, and honor? The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a nation” (Proverbs 14:34).

In Abigail’s correspondence with John, she argued that civic responsibility must be grounded in moral and religious duty: “[A] true patriot must be a religious man. I have been led to think from a late defection, that he who neglects his duty to his Maker may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public.”

This insight would later echo in John Adams’s own famous declaration that the Constitution was made “only for a moral and religious people.” But long before it became political philosophy, it was a wife and mother’s conviction.

In fact, Abigail cited Scripture to John Quincy about the importance of cultivating self-government before attempting to govern others:

“The due Government of the passions has been considered in all ages as a most valuable acquisition, hence an inspired writer observes, He that is slow to anger is better than the Mighty, and he that ruleth his Spirit than he that taketh a city [Proverbs 16:32]. This passion unrestrained by reason cooperating with power has produced the subversion of cities, the desolation of countries, the massacre of nations, and filled the world with injustice and oppression. … Having once obtained this self-government you will find a foundation laid for happiness to yourself and usefulness to mankind. ‘Virtue alone is happiness below,’ and consists in cultivating and improving every good inclination and in checking and subduing every propensity to evil.”

Abigail saw the home as the training ground for the republic. If children were not raised with self-discipline, courage, and virtue, the nation itself would suffer. In an age obsessed with liberty, Abigail Adams never lost sight of the deeper truth: Freedom without virtue is fragile and doomed to fail. With personal virtue and the favor of God, there could be success.

The Legacy of a Godly Mother

When Abigail Adams died on October 28, 1818, her son John Quincy surely had in mind Proverbs 31 as he reflected on her life. On November 1, he took time to write these heartfelt words:

“My mother was an angel upon earth. She was a minister of blessing to all human beings within her sphere of action. Her heart was the abode of heavenly purity. She had no feelings but of kindness and beneficence; yet her mind was as firm as her temper was mild and gentle. She had known sorrow, but her sorrow was silent. She was acquainted with grief [Isaiah 53:3], but it was deposited in her own bosom. She was the real personification of female virtue, of piety, of charity, of ever active and never intermitting benevolence [Proverbs 31:10a, 20]. … [Y]et she has been to me more than a mother. She has been a spirit from above watching over me for good, and contributing by my mere consciousness of her existence to the comfort of my life.”

On November 3, John Quincy concluded his remembrance:

“Never have I known another human being the perpetual object of whose life was so unremittingly to do good. It was a necessity of her nature. Yet so unostentatious, so unconscious even, of her own excellence, that even the objects of her kindness often knew not whence it came… She had suffered often and severely from fits of long and painful sickness, always with calmness and resignation. She had a profound, but not an obtrusive, sensibility. She was always cheerful, never frivolous; she had neither gall nor guile. Her attention to the domestic economy of her family was unrivalled-rising with the dawn, and superintending the household concerns with indefatigable and all-foreseeing care [Proverbs 31:15, 27]… She had been, during the war of our Revolution, an ardent patriot, and the earliest lesson of unbounded devotion to the cause of their country that her children received was from her. She had the most delicate sense of propriety of conduct, but nothing uncharitable, nothing bitter. Her price was indeed above rubies” (Proverbs 31:10).

Certainly, this tribute of John Quincy Adams to his mother fulfilled the call of Proverbs 31:28: “Her children arise up and call her blessed.” Hers was a faith that was quiet but profound, and whose influence endured long after her passing.

As we have seen in her letters and in her son’s testimony, Abigail’s legacy cannot be measured only by her connections to the offices her husband and son held, but in the character she helped shape and the faith she faithfully lived out.

Abigail Adams represents a generation of women whose sacrifices were often unseen but indispensable. They ran households, supported the war effort, counseled their husbands, poured into their children, and prayed for the success of a fragile nation. But more than that, they anchored the American experiment in something deeper than politics: A recognition of duty to God, family, and country.

On this Mother’s Day, Abigail Adams stands as a powerful reminder that the strength of a nation is forged not only in its legislatures and battlefields, but in its homes. She was a woman of deep sorrow, yet deeper faith. A mother burdened with responsibility, yet unwavering in conviction. A patriot who believed that liberty must be rooted in righteousness. Her life asks a question that still echoes today: What kind of mothers—and fathers—are shaping the next generation?

For Abigail Adams, the answer was clear. Teach them to fear God. Train them in virtue. Prepare them for service. And trust, in every season, the One who “carves out our portion in tender mercy.”

Originally published by The Washington Stand.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

Georgia’s anti-human trafficking unit is expanding, aiming for quick access to interstate highways used by smugglers. The expansion comes after a recent recovery of 11 child trafficking victims.

“This horrific industry is transitory in nature,” Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr told the Daily Signal. “We don’t just have a legal obligation, we have a moral obligation to these children.”

The Georgia Attorney General’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit, which Carr, a Republican, started in 2019, is headquartered in Atlanta, providing quick access to Interstate 75.

The attorney general’s office expanded satellite offices to Augusta and Macon this year to expand access to Interstates 85 and 16. Carr also plans to expand that effort to Savannah for better access to Interstate 95.

It’s not that the locations are particularly troubled areas, he said. Rather, those cities provide quick access for routes used by traffickers.

In late April, the Georgia attorney general’s office announced that a national effort it partakes in, Operation Coast to Coast, identified 12 minor victims of human trafficking. Of those, 11 were in Georgia. The operation also identified 154 adult victims across the country.

The operation involved more than 250 law enforcement agencies across 30 states. Operation Coast to Coast was organized and led by the Human Trafficking Training Center, a law enforcement training organization.

Since its establishment, Carr’s anti-human trafficking unit has secured about 70 criminal convictions, and rescued and assisted more than 200 children, according to the attorney general’s office. The majority of cases involve domestic minor sex trafficking, with the average age of victims between 14 and 17 years old.

The unit includes prosecutors, investigators, analysts, and victim advocates, as it works with local, state, and federal law enforcement to rescue victims and prosecute offenders throughout the state.

Carr said he learned local district attorneys’ offices aren’t always equipped to handle the unusual trafficking cases, which is why specialized prosecutors are needed.

“We need specialized prosecutors so we don’t retraumatize the victim,” Carr said. “We also need specialized prosecutors who understand that some of the victims think the offender loves them.”

Carr said 80% of traffickers are gang-affiliated, and it’s for the most part funded by organized retail theft.

Several cases involve illegal immigrants in connection with child sex trafficking in the state. For example, in October, the state charged two defendants from Guatemala with the trafficking of a 14-year-old girl, also from Guatemala.

Carr noted he also had anti-gang and anti-organized theft units.

“We’ve been doing this since 2019, which has provided continuity to build relationships with federal law enforcement as well,” Carr said. “The courts were closed in 2020 during COVID, but that forced us to build relationships that have been helpful.”

Since starting, the anti-trafficking unit also shut down more than 40 illicit massage businesses throughout Georgia as part of Operation In Plain Sight.

In some cases, rescuing one victim can lead to multiple prosecutions.

Carr’s office partnered with the U.S. Marshals Service Operation Not Forgotten, which resulted in the safe location of 39 missing children in 2020 and 20 missing children in 2021.

One of the victims was a 17-year-old previously reported as missing from her Missouri home and located at a hotel in Fulton County, Georgia, where she was trafficked. From that recovery, Carr’s team was able to prosecute 13 traffickers, including those who bought and sold the child for sex.

Some Democrat district attorneys in Georgia have been reluctant to work with the attorney general’s office on what he said should be an obvious bipartisan matter.

“It’s political in nature for some, and that’s unfortunate. No one is for human trafficking, except for the traffickers,” said Carr, who is running in a crowded Republican gubernatorial primary this year. “I’ll work with anybody of any political party to prosecute the buyers and sellers and to rescue children.”

In 1921, Woodrow Wilson, the first of America’s four transformative progressive presidents, became the first president to remain in Washington and make the nation’s capital his permanent home after leaving office. In very mild defense of the man who did more than any other to establish the administrative state and thus pervert America’s carefully constructed constitutional design, Wilson had suffered a debilitating stroke two years prior that left him partially paralyzed and nearly blind. He died just a few years later, in 1924.

Former President Barack Obama, the nation’s fourth transformative progressive president (following Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson), had no such excuse when he and his wife, Michelle, decided, like Wilson, to similarly make the District of Columbia’s tony Kalorama neighborhood their permanent home after leaving 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Surely, the physical proximity to the White House was one factor in the Obamas’ decision; the 44th president officially visited his former vice president there at least once, with perhaps other unofficial visits as well.

But convenience of his physical proximity to the White House aside, Obama’s residential decision has proven to be even more symbolically potent. The 44th president has declared that he is still here and he is not going anywhere.

Some recent presidents, such as George W. Bush, have decided to ride off into the sunset and enjoy peaceful, private retirements after leaving the Oval Office. Bush even took up painting as a hobby. Obama is a golfer, but he seems to enjoy politicking and punditry more than the links.

Unfortunately, the American people are suffering the consequences of Obama’s insatiable desire to insert himself into the national conversation. He has been vocal in criticizing the Trump-era GOP and boosting Democrats on the campaign trail ever since making the 2-mile trek from the White House to Kalorama.

Obama soared to the top of political world after his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech vowed there was not a liberal America and a conservative America, but a singular United States of America. It’s a poignant sentiment. But once in power, Obama ruled as divider-in-chief.

All these years later, he’s still acting the same way.

In March, Obama released a video endorsing Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s aggressive Old Dominion redistricting effort, which would change the state’s 11-seat congressional delegation from a 6-5 likely Democrat advantage to a 10-1 likely Democrat advantage. The redistricting referendum narrowly passed among Virginia voters, although it is now being challenged on procedural grounds at the Supreme Court of Virginia.

There is no more blatantly and intrinsically partisan issue in all of American public life than redistricting, but Obama still said Spanberger’s effort was necessary to “level the playing field.” The irony was astounding: Obama himself was a longtime foe of gerrymandering, tweeting in 2020 that the practice “contributed to stalled progress and warped our representative government.” But anything, it seems, to give his party a new advantage.

He might as well have invoked former Peruvian autocrat Oscar R. Benavides: “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”

Even more maddening was Obama’s interview this week with Stephen Colbert of “The Late Show.” Among other whoppers, Obama excoriated Republicans for not respecting judicial independence and vitiating the rule of law, and criticized President Donald Trump for his Justice Department’s alleged prosecution of political enemies.

But it was the one-time constitutional law lecturer who, while the Supreme Court was considering the legality of his health care law, delivered a Rose Garden address claiming it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the court to do its most basic job: judicial review. It was Obama who, channeling Wilson’s vision for administration, claimed he just needs a pen and a phone to enact his transformative agenda. And it was Obama who willfully ignored the (actually) unprecedented Biden-era Justice Department prosecutions of Trump, despite his physical and symbolic closeness to the White House.

The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is galling. But even more than that, we must ask: Why is Obama doing this?

He apparently admitted that his politicking is causing “genuine tension” in their marriage. It hardly seems like Obama’s antics are helping his party, either.

For starters, the Virginia redistricting referendum was a nail-biter—decided by a far narrower margin (roughly 3%) than comparable recent statewide elections. And the brand problem runs far deeper than that. Obama emerged as the top Harris-Walz presidential campaign surrogate two years ago following the Democrats’ bloodless July 2024 coup of incumbent Joe Biden—and the Harris-Walz ticket proceeded to lose every single swing state. Obamaism, an ur-wokeism of sorts, was emphatically rejected by the American people.

So once again: Why? I’ve given the question some thought.

For more than a decade, Obama lectured at my alma mater, the University of Chicago Law School. A portrait of him teaching still hangs outside one of the classrooms. Once while there, I asked a senior, decadeslong member of the faculty what Obama was like as a colleague.

The professor didn’t mince words, telling me Obama was cold, aloof, and generally disliked by the faculty because he preferred to immerse himself in his own musings rather than engage with his colleagues or contribute to an atmosphere of collegiality by exchanging ideas.

In other words, constitutional law lecturer Obama exuded arrogance and harbored a thinly veiled disdain for competing viewpoints. That’s how he governed as president: “I won,” as he infamously rubbed it in congressional Republicans’ face just days after taking the oath of office. That’s how he’s still acting today.

Pride goes before destruction, we know from Proverbs. So it is, and so it has always been. Perhaps Obama will open the Good Book and learn that lesson before it’s too late—for his marriage just as much as for his party’s fortunes this November.

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.

Brittany Baldwin, executive director of the White House Task Force 250, previewed an upcoming event designed to tell the story “of God’s hand in America throughout 250 years, and to rededicate our nation as one nation under God.”

Rededicate250, scheduled for May 17, will feature speeches from politicians and faith leaders reflecting on God’s faithfulness throughout American history. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R‑La., will lead the rededication.

“It is a powerful statement that the Trump administration celebrates our Judeo‑Christian roots and the fact that that has enabled our society to flourish in a plethora of ways, including respecting religious liberty of Americans of all religions,” Baldwin said.

The event will include video messages from President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as a talk from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on George Washington as a leader and man of God.

Asked what viewers can expect from Trump’s video, Baldwin said he will likely discuss the role religion has played throughout the country’s history and the importance of Americans of faith continuing to strengthen the nation.

“I think he’ll most likely talk about how religion has always played an important role in our country, and how we need Americans of faith to continue to strengthen and sustain our country, and that under his leadership they’re no longer being persecuted, but instead are being embraced and strengthened,” she said.

The event will also feature musical performances by various choirs and individual artists. Participating college choirs include Hillsdale College, Liberty University, and Grand Canyon University.

Rededicate250 will recount God’s hand in American history while acknowledging “the miracle still in our midst,” Baldwin said.

“You’ll have a couple people testify to personal testimonies of God still working,” she said. “And then the final section will be a new birth of faith and freedom.”

The event will conclude with a worship concert by Christian artist Chris Tomlin.

Americans will be able to participate both in person and virtually.

“First, they can attend the event, and we would welcome their attendance,” Baldwin said. “If they’re not able to attend in person for whatever reason, they can join through their own church or faith community.”

Happy Ma’s Day!

Really, I don’t think I ever called the woman who bore me “Mother” or “Mom.” But what I would call her is one of a kind.

Like so many moms, Helen borrowed heavily from the “Official Book of Motherly Mantras.” For example, I stood perpetually accused of “Air Conditioning All of Oxon Hill” when I’d leave a door open during summer. My room was also routinely compared to a “Pig Sty”—though I’m fairly confident that Dad’s Jersey Girl never set foot on a farm.

And, of course, all debate was quelched with a stern “Because I Said So.”

However, Ma had a way of speaking all her own, still retaining her Jersey attitude even 40, 50, 60 years after moving to the warm gentility of Southern Maryland. She scribed her own Book of Ma.

Ma on Gifts and Holidays

Ma had little use for gifts. She was minimalist before minimalist was cool. Ma cleared the house of trinkets and items with the efficiency of the U.S. Army clearing out Venezuelan soldiers. Try asking her what she wanted for her birthday, Christmas, or Mother’s Day, and she’d make a face. “Nuthin’. Every Day’s the Same as the Next.”

You’d push. “C’mon. You gotta want something.”

Another face. Another mantra: “If I Can’t Eat It, Wear It, or Spend It, I Don’t Want It.”

Ma on Booze

In her later years, my nephew cracked the code that would get Ma to come to … and stay … at family functions. Have a martini ready when she arrived, plus a promise from my brother-in-law to take her home the minute she wanted to go.

Me? I wasn’t into alcohol. I was into soda. A Cokehead, you might say. I could gulp down half a gallon a day, which would infuriate my mother when she’d have a rare craving for Coke and find the fridge and pantry empty. In response, Ma took to hiding soda in her bedroom closet. My form of youthful rebellion? Sneaking some of that soda, like a thief siphoning off gasoline.

Responded my Ma, “Why Don’t You Drink Beer Like Other Kids?!”

One day, years after I’d switched to drinking diet soda, was buying soda any time I wanted, and lived 3,000 miles away, I came home for a visit. Ma asked me to get something out of her closet. I went. Tucked deep in the corner was a 2-liter bottle of Coke.

“Ma, what are you doing? I don’t drink Coke anymore.”

“Not Taking Any Chances.”

Ma on Dating

Ma was clear and blunt when it came to any topic under the sun … except for some reason, my dating habits. For example, she never expressed how much she adored and respected my college girlfriend and hoped we would be married. (Well, until about a week before she married someone else. “Now you tell me?!”)

I eventually learned Ma’s love language was cooking. If she urged someone to have dinner, that was the sign I’d picked a winner.

However, I also learned her not-so-love language. I’d introduce her to some new woman, then later ask, “How’d you like her?”  She’d respond with the mantra, “I Never Judge on First Impressions.”

This, I eventually came to understand, meant, “My first impression is … LOSER.”

There was one exception to the rule. She absolutely did not like that I was close to a particular woman from the neighborhood. Let’s call her Wendy.

Ma calls me one day in California and offers to pay to fly me home for a visit. “Sure!” I say.

“Only one condition. You don’t see Wendy.”

“What if I pay half and see her once?” I joked.

My mother turned into Tommy Lee Jones from “The Fugitive.”

“I Don’t Bargain.”

Ma on Children

When it came to children, my mother would act the curmudgeon. I say “act” because one suspects even after decades it was hard for Ma to experience grandchildren and great-grandchildren without my father being there with her.

When asked why she wasn’t the typical cooing, doting, “Please let me babysit”-type grandmother, she’d say, “I Raised My Kids.”

Not that she didn’t love her grandkids and great-grandkids and was proud of them. She just put it in her own way in another of her mantras: “Anyone Can Procreate. But Getting a Degree is a Real Accomplishment.”

Toward the end of her life, Ma greatly warmed up to her growing number of great-grandchildren. She lit up talking about one newcomer so brightly she nearly burnt my retinas.

Which is why I believe this Ma’s Day she’d be tickled to know her first great-grandchild—she’s got a nursing degree, Ma—just gave birth my mother’s first great-great-grandchild.

The generations roll on. Emily is now a mother herself, on her way to becoming a “ma.” She will quote from the same Official Book of Motherly Mantras and eventually craft her own Book of Ma.

Meanwhile within little baby Addie is the blood of my mother. In fact, in an adorable picture posted for her one-month birthday, I swear I can see Ma’s eyes in that precious and beautiful round face. A look that says, “Be warned: I’m gonna do things my way … and I’m not gonna suffer fools.”

And that’s my prayer this Ma’s Day: that Ma’s newest descendant will have the same strength, honesty, heart, and humor as that smart mouth from Jersey.  

Oh, and won’t steal soda.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The Trump administration is advancing policies to reduce the burden of child care costs on low-income families, The Daily Signal has learned.

The Administration of Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, will issue a combination of new rules and guidance to states in order to empower parents in their children’s day care options. 

“We want to address what is a major cost crunch for a lot of families with young children,” a White House official told The Daily Signal. “Child care eats up a pretty significant chunk of a family’s budget. In some cases, it can compete with the cost of rent or a mortgage, student debt. It’s a significant payment.” 

The new child care policy package seeks to reduce regulations so providers can run their businesses more efficiently, so they could pass the savings on to American families. For instance, the guidance will eliminate degree and credit-hour requirements for teachers, shifting instead to competency-based standards. Mandatory staff-to-child ratios and group-size limits will be replaced so that parents can make those choices for themselves. 

The Trump administration’s goal is to increase parent-directed child care by restoring flexibility to states and encouraging greater use of vouchers.

“We want to encourage choice and competition for parents through the promotion of voucherization, and we want to ensure that to the maximum extent possible, faith-based and community neighborhood-based providers, including home-based providers, are able to participate in these programs on equal footing,” the official said.

Licensing restrictions can hold back faith-based providers, according to the official. The guidance aims to put faith-based providers on equal footing with larger ones.

“[Licensing restrictions] operate as a form of regulatory capture from some of the larger center-based child care providers in ways that can box out faith-based providers that just don’t have access to the same resources, don’t have as much capital, or the same pool of labor to necessarily be able to tap,” the official said. 

The notice of proposed rule making will be finalized in the next week. Governors and state legislatures will also receive letters urging them to carry out the reforms in a way that benefits local residents. 

While Congress holds the majority of the power to impact child care costs, ACF is able to amend regulations and the administration of federal programs, including Head Start, Child Care and Development Fund, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. 

The Trump administration is also working to support stay-at-home parents through the guidance. Currently, the work requirements for married couples under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program are stricter than they are for single parents, making it more difficult for low-income parents to choose to stay home with their kids.

Through subregulatory guidance, ACF will clarify for states that married couples can share the work requirements. 

“There are a lot of families, particularly low-income families, who may not necessarily want to drop their child off at a center-based child care provider, or any child care provider, and would prefer to stay at home,” the official said. “We’re trying to increase the amount of flexibility that low-income families can receive to have a part- or full-time stay-at-home parent to watch their child within the home.” 

The guidance eliminates the 7% co-payment requirement on federal child care programs and encourages states to maximize lawful transfers from TANF and Social Services Block Grants into the Child Care and Development Fund in order to expand access to the fund’s vouchers and reduce waitlists. 

“We want to also clarify that federal law does not require states to disadvantage state-law-approved child care models, just so long as basic health, safety, and integrity standards are met,” the official said. 

The policy package has been a collaborative effort between the Office of Management and Budget, the White House, and ACF.

The president’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposed a set of reform principles for Head Start, and the policy changes are consistent with those, the official said. 

Alex Adams, assistant secretary for ACF, told The Daily Signal in April that he has cut 36,000 pages of regulation.

Are America’s college students doing to themselves what the Chinese Communist state does to its citizens?

An Ivy League professor—an old-fashioned liberal who actually cares about free speech—recently warned me about what’s happening in classrooms like his.

He encourages class discussion of the great books he teaches in class—but students are afraid to speak, not because they’re afraid of the professor but because they fear each other.

Communist regimes have tried to stamp out dissent for more than a century.

Tyrants and totalitarians have always tried to sow suspicion among their subjects, turning friends, neighbors, and even family members into informers against anyone who won’t conform to the party line.

That’s the scenario in George Orwell’s dystopian classic “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” and it’s the intention behind China’s insidious “social credit” system today.

What Orwell never imagined, though, was that young men and women in a free society would one day willingly impose “political correctness” on their peers—and use the 21st century’s decentralized social media to do it.

Students, the professor told me, are afraid to be recorded on their classmates’ cellphones talking about politics and political philosophy—the subjects he teaches—and don’t want to disagree with their fellow students about anything because the person they’re arguing with might belong to a “disadvantaged” group.

It’s not only what you say that’s dangerous, but whom you say it to.

A young man getting into an argument with a young woman, or a white student with a black student, is not a “good look” on social media, and a classroom conversation runs the risk of leading to an online inquisition.

Conservative students, who often have to face ostracism for their dissenting views, might be less intimidated than liberals and progressives, who aren’t used to not fitting in.

All too many liberals have also been conditioned from a young age, both at home and in school, to believe that good-faith argument about serious subjects is inherently offensive—you might hurt the feelings of the person you’re arguing with.

Better to remain silent, even if the professor urges you to speak up.

Communists in the 20th century used very heavy-handed tactics to punish dissidents, but the more groups like the independent, Catholic-inspired labor unions of Poland’s Solidarity movement were harassed, the more they resisted.

What’s terrifying about the new self-imposed social control in America is that it’s more effective using less coercive and more decentralized techniques.

And the effect is a kind of brainwashing, no less than what Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, suffers in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love at the end of “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

Once young men and women get used to censoring themselves and their defensive crouch becomes permanent, they don’t need to be punished anymore: their thoughtcrimes will have been stopped before they can begin.

This American-style social credit system is what happens when pervasive technology combines with an ideology that claims to be about compassion and tolerance—but that really uses those noble-sounding principles as a pretext for enforcing submission.

That part Orwell did anticipate: There’s a reason Big Brother’s inquisition is called the Ministry of Love.

Anecdotes aren’t data—maybe my professor friend has just had an unusually passive set of students for the past 10 or 15 years.

Yet plenty of other indications support what he tells me.

A study published in Science last month by researchers at Stanford University, for example, found one-third of American teens prefer turning to AI for “serious conversations” rather than engaging with another human being.

This was a study of artificial intelligence’s people-pleasing bias—it tells users what they want to hear.

It doesn’t argue, contradict or hurt anyone’s feelings, “even when users engaged in unethical, illegal, or harmful behaviors,” the study’s “editor’s summary” noted.

“The very feature that causes harm also drives engagement,” the report’s abstract concluded.

That might be said about today’s liberalism as an ideology, too—it may sound agreeable and nice, but adopting it leads to harm, including the psychological damage that politically left-wing people report experiencing at much higher levels than conservatives.

Fragility, bitterness, timidity—these are the fruits of the orthodoxy America’s elite has embraced, and which its children enforce against outliers with vigilante zeal.

The victim mentality has become an excuse for bullying.

And rather than confront it, many young people find it easier to make friends with an AI.

Social isolation is socialism’s greatest ally, while the kinds of community the Communists could never stamp out, not with all the power of Soviet tyranny, are the secret to freedom’s survival.

Something as simple as a robust debate in class strikes a blow against Big Brother—and Little Brother with his snooping cellphone.

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.