TownhallReview Commentary

Last week, Republican leaders announced their tax reform plans. The good news is that they’re pro-growth: US corporate tax rates are today the highest in the developed world, and our current system perversely punishes American companies for bringing profits back from their foreign sales. The GOP plan fixes that problem. It also cuts taxes for what has been labeled “flow through” businesses —small and family-owned businesses often use that form. My own family business uses it. The reason it’s important to cut taxes these types of small businesses is because American jobs are almost all created the same way: by small businesses becoming big businesses. It’s been a pretty bad decade for the U.S. economy: a terrible recession followed by barely a whiff of a recovery. That lost decade has cost us standing abroad and frayed the social fabric at home. We can end that by embracing the growth model of JFK, Reagan and Gingrich/Clinton. Americans can’t afford another lost decade.

Nicolas Maduro, president—really dictator—of Venezuela recently held a sham election to rewrite the country’s constitution. The pretext for the vote was to create a new National Constituent Assembly to draft a new Venezuelan constitution. Speaking in the White House briefing room, General H.R. McMaster said, “The sham election of the National Constituent Assembly [in Venezuela] represents a very serious blow to democracy in our hemisphere. Maduro is not just a bad leader. He is now a dictator.” Shortly after the so-called election, opposition leaders were seized from their homes by Venezuela’s secret police. It is a humanitarian crisis in addition to a political one. The United States has responded by imposing strict sanctions. No one in the U.S. can do business with Venezuela. Mr. Maduro also joins a very short list of heads of state who are personally sanctioned by our government. Nonetheless, the question remains: Can the United States allow a dictator with ties to Iran to set up in Venezuela? No. The U.S. must act.

Nothing is more frustrating to me as an American than the distraction that is the mainstream media. So many wonderful things are happening in this great country of ours, but they get lost in the obsession with the latest drama in Washington D.C. For example, President Donald Trump recently announced that Foxconn—a Taiwanese high tech company—will be building a 10 billion dollar manufacturing facility for the production of LCD screens in Wisconsin, creating literally thousands of American jobs. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker anticipates that the Foxconn project will produce 13,000 high paying jobs, as well as another 22,000 indirect jobs and 10,000 construction jobs. Think that’s a big deal? I sure do. But I bet you’ve heard little or nothing about it in the press. Are there difficult things to walk through? Absolutely. But: • The economy is performing well, and: • President Trump promised he’d bring American jobs back. He’s doing just that.

It has been rumored in Washington that President Trump may fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Although this is possible, it would be ill advised on the part of the president. If he and his staff are indeed innocent and have not colluded with the Russians (and there is no evidence to date that they have), then this will be over. If, on the other hand, the president chooses to fire Mueller, he should expect his administration to undergo extraordinary stresses and his momentum to vanish over night. Republicans have enough problems on their hands. There are 20 vacancies on the circuit court of appeals and over 100 vacancies on the lower courts for which there has not been a nomination put forward yet. This is unacceptable. It’s a failure of governance. Republicans don’t need another Saturday Night Massacre 2.0 and firing Robert Mueller would be just that. The Trump administration should instead focus on putting forward originalist nominees for the depleted judiciary.

President Trump’s recent announcement to disallow service by transgendered individuals is an opportunity to remind ourselves what military service is—and what it is not. The Armed Services should not be a lab for social experiments, a testing ground for inclusion or a battleground in the sexual revolution. The American military should choose whom to admit and accommodate based on one factor alone: assembling the best possible fighting force for fighting and winning wars. Any policy that advances that goal is good; any policy that deters it is bad. Debates in the culture at large should be fought outside the armed services. Our military’s job is to defend the nation. That job is harder if we complicate it with political correctness, putting sensitivity over security. President Trump’s decision was designed to unburden our fighting forces so they can focus on their primary mission. Yes, that decision raised even more eyebrows because it came out of the blue via Twitter. Get used to it. That’s Trump. On the merits, he’s completely correct.

I hope you heard about Senator John McCain’s heroic to the floor of the United States Senate to keep the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare alive. We should—and his colleagues should—listen. With reference to “their deliberations” he said: “They can be sincere and principled. But they are more partisan, more tribal more of the time than any other time I remember.” Senator McCain has seen and accomplished much during his decades as an elected official, in service to the people of Arizona and the country. So his words from the Senate floor should serve as a warning to all of us: Our system of deliberative democracy is suffering and our public officials may only be making it worse. It’s a sad observation from someone we should listen to. For our part, we should focus on sending to Washington people are who are focused on solving problems, not just demagoging them; people who put patriotism above partisanship; people who appeal to what unites us, rather than what divides us.

When you think about quality K-12 schools that put kids on a path to being successful, independent adults, do you think of gender inclusive toolkits, opposition to federal law enforcement, and support for the impeachment of the President? If you do not, you probably were not at the National Education Association’s annual meeting where the aforementioned matters were included on its 159-point “new business” agenda. In worldwide rankings, U.S. high school students do not make the top 20 in either science or reading and have dropped to 35th in math. The NEA put forward 159 new business items and nary a one dealing with student performance, classroom instruction, or fiduciary responsibility. The NEA has affiliates in all 50 states. They takeover school districts, subordinate intellectual development to political indoctrination, and purchase legislators who fund it all on your dime and at your kid’s expense. So when the NEA tells you that their business is making your kid a sentinel of the welfare state, you should believe them—and maybe you should show up to a school board meeting too.

Despite the partisan polarization that characterizes both politics and media at the moment, the public seems surprisingly united when it comes to defining Americanism. A new Voter Study Group survey associated with George Washington University, showed a full 93 percent agreeing that “respect for American institutions and laws” is important for being an American. Meanwhile, 88 percent believe it’s important to “accept people of diverse racial and religious backgrounds” to claim authentic American identity. Even 75 percent of Democrats believe it’s important to speak English and to embrace our common language. All in all, the survey that interviewed 8,000 respondents showed a populace much less fractured, bigoted and resentful than often assumed. Nearly all of us understand that what makes us American isn’t where our ancestors came from, but the common ideals and shared culture that we uphold and advance.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan face a very difficult choice as they survey the smoking ruins of their “unified GOP government” after nearly six months in office. They could decide to pivot from health care to racking up small victories and awaiting reinforcements from the 2018 elections. Or they could go for a big deal with Democrats. It’s a tough choice for Ryan and McConnell, but I’m hoping they opt for the latter. Putting off fixing the disaster that is Obamacare is risky, though not impossible. If Republicans score enough small victories between now and November 2018, it may be possible to hold both houses of Congress. The 2018 prospects look bad for both parties: The GOP lacks policy victories, thanks to imprudence of the Freedom Caucus in the House, and scared moderates and ridged conservatives in the Senate.. The Democrats are lost in Trump hatred to the point where a large part of the country thinks that they and the mainstream media are deranged. We are at a crisis point where citizens are giving up on representative government en masse. So why not swing for the fences?

Late last week we got the sad news that Senator John McCain has been diagnosed with a brain tumor—a malignant brain tumor. I’ve been in this business a long time and it’s hard to remember a story about the U.S. Senate without McCain being a part of it. Since 1987, he has always been there and has always been part of the debate. All of those who get the fact that American politics is a team sport have been frustrated with John McCain at one time or another, disappointed with him occasionally. But there’s no doubt that Senator McCain is a great American; a man of conviction; a patriot. He’s been a Congressman, a Senator and the GOP nominee for President. Before all that, though, Lt. Commander McCain served our nation in Vietnam as a Navy fighter pilot. He was shot down in October of ’67—only to suffer then 5 ½ years in captivity and never give in. John McCain is a fighter. Won’t you join me in hoping—and praying—that John McCain can fight back this round cancer and continue his service to the nation?

The superb new movie “Dunkirk” conveys important messages about a fateful episode of World War II. In May, 1940, the rapid Nazi advance through France trapped a huge British army on the coast, offering easy targets for Luftwaffe bombers. The Royal Navy couldn’t rescue the troops from the beaches, so the government rallied civilian craft—fishing boats, ferries, and pleasure cruisers. Some 650 “little ships” helped take more than 300,000 troops safely home. This miraculous evacuation exemplified “The Dunkirk Spirit,” where private initiative saves the nation in a crisis. Watching this thrilling movie, American citizens should find our “Dunkirk Spirit” to help our country overcome present dangers. We should also recall the example of the new Prime Minister in 1940, who inspired his countryman after Dunkirk by pledging “we shall never surrender.” Churchill’s words remind us that our politics need not remain tawdry and petty, and can rise once again to grandeur and nobility.

A Pew Research study shows sharp contrasts between Republicans and Democrats in attitudes toward wealth and poverty. By more than three-to-one, Republicans say hard work, rather than a person’s advantages, explains why people are rich. Among Democrats, only 29 percent agree about the value of hard work, while 60 percent say financial success comes from “advantages in life.” In explaining poverty, 56 percent of Republicans cite “lack of effort” but only 19 percent of Democrats agree with them. Surprisingly, ideology has more influence on attitudes toward wealth and poverty than does current economic status. Nearly a third of low-income respondents admit “lack of effort” explains poverty, while 37 percent of high earners see their good fortune as based on undeserved “advantages in life.” These results suggest that our approaches toward rich and poor stem more from world-view, values and inclination—rather than current standing or personal experience.

Over seven years ago, Democrats in Congress joined President Obama to create a massive expansion of Washington’s role in our health care system. And in the time since then, we’ve witnessed the many ways in which Obamacare has hurt the American health system. Republicans in the United States Senate had the opportunity this week to repeal large parts of that law and to set health policy in America on a different course. The GOP legislation wasn’t perfect, but was certainly an improvement on the status quo. It was also the best chance Republicans have ever had to substantially repeal and replace Obamacare. Unfortunately, several Republican Senators voiced their opposition to even considering the bill, closing the door on the debate. A number did so because they didn’t think it went far enough. Others did so because they thought it went too far. Whatever their reasoning, these Senators have effectively enshrined Obamacare as the law of the land. And they have turned their backs on a promise that they, and other Republicans, have been making for years. For these failures, they have only themselves to blame.

North Korea’s recent rocket tests highlight this brutal regime’s ongoing threat to peace. A mere change of leadership won’t eliminate the dangers posed by the rogue state; the only long-term solution requires disappearance of the totalitarian nightmare in Pyongyang and unification of the Korean Peninsula. That may seem unthinkable at the moment, but 27 years ago a similarly impossible reunification dissolved Communist East Germany into the prosperous, stable Federal Republic of West Germany. Co-incidentally, the statesman who guided this heroic transition just died on June 16th. Helmut Kohl served 16 supremely eventful years as German Chancellor. Kohl’s example makes clear that even well-established dictatorships can dissolve as artificially divided nations join together in the name of peace and progress. May that lesson inspire hope and encouragement for the oppressed, long-suffering people of today’s North Korea.

As Republicans on Capitol Hill struggle to make progress on healthcare and tax reform, the loudest voices in conservative media rip the GOP’s Congressional leadership for their willingness to compromise on drafting legislation. Actually, Republicans in the House and Senate are doing what they need to do to succeed at their jobs, while conservative commentators in talk radio and syndicated columns do what brings success in their very different roles. Congressional conservatives can achieve nothing without support from moderate Republicans and, ideally, some Democrats, but conservative talkers can maintain ratings dominance by appealing solely to hard-core true believers who make up at most 10 percent of the available audience. The only way to repair the rift in Republican ranks is for conservative media to alter their strident approach and broaden their base. That process might bring even larger audiences, while helping Congressional colleagues to build the larger coalitions that Constitutional checks and balances require.

This summer, Commentary magazine published a forum on the question: Is free speech under threat in the United States? Ironically, in a country where the Constitution and the courts carefully protect free speech, many people do not feel free to speak freely. Why? Because of a smothering blanket of political correctness that starts in our colleges and permeates our society. Speakers with points of view that differ from the liberal orthodoxy are not welcome on many campuses, and in some cases have been subject to threats and violence. Students are supposed to be protected from so-called trigger words and microaggressions in the classroom. So much for free speech and the open debate of competing ideas. The problem is that the First Amendment protects free speech from limitations by government, but the big challenges to free speech come from our culture and our campuses. It will take a strong fight to protect free speech, which is clearly under threat.

The New York Times recently acknowledged that some of the recent changes in marriage and childbearing have damaged our country. Noting that a big majority—55 percent—of first children born to millennial couples are now born outside of marriage, columnist David Leonhardt explained that this “new normal” violates the “success sequence” established long-ago by the Brookings Institution. That research proved that young people, whatever their background, could minimize any chance of long-term poverty by taking thee simple steps: graduating from high school, getting a job—any job—right after graduation from high school or college, and bearing children only after marriage, not before. The success sequence shows that good choices can help all people avoid bad outcomes, even if they’re disadvantaged, while bad choices are likely to produce bad outcomes, even for the more privileged. Welcoming children in their traditional context of marital commitment will benefit those children, their parents and society at large.

Over the past six weeks or so, there has been a steady drumbeat of impeachment talk from the elite press and the opposition party. As a result: • Google searches on “impeachment” have spiked by 1,200 percent per day. • London odds makers have raised the odds that Trump will not finish out his term by 21 percent. • And the stock market? The seven weeks after Trump was elected, markets exploded upward 8.3 percent. But in the same period of time after the impeachment push, it has gone up by only 1 ½ percent. There is little doubt that the effort to keep impeachment on the table is hurting markets, which means it’s hurting retirements, pensions and college savings programs. If there were proof of wrongdoing, then of course, justice counts more than money. But Americans should not be forced to endure even more economic stagnation for the sake of scoring higher ratings and political points by the Trump opposition. Simply put: The impeachment crusade is costing you money.

What does it mean to “win” in Washington? I’ve long described “progress” as the ongoing, incremental expansion of liberty and literacy in a growing number stable regimes in or aligned with the West. And by that definition, much of the agenda of President Trump’s administration could well be described as “winning.” Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have become the domestic policy stars of the Trump administration, joining Defense Secretary Mattis, Homeland Security Secretary Kelly and CIA Director Pompeo as foreign policy counterparts off to successful starts. Each of the five brought to the task discipline and passion to lead their agencies. The key, however, is that all five have sought and received buy-ins from the president and Vice President Pence on their policy directions and priorities—and, even more, that they pursue and defend their missions with little or no reference to the raging battle between the West Wing and the media elites. Any assessment of the Trump administration ought to include a clear-eyed evaluation of where they are in fact wining.

President Trump and his supporters are absolutely right that there’s a glaring contrast between the way media treat this president and way the press handled his predecessor, Barack Obama. With Obama, potentially devastating scandals—Benghazi, the IRS, Fast and Furious, the VA—never gained momentum; the press never blamed Obama personally when things went wrong in his administration. For Trump, he’s blamed personally for every embarrassment or disappointment under his watch. But conservatives are wrong to suggest that the treatment of Trump is exceptional. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton also got rough handling by the press; it was the always-forgiving, generally glowing treatment of Obama that was exceptional, extraordinary, in fact. Maybe it was his image as a “hip cool dude,” or his historical status as the first non-white president, but media infatuation with Obama set a dangerous precedent that distorts press-relations with the current administration.

This summer, Commentary magazine published a forum on the question: Is free speech under threat in the United States? Ironically, in a country where the Constitution and the courts carefully protect free speech, many people do not feel free to speak freely. Why? Because of a smothering blanket of political correctness that starts in our colleges and permeates our society. Speakers with points of view that differ from the liberal orthodoxy are not welcome on many campuses, and in some cases have been subject to threats and violence. Students are supposed to be protected from so-called trigger words and microaggressions in the classroom. So much for free speech and the open debate of competing ideas. The problem is that the First Amendment protects free speech from limitations by government, but the big challenges to free speech come from our culture and our campuses. It will take a strong fight to protect free speech, which is clearly under threat.

As we continue the long days of summer and of celebrations like the Fourth of July or family vacations, it is important to keep in mind that across large parts of the world the idea of either freedom or leisure much less both is so far off as to be the stuff of legend. For us, it’s a “taken for granted” annual ritual. We are so blessed that we often simply forget to count those blessings and marvel at their largely uninterrupted enjoyment for 200-plus years. No, we are not a perfect nation, not even close, but we are the best hope of mankind, exceptional for all of our history and ever more so as the world collapses in so many places into abject barbarianism. Our political leaders and our courts may disappoint. Our common culture may disparage our uniqueness, but the facts of history do not lie. In the face of our many imperfections, we should all give thanks for living in this time and in this country.

Since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, the Democrats have lost five special elections, most recently in the state of Georgia where they had poured 30 million dollars into Jon Ossoff’s congressional campaign in the 6th district. This is leading to a great deal of reconsideration of party identity and of strategy on the part of the Democrats. The energy tends to be now disproportionately on the left and that left is moving further left, represented by figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders. But in order to win in these kinds of suburban districts, Democratic candidates are going to have to run to the center. But what if the center also fails? That’s the quandary that Democrats now face. It’s going to lead to a huge ideological and political debate within the Democratic Party. And as we know, that means very important worldview issues will be at stake. How this all plays out will be important not just to the Democratic Party but to the entire nation. We’ll be watching closely.

Every last week of June, every year, Americans get treated to what’s essentially a great civics lesson, a reminder of the enduring importance of the third branch of our constitutional system, as the Supreme Court releases major decisions, clearing its docket before its July recess. And this June was a huge day at the United States Supreme Court in terms of our nation’s history on the issue of religious liberty. The case I’m referring to most immediately is that of Trinity Lutheran vs. Comer—where a church was turned down by the state of Missouri for state funds from a state program that refurbished playgrounds using recycled equipment from tires. With a 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court sent a decisive signal—making clear that the state of Missouri does not have the right to refuse the funds even to a Christian or religious school for the general kind of purpose that was reflected in this playground resurfacing for the safety of children. It’s one of the biggest religious liberty decisions in decades—and it matters for us all.

A new survey by the Fund for American Studies reminds us that millennials do not understand economics. The same group that does not know basic civics—such as who their senator is or whether Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court—also doesn’t get how free markets work. While 60% of millennials said they would choose liberty over security, in turn 54% want more government, not less. A majority of even Republicans and conservatives believe government should regulate oil and drug company prices, and place tariffs on goods coming from overseas. This survey is described as a “freedom index” but millennials really favor more government regulation. I suppose it’s no surprise that young people who have grown up knowing nothing but big government fail to see the connection between more government regulation and less freedom. Young people who value freedom in their personal and social lives need to understand that political and economic freedoms are necessary to sustain that.

A German Light Infantry Battalion recently reported, according to the Wall Street Journal, that “during exercises . . . their unit didn’t have the munitions to simulate battle. Instead, they were told to imagine the bangs.” All this comes in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s visit to Europe, in which he pointed his finger at the Europeans, including many of our historic allies, for their failure to spend enough in terms of their military. The Dutch Prime Minister recently said, “To an extent, he has a point.” Indeed, the president has a massive point. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “Today European allies spend roughly half as much as the United States on defense yet have less than one-sixth of its combat power.” This is not a problem that can be quickly remedied. Perhaps we can understand why Vladimir Putin and others see the opportunity when we are told that a German light infantry battalion is having to say “bang! bang!” to one another because they actually don’t have the bullets.

Leaders of both political parties and the most prominent voices in media, all make the same mistake that poisons our politics: concentrating on the president’s personality, not his policies. Debates always seem to center on Trump’s character: is he a breath of fresh air who’s appropriately shaking the system, or a bigoted buffoon, who’s corrupt and incompetent? Democrats obsess on exaggerated charges of Russian collusion and won’t debate crucial issues like health care and tax reform. Arguments over Trump’s personality may boost ratings and political fund-raising but they’re ultimately pointless and polarizing. Love him or hate him, he’s the president for the next three-and-a-half years. Democrats could meet him halfway on legislation or foreign policy, but there’s no constructive compromise if your main concern is savaging his character. On reality shows, contestants play clear roles as heroes or villains but government should be about progress and programs, not nasty games.

In the last week alone, terrorists have attacked or attempted to attack targets in European nations we call allies and friends. One of the main railway stations in Brussels, Belgium was targeted. So too were innocent civilians on the Champs-Elysees in Paris. These attempts came on the heels of deadly attacks in London and Manchester, and recent attacks in Stockholm, Berlin, and Nice. The threat of radical jihadist terrorism is real. And if we are naïve enough to believe that the terrorists are only interested in attacking European nations, shame on us. They’d love nothing more than to successfully attack the American homeland. That’s why, for all of the threats we face around the world, none is more significant than the one that we face from radical Islamic terrorism. The intelligence community and law enforcement has have done a superb job of keeping Americans safe since 9/11. Lawmakers should make sure they have everything they need for success. And the Trump Administration should continue to devote time, effort, and resources to neutralizing and, eventually, defeating this threat.

James T. Hogkinson, the crazed gunman who fired at Republican congressmen in early June, hardly fits the common image of a militant Bernie Sanders Democrat. He was 66, married for 30 years, a proud gun-owner, working in construction and living in a small Midwestern town. In fact, he came close to stereotypes of one of Trump’s blue-collar “deplorables,” which only highlights the dishonest nature of common media narratives. Actually, Trump’s core support wasn’t the downtrodden working class: he did better among the third of voters who earned more than $100,000 a year than among the two-thirds who earned less than that. Among the one-third of voters who earned below $50,000, Trump lost to Clinton by 12 points. Nor were his supporters overwhelmingly uneducated: he actually won white voters with college degrees, 37 percent of the overall electorate. The Trump coalition was far more varied and complex than simplistic analysis and conventional wisdom suggest.

Republican Karen Handel’s victory in the special election in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District will generate a lot of punditry and spin. Democrats will argue that they got a lot closer than they should have in a district that Republican Tom Price, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services, won by 23 points less than a year ago. Republicans will respond by noting that their opponents poured $30 million into the race and yet the Democrat wasn’t able to do any better than Hillary Clinton did in losing the district to Donald Trump last year. Both sides are right, to some degree. That’s why it’s hard to draw too many conclusions about what this means for the midterms next year. There are many political lifetimes to be led between now and then. And intervening events will impact voters’ opinions over the next 17 months. We’d all be well served to take a deep breath and let it all unfold. Predicting the future never has been a very good business to be in, anyway.

In 2010, the health insurance legislation known as “Obamacare” was overwhelmingly unpopular. But Democrats in the White House and Congress pushed it through anyway, and then paid a severe price in the next elections. Today, the health care package known as “Trumpcare” is similarly unpopular, but the Republicans seem determined to pass legislation this summer, even at the risk of serious losses of their own in 2018 Congressional elections. Does this mean the electorate is confused?—hating Obamacare, and then hating the most serious attempt to repeal and replace it? Actually, public reactions are sensible and consistent—what Americans hate is the whole idea of the federal government making sweeping, bureaucratic decisions, on something as personal and important as medical insurance. If the GOP made clear that their proposals provide individuals with more choices, and give the states more discretion to shape their own policies, their reforms would win much broader popular support.

For sixty years, Gallup has asked about public attitudes toward faith, giving respondents a clear choice: “Do you believe that religion can answer all or most of today’s problems, or that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date?” In 1957, 82 percent expressed confidence in religious solutions, while only 11 percent considered faith old fashioned. Today, the margin is much closer, but Americans still think religion has the answers—55 percent to 34 percent. Among those who say they “seldom” or “never” go to church, a full third still think religion can solve contemporary problems. And among Democrats, a plurality agrees that faith has the answers all people seek. Even among those who consider themselves political liberals, and those who never participate in public worship, there’s still a lingering suspicion that faith-based solutions benefit individuals and society. Believers should never write off America as a secularized, Godless, lost cause.

Bernie Sanders recently announced that he will oppose President Trump’s nominee for assistant budget director, Russell Vought, because Vought penned a blog in which he said that Muslims “stand condemned” because they have rejected Jesus Christ. Vought’s post was a defense of his alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian institution, and what he articulated was nothing other than historic orthodox biblical Christianity. Senator Sanders made his position quite clear: “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.” Here you have a sitting United States senator rejecting a presidentially appointed candidate simply on the basis of the fact that he had the temerity to write an article defending historic Christian doctrine. Senator Sanders would no doubt say that he’s a staunch defender of the separation of church and state, and yet what he did here was nothing less than an absolute violation of religious liberty.

The context of the brutal assault in Alexandria, Virginia that wounded Congressman Steve Scalise sends an important public message: our elected representatives may wield enormous power but they’re still ordinary Americans who enjoy getting up early on a bright Spring morning to practice for things like a charity baseball game. The crazed shooter had been so warped by hateful leftist propaganda that he couldn’t recognize the obvious humanity of his victims: he asked about party affiliation, and when told they were Republicans he was ready to kill. This time the targets were conservatives and the assailant was a self-styled “progressive,” but both sides have indulged the recent toxic tendency to demonize and dehumanize opponents. The idea that disagreements over health care, taxes, and foreign policy are enough to justify violent assault is repugnant and profoundly un-American. President Trump sounded the right note when he asked the nation to respond to such hatred by coming together for the common good.

As Americans, we are drawn together by so much more than what divides us. We have a common sense of purpose and destiny. And we wake up each day knowing how blessed we are to live in this remarkable country. Even as we are saddened by news of the shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and four others, including two Capitol Police officers who were wounded while doing their jobs, we recognize that we, as Americans, must be about so much more than what separates us. We come together to celebrate the bravery of our first responders and marvel at those who place their lives on the line each day to protect the things we hold dear. And we come together, in spite of the pettiness and politics, to honor those who serve the public each day, selflessly and courageously. Now is a time for us to rise above our differences. Now is a time to elevate the tone of our public discussions—and to remember that our fates are tied together, as Americans.

The California State Senate recently passed legislation creating a government-run, single-payer health care system in the Golden State. The idea is so bad that even Governor Jerry Brown has expressed concerns about it. What’s wrong with the idea? It replaces the existing, largely private-sector system and will force people out of the health care plans they currently have. It will lead to the rationing of care and give to government the most intimate and sacred of our health care decisions. And left-wing lawmakers in California want to pay for their socialized health care system with mammoth tax increases, because the cost of their program is estimated to be more than the entirety of the state’s current budget. Public opinion polls reveal that most Californians are actually opposed to a single-payer health system. Yet, some politicians are following the lead of left-wing demagogues like Bernie Sanders, and pursuing policies that will literally bankrupt the state. Ultimately, California’s voters are the ones who have to say that enough is enough. Here’s to hoping that they do.

This month—June 2017—marks the 50th anniversary of the unification of Jerusalem as the undivided, eternal capital of the Jewish people. What was the city’s status before Israeli victory in 1967’s Six Day War? At that time, Eastern Jerusalem and the Old City were occupied by Jordan; all Jewish residents had been either killed or driven out, and even Jewish tourists were banned from ancient holy places like the Western Wall. The UN Partition Plan of 1947 had called for international status for all of Jerusalem, but the Arabs rejected the plan and destroyed 58 synagogues in the ancient Jewish Quarter. UN control of Jerusalem was supposed to last only 10 years, when residents would vote to decide the city’s permanent status. Since Jerusalem’s population was two-thirds Jewish in 1947, and remains so today, the Holy City would have ended up as the undivided capital of the Jewish state of Israel, even under the UN’s original plans.

We have just recently marked the 75th anniversary of one of the most significant events in all of naval history: the Battle of Midway. What’s most important about this battle is that it came just six months after the Japanese sneak attack upon Pearl Harbor. The United States Navy largely defeated the Japanese Navy by turning the tables, and the fact that it did so within just six months is one of the most amazing stories of military history. U.S. Naval intelligence, having intercepted and broken the Japanese code, knew where the Japanese Navy was headed and knew that they were trying to lure the Americans into a trap. The U.S. Navy took decisive action, and rather than the Japanese surprising the American Navy, it was the U.S. Navy that surprised the Imperial Japanese forces. Fewer and fewer of those battle veterans are alive today, but our indebtedness still goes to the United States Navy and what took place in the Battle of Midway 75 years ago.

Former FBI director Robert Mueller enjoys deep and wide respect inside and outside of the Beltway, among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. Of course: Now he’s Special Counsel with unique independence in addition to his formal authority that comes from the Department of Justice’s regulations. For purposes of the investigation into Russia’s attack on our elections in 2016, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is the Acting Attorney General and technically Mueller’s supervisor. But it’s almost impossible to imagine circumstances in which Mr. Rosenstein would attempt to guide or influence Mr. Mueller. Both men are long serving public servants and career prosecutors. Both deserve the respect they have earned and Mueller especially needs time to get his investigation staffed and grounded. When it’s all over Mueller will have an overwhelming presumption of integrity on his side whether his findings hurt Republicans or Democrats. Pundits especially should be very leery of rushing to judgment about anything connected to the Russia investigation. Wait upon the facts and Mr Mueller. Wait upon the facts.

Fifty years ago, the 19-year-old state of Israel won a miraculous, astonishing victory against larger, better equipped forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The Soviet Union lavishly supported the Arab states, while Lyndon Johnson’s America proclaimed strict neutrality as the Jewish state faced annihilation. Israel had to rely on Mirage jets purchased from France, since American equipment was unavailable. Territorial disputes played little role in the war since the Arabs wouldn’t accept Israel within any borders, openly pledging to “drive the Jews into the sea.” Shortly after the war, Israel offered to trade captured territory for peace but the Arab League responded with the famous “three no’s of the Khartoum Conference”: no peace, no recognition, no negotiation with Israel. Today, the key issue remains the same as 50 years ago: refusal by much of the Arab world to accept a Jewish state under any conditions, within any boundaries, on the site of the ancient Jewish homeland.

If Theresa May wins her expected victory in June’s British elections it will represent the latest evidence of a sweeping international trend: the utter collapse of the old left. Britain’s Labour Party dominated the United Kingdom for 13 years under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, but with radical leader Jeremy Corbin, it’s struggled for traction and relevance. The same thing happened in France, where the candidate of the long-dominant Socialists finished a dismal 5th in recent elections. In Germany, center right Chancellor Angela Merkel has already ruled for 12 years and is heavily favored to capture another term in September. And in Israel, the leftist Labor Party that held power for the nation’s first 29 years, now commands only 16 percent of their Parliament; Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu faces more formidable competition from fellow leaders on the right. In America, as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and other hard-liners drag Democrats leftward, the nation’s oldest political party faces much the same fate.

A long-awaited announcement from the Trump administration was released last week: namely, the reversal of the Obamacare contraception mandate, the mandate that required all employers, even religious employers, to pay for contraception methods, including abortion-inducing drugs. The latest from President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget only deals with explicitly religious employers. The vast majority of employers will still be under the Obamacare contraception mandate. What we see here is the inevitable collision between sexual liberty and America’s first freedom, religious liberty. There are those who are so absolutely committed to sexual liberty that they are quite willing to violate the religious liberties of others. As we have known now for a number of years, we don’t have to look out there into the future and argue just how long it will be before we see that collision between sexual liberty and religious liberty. It’s already happened. That collision is a story that’s already here. The new rule from the Trump administration ought to be applauded.

Democrats who prattle endlessly about impeaching President Trump are deluding themselves and damaging the country. Not only do they lack convincing evidence of impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” but they also possess no understanding of the lessons of history. Only three presidents have ever confronted serious impeachment proceedings: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In each of those situations, the embattled president faced a hostile Congress, with House and Senate overwhelmingly controlled by the opposition party. In none of those cases, did the accused president lose the support of his own party’s representatives. To remove Trump from office would take every single Democratic Senator, plus 19 of the 52 Republicans—an impossibility in an age of partisanship. Instead of indulging toxic impeachment daydreams, Democrats should wake up and try to work with the president, whatever his imperfections.

The U.S. economy is in danger, and the longer the Trump tax plan is delayed, the greater that danger becomes. President Trump wants large tax cuts in corporate and individual rates. That’s good, because right now America has the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. But here's the worry: If you run a business and I tell you that your taxes are going to fall … next year, what do you do? You put off expansion until next year. This is what happened to President Reagan at the beginning of his term. He proposed big tax cuts, but he let the Democratic congress talk him into deferring the cuts for a couple of years. Predictably business managers deferred expansion and the economy plunged into recession. Reaganomics got blamed for a contraction which was caused by the delay of Reaganomics. The same thing happened with the Bush tax cuts in 2001. President Trump can’t afford to make that mistake. He should push his tax plan now.

Students at the University of Notre Dame recently staged a walk out protest against Vice President Mike Pence who was the university’s commencement speaker. One young man interviewed about the protest looked squarely into the camera and said, “Commencement is about us. It’s not about national politics. This is a distraction.” Well, this is a profound misunderstanding of the commencement ceremony and it’s also a reflection of the incredible narcissism that seems now to affect so many at various age levels in American society. The commencement is actually a celebration of learning and the dignity of education. It’s about achievement, yes, but it’s also about promise. It’s about obligation and responsibility on the part of the graduates even as they depart the campus of the university or other institutions of higher education and pursue their callings in life. But that statement, “It’s about us,” when it comes to commencement is very revealing. It tells us a great deal about a fundamental moral shift that has taken place in this country.

On Sept. 7, 2016, Donald Trump made a specific promise “to build a Navy of 350 surface ships and submarines.” On March 2, now president Trump added to the specificity of that pledge by promising to increase the number of aircraft carriers to 12. The recently unveiled White House budget breaks both of these promises. A 350-ship fleet is key for both national security and international stability. China is rapidly growing its navy to fill the gaps left by the Obama-era cutbacks. Reversing those cuts is crucial to preserving American supremacy at sea and supporting allies around the world. The president is fresh back from his very successful trip abroad. Now he needs to nominate a Navy secretary and send Congress an addendum to his budget, one with a plan to keep his promises regarding the Navy, and the funding to make that plan a reality.

The horrific Manchester terror attack raises uncomfortable questions about the imperfect integration of Britain’s Muslim minority. A series of such brutal incidents in the United Kingdom involved native-born British subjects, not recent refugees. And despite some fears of Islam’s surging influence, the most recent numbers show that self-identified Muslims still comprise only 5 percent of the UK population. The far more worrisome numbers involve the declining percentage who say they are Christian—down from 72 percent to just 59 percent today. Those who hope that America and the United Kingdom will maintain their distinctive cultural identities are right to worry about Christianity’s declining numbers. But we should remember that those losses reflect disenchantment and disaffiliation far more than the growth of Islam or any other rival faith.

The dangerous world we are looking at today serves as an appropriate backdrop for our expression of gratitude for those who have died in the service of our nation. From the time of our nation’s founding to today, well over 1.2 million Americans have paid the ultimate price in the service of our country. Today is a day for us to say, “thank you.” It is also a day for us to dedicate ourselves. In 1863 Abraham Lincoln called our country to an “unfinished work.” And, in many respects, we remain an unfinished work. Our commitment—the commitment of “the living”—to the values and freedoms our honored veterans fought for makes clear that they did not die in vain. To those who have served or are serving today: A grateful nation says, “thank you.” To those listening who have a loved one who died for this great cause: A special thanks to you—and a heartfelt civilian salute from me (and all my friends here at the Salem Media Group). Happy Memorial Day.

President Donald Trump is currently engaged in his first international trip as president. The contrast between the current president and his predecessor has been immediately apparent inasmuch as President Trump has been willing to use the word Islam in connection with the struggle against terrorism whereas President Barack Obama was categorically unwilling to do so. As the Washington Post reported, President Trump has forcefully summoned the Muslim world to confront “the crisis of Islamic extremism.” In the president’s address in Saudi Arabia, he said “Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory—piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned.” The president repeatedly used the stem word Islam, and he also used the word in a way that as you might expect brought criticism from the liberal western press.

“The Slaughter of the Innocents.” That’s the title from the U.K.’s Daily Mail piece chronicling the latest attack from radical Islamic terrorists. This time: It was in Manchester Arena in the U.K., in the aftermath of the Ariana Grande concert. At least 22 are dead. Over 100 are injured, some of them very seriously. The horrific incident is yet another bloody reminder of the long war—yes a decades long war—that the nations of the developed world have against Islamist terrorism. In the West, we’ve seen a reticence to label the threat for what it is, a willingness to tolerate the occasional act of terror as the price for living in the age in which we do and a general fatigue in the fight. This week’s attack should motivate us toward two ends: Prayers and love and support to the injured, their families, and families of the fallen. And: We should steel our resolve. As individuals, as a people and a nation: We need to fight radical Islamic terror … and we cannot tire in that fight.