Yet this backlash is itself dangerous. AI promises to change the world for the better, much as electricity or the steam engine did. Not long ago, the era-defining problem for the rich world was stagnant economic growth and the populism it unleashed. Now it has a technology that could power a surge in productivity and incomes, help find cures for untreatable diseases and improve everything from education to green tech.

All this could be lost if countries starve the technology of computing power or regulate it into uselessness. Look at mRNA vaccines research, which has been held back after a backlash during the covid-19 pandemic.

Scenarios in which some countries give in to popular rage but others forge ahead are also worrying. If America succumbs, it could cede the global ai frontier, and the attendant cyber and military capabilities, to authoritarian China. Europe and Canada are more risk-averse than America. If they choked off AI while the rest of the world kept pushing forward, their losses could be unrecoverable. More than two centuries after the Industrial Revolution, few countries have managed to catch up with the first movers.

So the stakes are high. Can governments do anything about it? Grand proclamations about the shape of a “social contract” for a post-AI world are good fodder for blog posts but offer little help today. Besides, the unknowns are still large enough to make the exercise almost futile.

Better to be incremental. 

Read it all.

Persuading voters that their interests are being served by AI’s disruption has become as important as making models better. The failure to do so would destroy vast opportunities for humanity https://t.co/5S9EGzPIHg

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 25, 2026

Child poverty is “not just an issue of economics, but a crisis of human dignity and a moral challenge to the kind of society we wish to build”, the Bishop of Peterborough, the Rt Revd Debbie Sellin, has said.

Speaking during a House of Lords debate last week on the Government’s Child Poverty Strategy, Bishop Sellin referred to research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that “food is now the most common essential that low-income households are going without.”

A C of E primary school near Daventry had set up a community larder, she said, “providing affordable food to families struggling to make ends meet, along with ensuring that all children [have] a good breakfast each morning. Volunteer groups work hard to bring isolated families back into community life, but they find their efforts stifled by lack of investment in infrastructure.”

Read it all.

Child poverty is ‘a crisis of human dignity’ and a ‘moral challenge’ https://t.co/05zMjJPM8x

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 23, 2026

The news is full of how an ignominious peace deal with Iran exemplifies a decline in American power. That conclusion could hardly be more wrong. On June 12th the Trump administration ordered Anthropic to block foreigners from Fable and Mythos, its latest and most capable frontier AI models. In an instant, everyone learned that the American government can decide who may use the world’s most important technology. You don’t get much more powerful than that.

The administration was responding to a supposed jailbreak for Fable, meaning a prompt that circumvents defences against uses such as hacking computers or making bioweapons. The chances are that it wanted Anthropic to switch off the models for everyone, and that targeting foreigners was a means to an end. Sure enough, that is what Anthropic did, while claiming that the concern about its model was overblown. The legal basis of the order remains unclear, and the ban seems unlikely to last.

What matters, though, is the demonstration that global access to the best AI may come down to a decision in the Oval Office. The administration showed in March that it is prepared to trample on the frontier AI companies, when it designated Anthropic a “supply-chain risk”. Now it has shown that it is prepared to trample on users, too.

America must decide how to wield this vast new power. The rest of the world must decide what to do about it. Even as it plans for an unreliable America in everything from defence to trade, it now has to cope with a new way of being captive to the world’s biggest economy.

Read it all.

Even as the world plans for an unreliable America in everything from defence to trade, it now has to cope with America’s dominance in AI https://t.co/xrMSKZAFWb

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 18, 2026

The Christian faith is by nature conservative—in a theological sense. The Scriptures are replete with verses pointing to the unchanging and enduring nature of God and the Bible. Revelation 1:8 says, “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty’” (ESV throughout). Malachi 3:6 says, “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.” Isaiah 40:8 says, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” Hebrews 13:8 says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” These verses do not mean that the biblical text cannot be distorted or manipulated by self-serving people, but it does mean that the Bible is not a party platform that gets updated every four years.

Thankfully, there are countless others who are faithfully preaching and teaching God’s word. These congregations are often small and do not receive any media attention. Many are led by pastors more concerned with preparing their members for eternity in heaven than getting souls to the polls on Election Day. Some of these churches have vibrant ministries for men, women, and families. They are committed to remaining faithful to biblical ethics regarding sex, sexuality, marriage, family, and the sanctity of life without any concern for whether elected Democrats—or Republicans—agree.

Liberation-minded pastors who reject the biblical definitions and descriptions of sex and marriage are incapable of doing the work needed to rebuild the Black family. They fashion themselves as brave prophets, but they make race and politics twin idols that draw their hearts—and pulpits—away from God.

Christians are often told to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. That is wise counsel, but what’s even more dangerous is a wolf in shepherd’s clothing. The former can devour a few sheep before the others scatter, but the latter can lead an entire flock over a cliff.

One ray of hope is the biblical theme of God’s mercy on those who turn from their wicked ways and trust him. The pattern in both the Old and New Testaments is quite familiar. God’s people rebel. He rebukes them. They reflect on their sin and repent. He restores them. This is my prayer because the Black family needs the church to function in its God-given role now more than ever.

Read it all.

“Instead, liberation theology has transformed the Black church from a religious institution dedicated to the pursuit of righteousness to the religious wing of the Democratic Party.”https://t.co/Bh1V8SBXWw

— TheQueenofLA 🇺🇸 (@Queenofla2) June 17, 2026

A ban on social media for under-16s, announced by the Government this week, will not guarantee child safety online, Bishops and safeguarding specialists have warned.

Two C of E Bishops — one in favour of the ban and the other opposed — nonetheless agreed this week that a ban in isolation was not enough, and that both scrutiny of big tech social media companies and investment in youth services was essential if children are to be protected from harm.

The Children’s Society warned against letting the tech companies off the hook, while Jim Gamble, the chief executive of INEQE, the safeguarding group currently auditing all Church of England dioceses and cathedrals, said that, while well intentioned, a ban was not practical.

Read it all.

A ban on social media for under-16s, announced by the Government this week, will not guarantee child safety online, Bishops and safeguarding specialists have warned#socialmediaban #under16s #churchnews https://t.co/Os2gr5VbRw

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 16, 2026

For his part, while Hamilton favored a more active role for government in promoting commerce, his ultimate aim was almost the same as Jefferson’s: securing the rights proclaimed in the Declaration. But by enhancing commerce, Hamilton aspired to enable ordinary Americans to emulate his path of rising to prosperity through their own initiative and industry.  

Both men would surely have been horrified by the enormous and intrusive bureaucracy that the progressive movement bequeathed to us. As Rosen puts it, “in the name of Jefferson’s commitment to equal economic opportunity, Roosevelt had buried Jefferson’s commitment to limited government” (though Rosen surely errs in calling his program “Hamiltonian”). Rosen does cite Ronald Reagan’s “Jeffersonian criticisms” of the Great Society “antipoverty” program of FDR’s successor Lyndon Johnson for undermining welfare recipients’ incentive to work, while also noting how the articles of impeachment that Congress drew against Richard Nixon, drawing on Federalist no. 69, finally “refuted” Jefferson’s charge that Hamilton had been a monarchist

Finally, in the area of constitutional interpretation, Rosen quotes Justice Antonin Scalia’s embrace of “the interpretative approach of the Hamiltonian justice Joseph Story” according to which the Constitution’s words should be construed neither broadly nor strictly, but rather taking them “in their natural and obvious sense” (though that phrase obviously leaves considerable room for dispute in particular cases). But Rosen departs from Scalia by insisting that “the central dispute on the Supreme Court” since the Founding “has not been between originalism and non-originalism, but between liberal and strict construction of federal power”: how would that distinction apply to decisions applauded by “living constitutionalists” like Roe v. Wade, which have no grounding in the Constitution’s text at all?  

Whatever one’s judgment of these controversies, it is impossible to differ with Rosen’s concluding judgment that “the greatest threat to the American Idea” throughout our history has come not from those who inconsistently apply Hamilton’s or Jefferson’s principles, but “from those who have rejected the principles entirely,” from Calhoun and others who renounced the claim of natural human equality as “a self-evident lie” to “progressive and conservative ideologues today” who would replace the Constitution entirely with a “resort to violence.” Taken as a whole, Rosen’s book offers a learned and sober account of the relevance of Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s principles to America’s past, present, and possible future. 

Read it all.

National Constitution Center President & CEO Jeffrey Rosen discusses his book, "The Pursuit of Liberty: How Hamilton vs. Jefferson Ignited the Lasting Battle Over Power in America."

Watch here: https://t.co/pYS9vkWqTb pic.twitter.com/jj7ARdujMR

— Washington Journal (@cspanwj) December 25, 2025

Responding to the news that a Bill to permit assisted dying is to be reintroduced to Parliament, the Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, has told the Church Times that she remains committed to scrutinising the legislation in the House of Lords — although MPs may use the Parliament Act to bypass the Upper House.

“The issues around workability and safety remain, as do the issues around the funding of palliative and social care,” she said.

The Bishop was speaking after the Labour MP for Rochester and Strood, Lauren Edwards, announced that she would use another Private Member’s Bill to reintroduce the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill into the House of Commons.

Read it all.

Responding to the news that a Bill to permit assisted dying is to be reintroduced to Parliament, the Bishop of Newcastle has told the Church Times that she remains committed to scrutinising it in the Lords—although MPs may use the Parliament Act https://t.co/uHGU8uJZkN

— James Macintyre (@James_Macintyre) June 15, 2026

A new parliamentary network of cathedral cities with a remit to make a “sustained appeal” to the Government for funding support was established this week.

Cathedral deans and their constituency MPs met in Westminster on Tuesday. MPs were urged to propose a motion for debate in Parliament on the value of cathedrals to the nation. The deans also urged the Government to call on the Church’s own National Investing Bodies to meet their obligations to cathedrals.

Parliamentary debates on cathedrals have been held every year for the past few years, covering their economic contribution, choral music, maintenance, and sustainability.

Read it all.

A new parliamentary network of cathedral cities with a remit to make a “sustained appeal” to the Government for funding support was established this week.#Cathedral https://t.co/1VMa9dOhhB

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 12, 2026

The Bishop of Newcastle, Dr Helen-Ann Hartley, has welcomed a poll of more than 10,000 people which suggests that a majority in all 632 parliamentary constituencies oppose the proposed law on assisted dying being revisited without full scrutiny and approval by both chambers.

Dr Hartley was on the House of Lords select committee that examined the Private Member’s Bill brought by the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in October 2024 (News, 18 October 2024), and spoke against it before it was defeated earlier this year in the Upper House (News, 1 May). She told the Church Times that the poll “confirms that the public does not support the suggestion of bypassing the House of Lords in order to force through an unsafe Bill”.

She said: “This would mean using a procedure never used for a Bill of this kind and acting against the advice of medical professionals, disability groups, and the concerns of all those who want to see legislation that is safe and workable.

“For a Bill of this magnitude in terms of societal change, the highest level of scrutiny is imperative.”

Read it all.

The Bishop of Newcastle has welcomed a poll of more than 10,000 people which suggests that a majority in all 632 parliamentary constituencies oppose the proposed law on #assisteddying being revisited without full scrutiny and approval by both chambershttps://t.co/1fB16bi9sv

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) June 10, 2026

Social Security is expected to deplete the fund that helps pay out retirement benefits by late 2032, the program’s trustees said Tuesday.

That is earlier than their projection last year of 2033, partly because the fund expects to collect less revenue after President Trump’s new tax law. Passed last summer, the law gave senior citizens an extra deduction that reduced taxes on benefits for many Social Security recipients. . .

Unless Congress shores up the retirement program, the depletion of reserves would trigger a 22% reduction in benefits in late 2032. Because incoming payroll tax revenue doesn’t fully cover promised benefits, the program is forced to make up the difference by pulling money from its two Social Security trust funds—one for disability benefits and the other for the larger program for retirees…

Read it all.

"Social Security Will Start Running Out Earlier Than Expected" https://t.co/c9X74I9lvM pic.twitter.com/fvWj2vcW9O

— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) June 9, 2026

“My Fellow Americans:

“Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

“And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

“Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
“They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest — until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

“For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

“Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

“And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them — help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

“Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

“Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

“And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

“And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment — let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

“With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace — a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

“Thy will be done, Almighty God.

“Amen.”

You can listen to the actual audio if you want here and today of all days is the day to do that. Also, there is more on background and another audio link there.–KSH.

82 years ago #OTD 6 June 1944, the D-Day Landings had just begun, and the Liberation of Europe was underway. Part of the memorial in English, French and German outside the D-Day Story, Portsmouth. When I visited I found myself unexpectedly very moved, especially by the walls of… pic.twitter.com/T9xRmE3Pqo

— Simon Knott (@SimoninSuffolk) June 6, 2026

A new style of architecture is rising in the sprawling suburbs of the Sonoran Desert: windowless data centers that hum 24 hours a day and guzzle as much electricity as a midsize city.

As Microsoft and other tech giants expand their footprints in one of the nation’s largest data-center markets, a high-stakes battle is unfolding over how to pay for the massive power-grid upgrades needed to drive the AI revolution. 

Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest utility, sits at the center of the firestorm. APS is proposing a 45% electricity-rate increase for “extra-large energy users,” primarily data centers, and a roughly 14.5% increase for residential customers.

Nearly everyone is unhappy.

Consumer advocates warn the plan would shift the financial risks of the AI build-out to households already struggling with high summer electricity bills and temperatures that often hit triple digits. If the AI boom fizzles or the energy consumption of data centers wanes, they worry residents could be left paying off the infrastructure upgrades years from now.

Read it all.

Phoenix Is a Data-Center Mecca—and Test Case for How to Pay for AI’s Power Needs
State’s largest utility is proposing a 45% electricity-rate increase for data centers and a 14.5% hike for households. No one is happy.https://t.co/m1xMQtoJsq

— Giovanni Staunovo🛢 (@staunovo) June 4, 2026

Ben Sasse: The Senate needs to be less like Instagram. The Senate needs to be more deliberative. And that means less smack-down nonsense. One of the fundamental mistakes we’ve made over the last 30 or 40 years is putting cameras everywhere in Washington, D.C. This is not an argument against transparency. We should have reporters around. We should have pen and pad. We should have people recording what’s happening. But we should make the Senate less of an institution that is built as a backdrop platform for people to get sound bites. That’s not what the Senate is for. The Senate should be plodding, and steady, and boring, and trustworthy.

Scott Pelley: To be too frank, you were expected to be dead by now.

Ben Sasse: That’s frank. I like it. Let’s be blunt.

Scott Pelley: What changed?

Ben Sasse: Let’s go with– providence, prayer, and a miracle drug. In mid-December I was given a three- to four-month life expectancy. I am on extended time already. I have pancreatic origin cancer that has metastasized a number of places. So, I’ve got lung, vascular, liver, other. Liver’s pretty far along…

Read it all.

there.

“Many senators I know would not be able to breathe without that job. It would kill them to leave,” says Scott Pelley.

“I don't want what you said to be true. But I fear that that is true. And that is a sign of a much, much deeper problem,” responds former Sen. Ben Sasse.… pic.twitter.com/lXfzeDWr7Y

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) April 26, 2026

President Trump sought to reassure skeptical Americans that the war in Iran is in the national interest, arguing that the operation was necessary to decimate a regime threatening the U.S. and insisting that economic pain would be short-lived.

In a 20-minute address from the White House, his most direct sales pitch to the nation since the war began a month ago, Trump said the U.S. had succeeded on the battlefield and declared that U.S. military objectives would be completed “very shortly.”

Trump said he still aims for a diplomatic agreement to end the war. But in the meantime, he vowed to hit Iran “extremely hard” in the coming weeks and pummel the country “back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.”

Read it all.

President Trump sought to reassure skeptical Americans that the war in Iran is in the national interest, arguing that the operation was necessary to decimate a regime threatening the U.S. https://t.co/k1db0hosas

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) April 2, 2026

President Trump told aides he’s willing to end the U.S. military campaign against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, administration officials said, likely extending Tehran’s firm grip on the waterway and leaving a complex operation to reopen it for a later date.

In recent days, Trump and his aides assessed that a mission to pry open the chokepoint would push the conflict beyond his timeline of four to six weeks. He decided that the U.S. should achieve its main goals of hobbling Iran’s navy and its missile stocks and wind down current hostilities while pressuring Tehran diplomatically to resume the free flow of trade. If that fails, Washington would press allies in Europe and the Gulf to take the lead on reopening the strait, the officials said.

There are also military options the president could decide on, but they are not his immediate priority, they said.

Read it all.

My war, your Hormuz problem:

“..: President Trump told aides he’s willing to end the U.S. military campaign against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, administration officials said…” — @WSJ https://t.co/PkwPlwgPGy

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) March 31, 2026

The Israeli military is increasingly sceptical that regime change in Iran will be possible in the coming weeks, casting doubt on one of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s core war aims as the Islamic republic shows its ability to endure intense bombardment.

Two people familiar with the matter said the prevailing view within military intelligence was that the war had not created the conditions for ousting the Islamic regime in the near future. One of them, who is familiar with briefings from the Israel Defense Forces’ intelligence directorate Aman, said it appeared that the aerial campaign had yet to measurably erode the Iranian regime’s hold on power since the US and Israel launched the war on February 28.

Both people spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the evolving thinking within the IDF, rather than an official assessment.

Read it all.

Israeli military doubts war will topple Iranian regime https://t.co/hphrOjqqGv

— Financial Times (@FT) March 26, 2026

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country.

On Tuesday evening, Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) rejected, by 69 votes to 57, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, which had been introduced by Liam McArthur MSP. The Bill sought to allow an assisted death for terminally ill adults who had decision-making capacity and had six months or less to live.

In a statement issued shortly after the vote, Ms Frew said: “I recognise that the outcome will be a disappointment to many, but it was clear that the safeguards included did not offer sufficient protection.

“We have been consistent in our position that we need to prioritise the development of excellent palliative care services that are universally available and fully funded. Without that, had the Bill passed, we would fear that many vulnerable people might have seen an assisted death as their only realistic option.”

Read it all.

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country#churchnews #churchtimes https://t.co/NhNTeIZ6GR

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 18, 2026

A senior adviser to the Nigerian president has rejected claims that Christians are being specifically targeted in violence across Nigeria, insisting the country is facing a broader security crisis rather than religious persecution.

Bayo Onanuga, special adviser for information and strategy to President Bola Tinubu, made the comments to Premier Christian News as he began a state visit to the UK, the first by a Nigerian leader in almost four decades.

The visit comes amid growing international scrutiny over attacks on Christians in Nigeria. More than 200 MPs have urged Keir Starmer to raise concerns about religious freedom when he meets President Tinubu in Downing Street on Thursday.

Last month, a US government report described Nigeria as the most dangerous place in the world to practise the Christian faith, warning that jihadist networks exploit weak enforcement and limited accountability to carry out sustained violence.

Meanwhile, the persecution watchdog Open Doors says nearly 3,500 Christians were killed in Nigeria last year, out of the 4,849 killed around the world.

However, Onanuga strongly rejected the idea that violence is targeted specifically at Christians.

Read it all.

In my lifetime, American society has been transformed by widespread accommodation of vice. Marijuana has been legalized in many jurisdictions, as has addictive online gambling. Not surprisingly, pot use and regular gambling have increased. In 2025, 17 percent of adults report smoking pot daily, up from 8 percent in 2020. Less than a decade ago, nobody had a sports betting app on his smartphone; today, half of American men between eighteen and forty-nine have opened accounts. And pornography is readily available on the internet, protected as free speech by the Supreme Court.

Social norms have likewise shifted. Open use of ­illegal drugs is widely tolerated. Silicon Valley titans use ketamine and other substances, making a mockery of the restriction of these drugs to medical use only. The New Yorker publishes essays cheering “throuples” and other sexual arrangements. Activists campaign to remove the stigma from “sex work,” which few local governments make efforts to prevent. 

Writing in National Affairs (“The Case for Prohibiting Vice”), Charles Fain Lehman observes that social conservatives have been routed in recent decades. Large-scale social trends run against us. But Lehman thinks we share some of the blame. Too often, those who wish to sustain moral codes accept the dominant terms of public debate, which rest on the notion that people should be free to do as they wish in their private lives, as long as nobody else is harmed….

Lehman advises social conservatives to stop trying to shoehorn their moral judgments into liberal arguments that rest on proofs of harm. We need to talk more frankly about what it means to have a good society, one that promotes human flourishing. And we should not shy away from the obvious truth that a good society discourages vice because it is vicious.

Read it all.

“For most of American history, a libertarianism in private life, restrained only by the harm principle, did not hold sway. American constitutional law accords ‘police power’ to the states, allowing them to pass laws to protect and promote the health, safety, and morals of their… https://t.co/jvv02FoYXU

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) March 10, 2026

The BBC reported on Monday that 100 Labour MPs had written to the Prime Minister arguing that, if assisted dying legislation does not pass, trust in politics will be undermined.

But the Labour MP Jessica Asato, who opposes the Bill, told the BBC: “The sponsor of the Bill has rejected 99 per cent of suggested improvements and amendments in the House of Lords and so it still contains all the same faults and issues. Any MP that voted to push this Bill through would do so knowing that it is unsafe and would harm vulnerable people.”

A new Whitestone poll of more than 2000 UK adults for Care Not Killing shows that the public wants Parliament to prioritise safety over choice.

Asked if they would support a law that enabled patient choice, but was implemented in a way that put other patients and vulnerable people at risk, respondents opposed the move by 42 per cent to 35 per cent. The proportion of those who “strongly” backed putting safety over choice was more than double the proportion of those who said the opposite (26 per cent to 12 per cent).

Read it all.

As the assisted-dying Bill runs out of debating time in the House of Lords, the Christian Labour peer Lord Rook on Friday tabled three amendments on protecting vulnerable people from coercion and safeguarding young people#HouseofLords #debate https://t.co/2Q3MhOVc5N

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 16, 2026

The Bishops’ Conference said it strongly disagrees with the Government’s position, noting that every organization has guiding values that shape its mission and practice.

“For many faith‑based organizations, including Catholic hospices and care homes, these values are fundamentally incompatible with the introduction of assisted suicide,” said Bishop John Keenan of Paisley, the President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland.

“The Bishops’ Conference maintains that no organization should be compelled by the State to participate in the deliberate ending of life when doing so would violate its ethical or religious principles,” the bishop said.

Anthony Horan, the Director of the Scottish Catholic Parliamentary Office, said the Scottish Government and Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) must accept that Catholic hospices and care homes cannot, in good conscience, provide any services under the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, nor can they be expected to refer anyone to such services.

“Assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel,” he told Crux Now.

Read it all.

Ahead of a key vote, the bishops of Scotland, along with pro-life leaders, have made a passionate plea to politicians to reject a proposed assisted suicide bill because it is “unsafe.” https://t.co/Jl3aGGoLhL

— Catholic News Agency (@cnalive) March 6, 2026

Although private in his own religious convictions and skeptical of fanaticism, in his Farewell Address (1796), Washington’s clarion, prescient warning to contemporary and future Americans — on national and international affairs — definitively emphasized that “[o]f all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Moreover, to “subvert” such “great pillars of human happiness” — like the freedom of religious expression — would be considered unpatriotic.  

Indeed, Washington believed religiosity served as a bedrock for national stability and individual virtue, and a lack thereof would cripple cohesion, writing: 

“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” 

He was not the only Founding Father to stress religion’s intrinsic importance to the new republic. John Adams once reflected, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Benjamin Franklin, likewise, considered religious practice important for developing virtue, and believed “[God] ought to be worshipped” and “the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.” 

Even Thomas Jefferson, the most notable deist among the Founding Fathers, warned about the consequences of abandoning religious conviction entirely. 

Read it all.

George Washington’s Warning About Religion Still Matters https://t.co/Wlhmss8SoB #history #religion #usa #worldviews #faith #ethics #presidency #culturewatch

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) March 10, 2026

President Donald Trump’s war with Iran threatens to deal a severe blow to a global economy still grappling with the impact of his historic tariff hike.

For Europe, sustained higher energy prices would take the economy to the brink of recession. For the US, they would place the Federal Reserve in an impossible position — stuck between a war that pushes inflation higher and a president demanding that interest rates come down. For China, the end of discounted Iranian oil imports adds to strain from Trump’s tariffs and a real estate collapse.

In the first days of the fighting, the intensity is high and the endgame uncertain. Bloomberg Economics has modeled scenarios for what lies ahead, and what they mean for oil prices, major economies, and the future of Iran.

It is, of course, possible that Washington and Tehran find an off-ramp, oil settles back at its pre-escalation average of $65 a barrel, and the global economy dodges a blow.

The latest signs, though, suggest there’s worse to come….

Read it all.

The war in Iran threatens to unleash a wave of inflation at a time when economies worldwide are already in a tight spot. Read more in the Canada Daily newsletter. https://t.co/iWX5sR3kZB

— Bloomberg (@business) March 4, 2026

President Donald Trump said the US would keep up its military offensive against Iran for as long as it takes, outlining for the first time a set of four objectives he hopes to accomplish toward reducing the threat he said is posed by Tehran.

“We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that,” Trump said at a White House event on Monday about the timeline he foresaw for the campaign. “Whatever the time is, it’s OK. Whatever it takes.”

The president has faced mounting pressure to better define the goals of his extraordinary military intervention on Iran, after days of sending mixed signals about what he wanted to achieve.

Trump said that the effort, which launched on Saturday, aims to eliminate Iran’s missile capabilities, destroy the country’s navy, cut off its path to a nuclear weapon and ensure that the government “cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”

Notably, the president did not mention regime change as one of the campaign’s goals.

Read it all.

President Trump said the US would keep up its military offensive against Iran for as long as it takes, outlining for the first time a set of four objectives he hopes to accomplish towards reducing the threat posed by Tehran. https://t.co/S3SA3Hxjku

— Bloomberg (@business) March 2, 2026

The joint attack brings war to the country for the second time in eight months and risks a wider regional conflict in one of the most economically sensitive parts of the world.

🚨 Breaking: USS Abraham Lincoln strike group is now attacking Iran's navy pic.twitter.com/CD9rTMWucv

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) February 28, 2026

Assisted suicide campaigners have repeatedly claimed that just seven Peers have been blocking the Bill by tabling lots of amendments.

A new analysis by Right To Life UK’s Public Affairs team has, however, confirmed that this spin from assisted suicide campaigners paints a deeply misleading picture of the actual situation in the House of Lords.

The analysis shows that nearly 80 Peers have so far tabled or signed amendments highlighting concerns with the Bill and that 131 Peers have either spoken against the Bill or signed amendments raising such concerns during its passage through the Lords.

This is significant because Bill supporters are seemingly attempting to persuade MPs to revive the Bill in the next parliamentary session and force it through using the Parliament Acts, on the basis that a small number of Peers have inappropriately blocked its passage. Our analysis shows this claim to be wholly untrue.

131 is an exceptionally high number of Peers opposing a Bill, particularly one where debates are reserved for Fridays when Peers are often not expected to be in Parliament. It is even more remarkable given that the Bill has not yet completed Committee Stage or reached its Report Stage or Third Reading. In addition to these 131 Peers, it is likely that more Peers will speak out during future sittings and it is known that many more Peers are opposed to the Bill. Others have already spoken out in the media or expressed concerns via written parliamentary questions.

Read it all.

BREAKING: UK Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide Fails After Massive Opposition https://t.co/rSU7BExTq4 pic.twitter.com/XyZHW46dcu

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) February 26, 2026

Donald Trump’s new 15 per cent global tariff will most greatly benefit countries he has singled out for heavy criticism, including China and Brazil, data analysis shows.

An examination of the new regime by independent trade monitoring body Global Trade Alert found that Brazil will enjoy the biggest reduction in average tariff rates — falling by 13.6 percentage points — followed by China, with a 7.1 percentage point reduction.

Long-standing US allies including the UK, the EU and Japan will suffer the largest hit from the new levy, which the US president introduced after the Supreme Court ruled much of his previous trade policy unlawful on Friday.

Read it all.

Trump’s new flat-rate tariff will boost China and Brazil https://t.co/lGsVynEEwa

— Financial Times (@FT) February 22, 2026

In his first speech on the Senate floor, in November 2015, Sasse essentially gave a lesson on the Constitutional order and on the abject failure of modern-day Congress to assert its authority against the administrative state and the executive branch. It’s a remarkable speech, given only after he’d spent a year in the chamber and spoken with many of his colleagues to understand what was going on. 

No one in this body thinks the Senate is laser-focused on the most pressing issues facing the nation. No one. Some of us lament this fact; some are angered by it; many are resigned to it; some try to dispassionately explain how they think it came to be. But no one disputes it. 

As a result, he also said, “The people despise us all.” 

The point of the Senate’s long terms, Sasse concluded, is to “shield lawmakers from obsession with short-term popularity to enable us to focus on the biggest long-term challenges our people face.” And the character of the chamber matters, he explained, “precisely because it is meant to insulate us from short-termism . . . from opinion fads and the short-term bickering of 24-hour-news-cycles. The Senate was built to focus on the big stuff. The Senate is to be the antidote to sound-bites.”

Read it all.

Former senator Ben Sasse is battling cancer.

Losing him would be one more sign that a certain kind of conservatism—and a certain kind of politics—is disappearing, writes @MikeCosper.https://t.co/5clU0XfODE

— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) February 20, 2026

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on Friday wiping out a chunk of President Donald Trump’s tariff regime is a triumph for the Constitution’s separation of powers and the individual liberty that it protects.

The decision by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. says nothing about whether the tariffs are good or bad policy. But it recognizes that they are a major tax, and that raising revenue is a “distinct” power that belongs to Congress. There’s a reason the 18th century American revolutionary slogan was “no taxation without representation.” Taxing citizens without consent from their elected representatives is antithetical to the American project.

Congress never approved the worldwide tariffs at issue in the case. Trump told the court they were authorized by a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. No president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs, but it contains the phrase “regulate … importation.” Trump said that was sufficient authorization for him to throw out the rest of the tariff schedules and set import taxes however he pleased.

Roberts saw the flimsiness of that reasoning. “Based on two words separated by 16 others,” he wrote, “the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.” Indeed. The executive branch can’t be allowed to grab hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people on such a thin legal basis.

Read it all.

The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the Trump administration’s broad tariffs strips the president of a central instrument of his foreign policy, undercutting his ability to coerce global leaders and reshape world order in his second term.https://t.co/mktSe8eQIw

Starting with the 2024 decision that gave President Trump substantial immunity from prosecution and continuing through a score of emergency orders provisionally greenlighting an array of his second-term initiatives, Mr. Trump has had an extraordinarily successful run before the Supreme Court.

That came to a sudden, jolting halt on Friday, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for six members of the court, roundly rejected Mr. Trump’s signature tariffs program. It was the Supreme Court’s first merits ruling — a final judgment on the lawfulness of an executive action — on an element of the administration’s second-term agenda. It amounted to a declaration of independence.

It also served as another in a series of clashes between the leaders of two branches of the federal government cut from very different cloth: the controlled, cerebral chief justice and the biting, brazen president.

Read it all.

The Supreme Court’s Declaration of Independence https://t.co/c3j3a7tlnQ via @NYTimes

— Luba Howard 🇺🇦 (@marynlm) February 20, 2026