Author: Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Once students were back in school, Jeremy Adams decided to write a five-part series that proposed ideas for fixing American education. What I found so surprising was how many of his ideas had less to do with teachers and the classroom. For example, his first idea was to “ban cell phones in class once and for all.”
When he was a guest on a radio program recently, he described what he called “one of the seismic changes to classroom life since the birth of the cell phone era.” Notice what happens when students are given a few minutes of free time at the end of the class period. In the past, the classroom was filled with juvenile chatter, nervous movement, or youthful gossip. Instead, the class is transformed into a silent void with everyone looking at their phone.
More and more teachers have arrived at the conclusion that cell phones in the hands of teens (and pre-teens) is nothing less than a metastasizing generational cancer. He reports that “teachers are fed up. They are tired of students playing video games and watching TikTok videos in the middle of class. They are sick of the incessant cheating. They are sick of students who feign engagement but still have earbuds playing music throughout the entire class period. They are exhausted from having to repeat themselves multiple times because attention spans have been hijacked.”
Fortunately, school districts are setting policies that will make a difference. One school district he mentions requires students to lock up their devices in a magnetically sealed pouch during the school day. One state is considering a bill to ban phones on buses and inside classrooms.
These are all positive steps. In previous commentaries, I’ve talked about the impact these digital devices are having in schools, businesses, and at home. This is one positive step toward fixing American education.

Kerby Anderson
At a time when we are experiencing significant inflation, Jeff Booth argues in his book, The Price of Tomorrow, that we should be seeing deflation. His argument is simple: Technology is deflationary. That is the nature of technology.
Think of how much a flat-screen TV cost when it first hit the market. What does it cost today? One example he uses is his first cell phone (which was a Motorola 8000). “It had thirty minutes of talk time before it needed to be charged for ten to twelve hours, and it cost about $2,000.”
“Our economic systems were not built for a world driven by technology where prices keep falling. They were built for a pre-technology era where labor and capital were inextricably linked, an era that counted on growth and inflation, an era where we made money from scarcity and inefficiency.” We should be experiencing deflation, which is a world where you get more for your money. But we have inflation due to money printing and the declining value of the dollar.
He also documents the ever-changing world due to technology. Blockbuster, at the height of its popularity, had more than 84,000 employees and more than 9,000 stores. But the leadership didn’t see the rate of technological advancement that provided instantaneous digital delivery. No longer did consumers have to walk in the door to rent a video.
He wrote the book to start a conversation. His numerous examples remind us that technology is moving quickly and changing our world. We may be enjoying the benefits of the digital technological revolution, but we certainly aren’t seeing deflation. Sadly, we live in a present world of rising costs and inflation.

Kerby Anderson
The acronym DEI is found in business and the academy. It is now also being used in medical schools. DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion. A new report of the top medical schools’ documents that DEI is being used to weed out applicants who aren’t firmly within the latest woke metric.
The nonprofit, Do No Harm, conducted an analysis of medical school application processes and concluded that these schools were raising an additional entry barrier on top of the grade requirements and testing. The report argues that these medical schools are asking these questions to “turn ideological support for health equity and social justice initiatives into a credential that increases an applicant’s chance of acceptance.”
As you might expect, the questions on the applications ranged widely. One application asked prospective students “how you have committed yourself to understanding and aiding in the pursuit of equity and inclusion in your academic, professional or personal life.” Another was more direct. The school asks applicants to share their “thoughts on opposing systemic racism, anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, and misogyny.” The application then asks: “How will you contribute?”
This latest medical school trend parallels what has been happening on university campuses for years. Heather MacDonald documents how these woke ideas have spread from the university to the workplace in her book, The Diversity Delusion.
Medical schools certainly have a right to ask questions of prospective students that help faculty determine whether they will make good doctors. You can simply ask an open-ended question like “Why do you want to become a physician?” But these applications are using DEI to weed out certain applicants.

Kerby Anderson
According to an increasing number of politicians, the First Amendment doesn’t protect misinformation. Ironically, most of what many of them are saying is misinformation.
Former Senator John Kerry told the audience at the World Economic Forum that the First Amendment is a roadblock to progress because it allows people to spread misinformation. He lamented that “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer it out of existence.”
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has criticized social media sites because they “act as a megaphone for misinformation.” And two years ago, he proclaimed, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation.”
But let’s focus on his more recent statement in the debate he had with Senator J.D. Vance, who challenged him on his prior statement that the First Amendment does not cover misinformation. His response was the classic: “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s the test. That’s the Supreme Court test.”
It is not. The quote comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. In a 1919 case of Schenck v. United States, he argued, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.” In the context, it had nothing to do with the case involving two members of the Socialist Party of America.
It is not law and is not the Supreme Court test. In fact, it comes from one of the darkest chapters of U.S. history when the government passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918.
I believe the cure for bad speech is more speech. The cure for misinformation is not censorship but making more accurate information available.

Kerby Anderson
Nearly every recent survey documents the need for Christians to get sound, biblically based instruction on finances. One way to maximize your resources for God’s kingdom is to get a copy of Enduring Wealth: Being Rich in This World and the Next by Raymond Harris.
He asks many questions throughout his book and begins with an important one. Are you rich? You probably don’t think you are because you know others who are wealthier. But he reminds us that compared to most of the world’s population, you are very rich. He also reminds us that the wealth that we have is a gift from God (1 Chronicles 29:12)
One chapter reminds us that it is OK to be rich, and another provides biblical advice for the rich. Solomon underscored the inability of wealth to provide security (Proverbs 23:4-5). Jesus warned of the folly of chasing temporary wealth (Matthew 16:26-27).
A very significant chapter talks about developing economic engines. In the future, we will need to develop other ways to fund missions and ministries apart from typical fund-raising activities. He is concerned that as nonprofits and ministries proliferate, the clamor for kingdom dollars will intensify. Developing a business project that can finance God’s kingdom work is something he has not only thought about but accomplished in many parts of the world.
He also has wise advice for businesspeople, who need to see themselves as stewards. He even suggested that the new missionary will be the businessperson. They will need to understand the difference between the world’s economy and God’s economy. We all need to remember, as he says in one chapter, that life is hard, and time is short.
I recommend Enduring Wealth because it will remind you what is important and encourage you to use all your wealth (time, talent, treasure) for God’s kingdom.

Kerby Anderson
Some of the challenges the U.S. will face in the future will exist no matter who is elected in November. But it is also true that sometimes one candidate or policy can make a bad problem worse. The continued funding of Social Security is a good example.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) declared that to fund Social Security, the payroll-tax rate will have to be raised 35 percent. The CBO estimates that revenue for Social Security will remain stable for the rest of the century. But Congress will have to raise the payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 16.7 percent (a 35 percent increase).
However, the revenue for Social Security might not be enough if Donald Trump is able to get legislation through Congress that would eliminate the income tax on Social Security benefits. The CBO estimates that the payroll-tax revenue would decline over time but assumes that would be offset by an increase in income-tax revenue from beneficiaries.
On the other hand, Kamala Harris would like to increase Social Security benefits. Since the CBO assumes that revenue would be relatively stable for the rest of the century, any increase in benefits would make Social Security insolvent, unless Congress decides to increase the Social Security payroll-tax by more than 35 percent.
The other variable is Congress. It is questionable whether newly elected members of Congress would be willing to increase the payroll-tax rate. Their opponent in the next election would accuse them of raising taxes on the American people.
As you can see, who you elect to the presidency and who you elect to Congress will determine the financial future of Social Security. Unfortunately, they will probably decide to do nothing, and “kick the can down the road.”

Kerby Anderson
You may not have heard the term “BlueAnon,” but it is being used more and more to describe unhinged left-wing conspiracy theories. Amber Duke writes about “The Rise of BlueAnon” in the October issue of The Spectator. David Harsanyi has his book coming out also documenting The Rise of BlueAnon: How the Democrats Became a Party of Conspiracy Theorists.
The term “BlueAnon” is a variation of the term “QAnon,” which was a series of fabricated claims made by an anonymous individual known as Q. While it is true that the far right have their conspiracy theories, it turns out that many more on the left believe conspiracy theories. These include claims that the attempted assassination of Donald Trump was a staged event. It also includes a viral tweet that J.D. Vance made salacious sexual admissions in his book Hillbilly Elegy that aren’t in his book but spread around the Internet at lightning speed.
The conspiracy theories of the left have a great impact because they receive institutional backing. Conspiracy proponents post on social media claiming a staged assassination attempt. Other conspiracy proponents on TV debate whether Trump’s ear was hit by shattered glass and voice suspicions about how fast his ear healed. This should not be surprising given the many years the media and members of Congress kept promoting the Russian collusion hoax.
Although the media narrative is that conservatives are the ones believing most conspiracy theories, that is not what some of the latest polls have discovered. One poll found twice as many Democrats as Republicans believed “the Holocaust is a myth.” Previous polls have also discovered that Democrats are more likely to be 9/11 “Truthers.”
It turns out that some of the most damaging misinformation is coming from BlueAnon.

Kerby Anderson
What do people in the intelligence community believe are the greatest threats to America? I had an opportunity to watch one presentation that listed five threats.
The first is the possibility of an EMP attack in which a nuclear weapon is detonated at high altitude over this country. The Congressional EMP Commission has stated this could bring down our entire power grid.
The second threat could have a similar impact. This is the concern that sleeper agents from foreign countries in this country get activated and take down this country’s power grid or conduct terrorist actions.
A third concern is the possibility that massive supply chain disruptions surface because of looters or rioters who target food production facilities and supply chains. We have seen many suspicious fires at food production plants. This overlaps with a fourth concern that the country breaks out into a civil war with certain states deciding to secede and close their borders.
A fifth concern results from China invading Taiwan. Some fear that that could trigger World War III if the US decides to respond. China has the largest navy in the world and more warships than the US.
I listed these in descending order of disruption. The first two threats would have a devastating impact on the country. Supply chain disruption would be harsh in some areas, perhaps less in others. And we might hope that the likelihood of a national civil war or the onset of World War III would be less likely, but very devastating if it occurred.
These threats are a reminder that we need to have serious and capable people in office. It is also a reminder that each of us need to also prepare for scenarios like these we hope and pray never occur.

Kerby Anderson
The other day I came across a shocking statistic. Lee Burdette Williams says, “About three million first-time college students will soon be arriving on campus—most of them coming directly from high school. About one million of them won’t make it through their first year or return as sophomores.” She concludes that “this attrition is financially and emotionally devastating for families” and it is also “destabilizing for colleges.”
Why is this happening? Many of these departures are financial. Higher education costs so much and has been rising more than twice as fast as inflation. But another factor, often ignored, are the mental challenges these incoming college students face. Just consider these two facts.
First, nearly half (44%) of all college students report symptoms of depression and anxiety. Second, the rate of students taking psychiatric medication doubled in less than a decade and a half (2007 to 2019) and now includes one quarter (25%) of all students.
Lee Burdette Williams has served as dean of students at the University of Connecticut and later at Wheaton College. She suggests that the nine weeks between high school graduation and a student’s arrival on campus are not enough time for social and mental adjustment. They go from being under their parent’s authority and management to independent living. Although many of us made this transition in the past, today’s students seem less mentally equipped to do so.
That is why she suggests two alternatives. One is what she calls a “half-step year” where the student lives at home while attending a local college. The other is a full “gap year” which is becoming more popular and provides students with an opportunity to pursue study or experiences that may enhance their resume.
If you want to make sure your child or grandchild doesn’t drop out of college, you might explore some of her suggested alternatives.

Kerby Anderson
As we look through the corridors of history, we see the rise and fall of nations. The symptoms of societal decline are well known. Governments spend too much and debase their currency. Leaders get decadent and patriotism declines. Families fracture, and eventually the society falls apart.
A nation in decline fails to protect its citizens. One of the important functions of a society is to protect the weak from those who intend them harm. Not only is crime in the streets, but it becomes difficult and eventually impossible to travel anywhere.
In the ancient world, that surfaced in the form of highway robbery. In a recent commentary, Tucker Carlson explained that the modern version of this is carjacking. “Carjacking is the clearest possible sign that your civilization is falling apart and that’s why you find it in places like Somalia and South Africa, places where force, violence, and clan loyalty have replaced law and order, places where ‘might makes right.’ In the city of Johannesburg, for example, a vehicle is hijacked on average once every hour of the day. Now once that happens, there’s really no coming back from it. Nobody’s going to build anything in the city with endemic carjacking.”
Tucker Carlson then brought the story closer to home. He explained that carjacking has become a permanent feature of life in New Orleans. That’s not surprising since the city probably needs 2,000 police and has under 500 active-duty police.
The crime problem in this city can be found in many other cities in the nation. Two years of “defund the police” have had their toll on the officers on the police force and have kept possible recruits from joining the police force in their city.
There are many signs of societal decline. We should add increased crime and carjacking to the growing list of problems in America.

Kerby Anderson
When I talk about the polarization in this country, I am often asked why is there so much hostility against Christians? We are often the greatest source of ministry and encouragement in the community.
In his book, Christians in a Cancel Culture, Joe Dallas devotes a chapter to this question about hostility toward Christians. You can summarize his excellent discussion with three words that begin with the letter “C.”
The first is convenience. Whenever truth is told, someone is inconvenienced. Former worshippers of the Goddess Diana were upset when the gospel was preached in Ephesus. The silversmith who made money selling shrines was negatively affected. Elijah’s words to Ahab were an inconvenience to the King.
The teachings of Jesus were certainly troubling to the religious leaders of His day. He rebuked their hypocrisy (Matthew 23) and presented Himself as Savior (John 3:16) and the way to salvation (John 14:6).
The second is conscience. Presenting biblical truth can prick the conscience of unbelievers and carnal Christians. One example, he cites, is the accusers of the adulterous woman who were convicted of their own sins (John 8), because that conviction can be found in both Christians and non-Christians (Romans 2:15).
The third is conviction. It would be a mistake to assume that hostility toward biblical truth springs only from an inconvenienced agenda or a pricked conscience. Saul of Tarsus had strong convictions. He “persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it” (Galatians 1:13). But after his conversion was able to later say that he “lived in all good conscience before God until this day” (Acts 23:1).
Should we expect hostility? Jesus faced hostility, so we will likely face hostility as well as we present biblical truth. We should speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and leave the rest to God.

Kerby Anderson
Yesterday I talked about the book, The Sovereign Individual which decades ago predicted the death of the nation state. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of the demise of the nation state are greatly exaggerated. Governments may still exist and exercise their power, but we can see how the power and influence of some governments are in decline. There are many reasons for this trend.
First, is geography. The information revolution has made it possible for many people to make a living online or by working remotely. A factory has a more difficult time changing locations, though many have done so by even leaving the US. By contrast, an individual participating in the cyber economy can pick up and leave a jurisdiction if taxes, regulations, or even climate is unfavorable. They can move from one state to another or from one country to another, and usually, the government is powerless to stop them.
Second, is the reality of a government monopoly. When we go into a store or a coffee shop, we expect customer service, but governments take us for granted and rarely treat us like customers. The authors use this example:
If you went into a store to buy furniture, and the salespeople took your money but then proceeded to ignore your requests and consult others about how to spend your money, you would quite rightly be upset… The fact that something very like this happens in dealings with governments shows how little control its “customers” actually have.
A third reason, not mentioned in the book, is the sad reality that governments are broke. You could argue that the US is $31 trillion past broke. Put another way, the US national debt is significantly more than GDP. And there are a dozen other countries in the world with higher debt loads. This is not sustainable.
Nation states are not dead, but most of them are dying.

Kerby Anderson
The authors of their book, The Sovereign Individual, explain that we are entering into the fourth stage of human society. First, there were the hunting and gathering societies. Then came the agricultural societies. More recently we had the industrial societies. Now, we live within informational societies.
Although the book was written in the 1990s, there are sections of the book that are quoted even now in the second decade of the 21st century. The authors predicted we would use our phones for news, information, and financial transactions. They predicted more people would be learning online. More and more people would be working remotely. And they predicted the rise of “cybercash” and privatized money.
But let me also add that they were also like a typical baseball player and had both hits and misses. But we should appreciate the predictions that were on target. The accuracy of their predictions resulted in part because of the pandemic and lockdowns. The last two years accelerated the trends of remote working and online education. A federal government that printed so much money, increased consumer interest in cryptocurrencies and digital cash.
The authors say we can learn lessons from the past as we see what happened when the agricultural revolution changed society. We can see parallels between the decline of the Church and what they predict will be the decline of the nation-state. Mass production of books ended the Church’s monopoly on Scripture and information. They predict that the information revolution will destroy the power of the nation-state, and allow people to change locations if laws, taxes, or regulations are unfavorable.
Although this book was written two decades ago, it predicted many of the changes we are seeing in our world today during this fourth stage of society.

Kerby Anderson
You are probably aware that Americans distrust science and science magazines more than in the past. But you may not know how much has evaporated. Back in 1975 (when I was finishing a graduate degree in science), Gallup documented that most Americans trusted science. In fact, Republicans trusted science more than Democrats did, 72 percent to 67 percent. Republican confidence in science dropped to 45 percent by 2021.
Christian Schneider argues “Politicized science may make us sicker.” He reminds us of the tactic used against President George W. Bush when his opponents argued that his common-sense regulations of fetal stem cells were hurting and killing people. He quoted from columnist Charles Krauthammer who said he had “never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery” and added that “Hope is good. False hope is bad.”
Americans don’t even trust science journals, which have become political. Scientific American has started endorsing presidential candidates: Kamala Harris this year and Joe Biden four years ago.
Heather MacDonald (Manhattan Institute) further documents how science has become political in her book, When Race Trumps Merit. She explains in a recent lecture that the American Medical Association insists that medicine is characterized by white supremacy. The Smithsonian Institution announced that “emphasis on the scientific method” and an interest in “cause and effect relationships” are part of totalitarian whiteness.
We would all benefit if scientists and science magazines got back to doing science and medicine and stop following the woke trends in society. This politicized science may make us sicker.

Kerby Anderson
Since the Hamas attack last year on Israel, the government and IDF have been fighting in Gaza. But now Israel has also had to deal with Hezbollah to the north which has fired more than 8,000 rockets at this small country. These indiscriminate attacks have forced thousands of Israelis to flee from the northern part of Israel.
Once again, world leaders are cautioning Israel to avoid escalating this conflict. But Rich Lowry argues that “the Jewish state is under no obligation to tolerate the intolerable.” Instead, the country’s leaders are to treat all these rocket attacks as background noise. No other country in the world would be expected to ignore such attacks on their sovereign nation.
Israel cannot follow these rules. Rich Lowry asks, “What other country is asked to bear the rocketing of its civilian population?” And yet, it was criticized even when it tried to minimize civilian causalities by targeting terrorist leaders through their pagers and electronic devices. The counterterrorist plan is reminiscent of something you might find in a James Bond film or a Mission Impossible film.
Rich Lowry summarizes how Israel is criticized no matter what it does. “Israel hits terrorist targets from the air — and it’s accused of war crimes. Israel goes in on the ground — and it’s accused of war crimes. Israel does neither, opting instead to target terrorists by using their own devices against them — and it’s accused of war crimes.”
Perhaps you can sense the frustration. But you also need to experience the fear. The guide we use for our trips to Israel lives in the region where these rockets are landing. Imagine how you would feel if rockets were landing in your community, and world leaders were cautioning you to show restraint. This is the situation in Israel today.

Kerby Anderson
A recent story from CBN News reports that there has been a fourth major collegiate revival in the last month. According to the story, “thousands of students gathered at the University of Arkansas on Thursday night to seek Jesus Christ and find salvation in His name. Unite US reports that 10,000 students from 67 different universities gathered in Bud Walton Arena.”
One young man shared his powerful testimony right before getting baptized at the event, saying, “I spent a lot of years running from God. I just came to Jesus about five weeks ago, but I got caught up in, I’ll just say it, cocaine and alcohol. I had a lot of really near-death experiences, and I think Jesus had his hand on my life because I should not be here.”
The other campuses reporting a revival last month include the University of South Carolina, Texas A & M at Corpus Christi, and Ohio State University. You are probably also aware of the major revival that took place on the campus of Asbury College in early 2023.
Jerry Newcombe wonders if the “recent campus revivals will spill over to the nation.” He reminds us that poll after poll documents that millions of Americans feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. He goes on to argue that there is a great need of a national revival and then reminds us of the First Great Awakening.
That revival began in the 1730s with the preaching of Reverend Jonathan Edwards and spread through the colonies due to the work of the traveling evangelist George Whitefield. He quotes Benjamin Franklin and John Adams who witnessed the impact of the revivals that led to the great awakening.
America needs a revival and reformation. I pray that what is happening on campus will spread to the rest of the country.

Kerby Anderson
Tariffs are in the news and are being debated between candidates. In the past, tariffs have been used to protect domestic industries and provide an additional source of revenue. The downside of tariffs is that they increase costs for consumers and can lead to retaliation from other countries.
Dominic Pino posted the number 4,392. That is the number of pages in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Before you even get to the first section, there are 900 pages of notes and rules for interpretation.
He explains that once you get into the actual tariffs, you learn how tariffs have been manipulated to favor certain companies and countries and not others. Let’s look, for example, at tariffs on imported meat. The edible part of turkey that is not cut in pieces, frozen, or valued at less than 88 cents per kilogram is taxed at 8.8 cents per kilogram. But if the value is 88 cents or more per kilogram, it is taxed at 10 percent.
If it’s not cut in pieces and is fresh or chilled rather than frozen, then it is taxed at 15 cents per kilogram regardless of valuation. But if you take the time to look at 17 separate trade agreements, you will find cases where the meat is not taxed.
Imported knitted or crocheted fabrics of a width not exceeding 30 centimeters that contain by weight 5 percent or more of elastomeric yarn but no rubber thread and that are made of cotton are taxed at 8.8 percent. Those made of other materials are taxes at 8 percent.
It should be obvious by now that most of these tariffs aren’t listed to protect the consumer but to give one company an advantage in the marketplace.

Kerby Anderson
Imagine being in the Army and watching a presentation about extremism. Up pops a slide with the title “Terrorist Groups” and under it are labels that identify the National Right to Life and anyone with a “Choose Life” license plate as an extremist. Mind you, this slide just followed a slide of the terrorist group ISIS.
This is not the first time we have seen such Army training slides. During the Obama administration, we discussed on my radio program other slides that identified “evangelical Christianity,” Catholicism, and Mormonism as different forms of “religious extremism.”
Danielle Runyan is Senior Counsel and Chair of the Military Practice Group at First Liberty Institute. Her editorial documents what I just discussed and then goes on to explain that this incident at Fort Liberty was not a one-time error. When members of Congress denounced such activity in their letter, the Army response was that the slides were not vetted and implied this was an exception.
Daniele explains that “the repetitive nature of these events in the Army over the past decade, as well as the woke ideology that has plagued our nation and destroyed the careers of thousands of religious servicemembers over the past four years,” make it hard to believe this wasn’t intentional.
She mentions a briefing given to Army personnel at Camp Shelby that identified the American Family Association as a “hate group.” At another briefing, the Defense Equal Opportunity Institute explained that it considered extreme leftist organizations to be a reliable source for training.
If the Army wonders why they are having trouble recruiting Christians to serve in the military, they might want to look at what they are teaching in these training sessions.

Kerby Anderson
Yesterday I talked about the book on free speech by Jonathan Turley (professor of law at George Washington University). Today I would like to talk about the recent column where he documents “The Left’s Assault on the Constitution.”
The reason for his article, and many other articles about the Constitution, is due to a New York Times article that had the title “America’s Constitution is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” Lathan Watts writes, “Our Constitution Isn’t Dangerous, But Our Ignorance of It Is.” Jerry Newcombe responds by asking “Is the Constitution Really Dangerous?”
The purpose of Jonathan Turley’s column is to show that the distain shown for the Constitution in the one New York Times article goes far beyond that one article. The assault on the Constitution involves more than court-packing and is targeted on the freedom of speech.
He quotes a UC Berkeley law school professor who has written a book, No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States. An editor of The Nation magazine calls the Constitution “trash” and urges the abolition of the US Senate. A law professor at Georgetown Law School complains that Americans are “slaves” to the Constitution.
The article in the New York Times repeats similar comments and scoffs at what the author calls “Constitutional worship.” She writes: “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” And I might mention a previous New York Times op-ed by two law professors from Harvard and Yale who argued, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed.”
These are just a few of the quotes provided by Jonathan Turley. They remind us that it is time to defend the Constitution.

Kerby Anderson
Free speech is very important, but many Americans believe that violence may be necessary to stop candidates or citizens with the wrong views about free speech. On my radio program, I frequently quote Jonathan Turley (professor of law at George Washington University). Though he is a liberal who would disagree with my perspective on many social issues, I quote him because of his dedication to free speech.
I recommend his new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. He provides the history of free speech and makes an excellent case for free speech. However, he laments that for some people “violent language can become violent action.” He explains, “We are living in an age of rage. It permeates every aspect of our society and politics. Rage is liberating, even addictive. It allows us to say and do things that we would ordinarily avoid, even denounce in others.”
One chilling illustration of this I discovered in an article by Bob Unruh. He cites polling research that uncovered the disturbing fact that 26 million Americans believe the “use of force is justified to prevent Trump from becoming president.” The study on “Political Violence and the Election: Assessing the threat from the Left and the Right” also concluded these 26 million are “active, dangerous” and have “growth potential.” On the other side, the study also found that another 18 million say the use of force is justified to “restore Trump to the presidency.”
Jonathan Turley recently cited the number of politicians working with extreme groups and concluded they were “playing a dangerous game toying with groups” that call for violence. I agree with his conclusion that this recent poll is a “chilling account of the growing radicalism in America.”