Author: Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
We face significant challenges in this nation. Many of the challenges go back to the 3D’s: disinformation, deception, and discernment. Some of the false information is being spread by people who don’t know the truth. Much more is deliberately deceptive, and that’s why I encourage people to read the new book by Pastor Jack Hibbs.
Living in the Daze of Deception catalogs the deception taking place inside the church and in the society at large. Ten chapters help us recognize deception, and two concluding chapters talk about standing for truth. We need to be prepared. Jesus warned his disciples, “Take heed that no one deceives you” (Matthew 24:4).
When he was on my radio program, we talked about the sources of deception. That includes both progressive education and social media. He writes about churches that are not preparing its members to discern truth from error. One section talks about “amusing the church to death.” That recalls the book by Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Many pastors fail to teach God’s Word and promote a theology of “easy believeism.”
We also talked about how words have been redefined. Marriage has been redefined. Gender and sexuality have been redefined. His chapter on “The New Tolerance” reminds us that even the word tolerance has been redefined. I referred to that as the “Princess Bride Myth” – “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
He calls for us to scrutinize the teachings of religious leaders. And he warns us of the growing influence of deceivers in business, education, and the media. We will need biblical discernment in this changing world. That is why I recommend his book so you will not be deceived.

Kerby Anderson
A few months ago, I talked about how leftist groups were using a variation of the heckler’s veto. The heckler’s veto occurs when someone who disagrees with a speaker’s message triggers actions or protests to disrupt the event and get the speech cancelled. We have seen this tactic on university campuses primarily used against conservative speakers.
The latest version might be called the heckler’s veto fee. Universities fearing the actions of protesting groups, charge massive security fees to the sponsoring group. Since they cannot pay such outrageous sums, the speech is cancelled.
Now we have what some are calling an assassin’s veto that comes from radical Muslim groups. Perhaps the best know example is Salman Rushdie who was threatened decades ago for publishing The Satanic Verses. He had to go into hiding for decades but was nearly killed 34 years later at a literary festival in upstate New York.
Another would be Ayaan Hirsi Ali who criticized Islam and has faced death threats. Her colleague and filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, was murdered for collaborating on a movie about Islam with her.
More recently Douglas Murray was forced to cancel an event in a London theater. The theater refused to host a pro-Israel program of his because of violent threats against their staff.
Mike Freer has been a member of British parliament for 14 years and represents a part of London where many Jewish people live. He announced he will no longer seek reelection because of violent threats against him and his loved ones.
This is, unfortunately, the world we live in today. We will need courage to speak the truth because many will use harsh and dangerous tactics against those who speak the truth.

Kerby Anderson
Is inflation decreasing? You have probably been hearing, as I have, that inflation is going down. But that is why you should be skeptical when you hear such claims. It would be accurate to say that the rate of inflation is going down, but inflation itself is increasing.
We can all probably remember when the inflation rate peaked at over 9 percent. Now the inflation rate is one-third of that percentage. But that still means that prices are going up based on the consumer price index, which, as I have explained in previous commentaries, isn’t the most accurate measure of inflation.
Here is another way to look at the inflation trend. The annual rate in 2021 was 7 percent, it was 6.5 percent in 2022, and last year it was 3.5 percent. If you run the numbers, that means that average prices have risen 17 percent over the three-year period.
Of course, you don’t need all these numbers to know that inflation is still a reality in your world. I have a friend who tracks rising prices and inflation by recording the cost of bananas. I know of a YouTube producer who often uses the rising price of a Big Mac to illustrate inflation.
There has also been misinformation about the impact of inflation. A few years ago, I began to collect articles telling all of us that inflation is good. I have one article with the title “Inflation is Good for You” and a CNN article with the title “Why Inflation Can Actually be Good for Everyday Americans and Bad for Rich People.” Their argument is that inflation favors debtors. While that is true, any small benefit is offset by rising prices at the gas pump and grocery store.
Once again, we should be skeptical when politicians and the media misinform us about the rate of inflation and its impact on our lives.

Kerby Anderson
The number of states that now provide school choice is increasing. According to a recent report, 32 states (plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico) are using school choice. That means that approximately 20 million students are now eligible for a private choice program.
Larry Sand is the president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network. While he is excited about the progress of school choice in this nation, he is also concerned about the attacks against school choice by teachers’ unions and the educational establishment. For example, one group maintains that “voucher programs are deeply rooted in segregation, racism, and discrimination.”
He says that on race, the critics have it exactly backward. “Almost 70 years after Brown v. Board of Education, public schools are still segregated.” Sixty percent of black and hispanic public school students attend schools where three-fourths are students of color. By contrast, virtually all the empirical studies on school choice programs found they reduced segregation.
There is still much segregation in the public schools because students are forced to attend schools according to their zip code. Since most residential areas are not integrated, the schools remain segregated. It’s no wonder the parents of all races are unhappy with zip-code-mandated schooling.
That is why school choice has become so popular in America. A recent poll found that two-thirds of Democrats (66%) and Independents (69%) favor school choice. An even larger percentage of Republicans (80%) favor it.
School choice is also taxpayer friendly. According to the latest figures, K-12 public schools spend an average of $14,347 per pupil. The nation’s private K-12 schools spend $12,350.
For these reasons, more states are likely to enact school choice.

Kerby Anderson
The number one issue for voters this year is immigration. To be precise, the real issue is the lack of border security.
This is not only perception but reality. Perhaps you have seen the chart that compares the illegal immigrant encounters for Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden. The blue bar for the second term of Barack Obama lists 5 million encounters. The green bar for Donald Trump lists 4.7 million encounters. And the red bar for Joe Biden lists 8.4 million so far, with an estimate of 12 million by the end of his term.
If every person encountered at the border and let into the country was a law-abiding migrant, the sheer numbers pose a problem. Just ask the mayors of many of the large cities in America. Unfortunately, not every person crossing the border is someone we would want to live in this country.
Each year Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests nearly 2,000 illegal aliens who have murdered Americans. Last year, ICE caught 1,323 illegals with homicide convictions along with 390 with pending homicide convictions. That works out to nearly five murders a day.
Of course, these are the ones who were caught. Millions have crossed the border and ICE estimates that there were at least 1.7 million “gotaways” who escaped federal custody. We can assume some of them are involved in drugs and human trafficking. A few might even be terrorists, who deliberately avoided capture.
As I mentioned in a previous commentary, we also have nearly 75,000 “special interest aliens.” These are individuals who have traveled to countries known for terrorist activity and should be given further scrutiny.
Americans are convinced that border security is a problem. These numbers illustrate that the problem is even worse than you know.

Kerby Anderson
Perhaps the most poignant moment in a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing occurred when Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg stood up and apologized to families in the hearing. Senator Josh Hawley wanted to know if he had apologized to the victims and then asked, “Would you do so now?”
The Facebook founder joined other social media leaders from TikTok, Snap, X, and Discord. Senators on both the right and left wanted to know what these executives and their companies would do to protect child safety. Many of the parents wore blue ribbons reading, “STOP Online Harms! Pass KOS!” That was a reference to legislation aimed at strengthening protections for kids online.
There’s no denying the negative impact social media is having on young people in America. In previous commentaries, I’ve documented the many studies that demonstrate the harm to young people who follow social media.
The solutions, however, are more difficult to find. Some companies allow parents to control and observe what their children are seeing and doing. Unfortunately, too few parents avail themselves of that opportunity.
Another idea has been to require app stores (like Apple and Google) to let parents approve of app downloads. Parents would be notified that young people wanted to download apps. And such a link might also provide parents with the option of activating controls on daily time limits and even which accounts they might be following.
The biggest issue is whether Congress should repeal Section 230 which currently shields platforms from lawsuits because they are a common carrier. Although there is always talk of repealing that section of the Communications Decency Act, I think it is unlikely Congress will do so.
The solution once again falls in the hands of parents, who need to monitor what their children see and hear.

Kerby Anderson
Many Americans say they are living on the edge of a financial disaster. Is that merely perception, or is it reality? Although government officials cite some positive trends in the economy, the reality in people’s lives is different.
This year, Bankrate asked the same question as last year. If you had an emergency expense of $1,000 or more, could you pay for it? Once again, a majority (56%) of US adults said that expense would be too great of a hit to their savings. Because they did not have savings to fall back on, a third (35%) said they would borrow the money or finance with a credit card or turn to friends or family.
Inflation is one reason for this financial dilemma in the lives of Americans. Two-thirds (63%) of US adults say inflation is causing them to save less for unexpected expenses, while nearly half (45%) say the same of rising interest rates.
Americans don’t keep much money in their bank accounts. The GOBankingRates survey found that nearly half of Americans have $500 or less in their savings account. About three in ten (29%) had between $501 and $5,000 in their saving account. And two in ten (21%) of Americans have $5,001 or more.
Social media is full of anecdotal stories illustrating how prices are rising faster. A TikTok video that went viral was a woman’s receipt from Taco Bell 12 years ago. The old receipt showed that, 12 years ago, Americans could buy two beefy five-layer burritos for $2.59 including taxes. Today that same burrito costs $3.69 for just one, and that doesn’t even include taxes.  Other stories show the rising cost of rent, car insurance, and utilities.
Government officials may say the economy is doing fine, but millions of Americans are living on the edge.

Kerby Anderson
Yesterday, I talked about the reality of rising Federal budget deficits. Politicians are going to be looking for additional sources of revenue to keep the government running. They will notice that more than a quarter (27%) of all the wealth in America is held by Americans over age seventy.
Over the next quarter century, there will be at least $84 trillion transferred. About $11 trillion will go to philanthropic endeavors. The remaining more than $70 trillion will be transferred to heirs.
Most of this wealth has been earned, and the Americans who earned it should be able to decide what happens to it. But a government starved for revenue will also see this as another source of government income. All politicians would need to do is raise estate taxes and raise capital gains taxes so more money will flow into the federal government.
The trick will be to convince Americans that these policy changes will only affect the rich. It is a variation of the “tax the rich” slogan we talked about yesterday. But here is the catch. Most of that $84 trillion is not in the hands of the super-rich.
In her recent book, Carol Roth has a chapter on “The Upcoming Wealth Heist.” She runs the numbers on the top eleven wealthiest individuals in America (like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates), whose collective estimated wealth is about $1.2 trillion.
That is a significant amount of wealth. But it’s merely a fraction of the trillions that will be transferred by upper-class and middle-class Americans. We are talking about many Americans who don’t even think of themselves as wealthy who will be transferring stocks, bonds, farms, businesses, and other assets to their children and grandchildren.
Once again, you can see this variation of “tax the rich” will ultimately be taxing many more Americans than you might have imagined.

Kerby Anderson
Federal budget deficits are rising faster than anyone would have imagined. About the only way to reduce spending would be to reform Social Security and Medicare. Congress doesn’t seem to be interested.
Politicians need to find enough money to keep the government running and will find that more difficult in the future. Bloomberg recently announced, “US Debt Interest Bill Rockets Past a Cool $1 Trillion a Year.” When the interest payments on the national debt rival the total amount we spend on defense, you know we have a problem.
One slogan we will hear is to “tax the rich.” Brian Riedl has run the numbers and concludes it won’t be nearly enough. For example, “Seizing every dollar of income earned over $500,000 wouldn’t balance the budget. Liquidating every dollar of billionaire wealth would fund the federal government for only nine months.”
In his study, he set upper-income tax rates at their revenue-maximizing level. He then matched that by reducing the loopholes and tax evasion used by the wealthy. His research shows that the “tax the rich model would only raise at most two percent of GDP in additional revenue.”
He understands if you are skeptical, because most Americans do not realize that the US tax code is already the most progressive of more than three dozen other developed countries. Put another way, the US “taxes the wealthy at European rates, while taxing the middle class at considerably lower rates.”
Other countries can do that because they have a hidden tax on their citizens known as the value-added tax or VAT. It is a consumption tax assessed at each production state of a good or service.
That is why we may hear about a VAT on the middle class in the future, because “tax the rich” is a financial fantasy.

Kerby Anderson
Trust has become a big issue in 2024. Elections are one reason. According to a recent estimate, a record number 4.2 billion could vote in elections around the world.
That is one reason why the theme of the recent World Economic Forum was “Rebuilding Trust Amid Uncertainty.” Kevin Roberts is the President of the Heritage Foundation and wrote that “trust must be earned. Global elites have not merely failed on that score. They have squandered the vast reserves of credibility they inherited from their institutional predecessors.”
Trust the media? That would be the same media in 2020 that assured us that the protests were “mostly peaceful” while buildings were burning in the background. The federal government documented 164 torched buildings in the cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul that occurred in May 2020. And that would be the same media that tried to convince us that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipeline.
Trust health officials? That would include the Surgeon General who tweeted: “STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching Coronavirus.” It would also include others who proclaimed masks would protect you from infection, sickness, and death.
Remember the slogan “fifteen days to slow the spread?” Those fifteen days went on for weeks, then months, and nearly two years.
Trust churches? Many pastors and churches are trustworthy. Others are not. Instead, they teach false doctrine and lead their members astray. Some churches even fail to report sexual abuse within the congregation.
This year, it will be more important than ever to use biblical discernment. Find a few trustworthy sources of information and be skeptical of the rest.

Kerby Anderson
Much of the debate surrounding the issue of border security and immigration centers on the word “invasion.” Texas Governor Gregg Abbott argues that Article IV of the US Constitution promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion.” It also describes “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.”
He also provides some history. “James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the US Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border.”
Critics rightly point out that people walking into the US cannot be termed an invasion. Nearly every court has interpreted that to mean “an armed hostility from another political entity.” James Madison labeled invasion an attack by one state on another. The Constitutional Convention debates connected the power to repel invasions with the power to raise armies.
While it cannot be called an invasion, the impact may feel just about the same. When the Supreme Court ruled recently that the Biden Administration could remove razor wire from the border, one pundit asked a different question. Instead of an army crossing the border, what about a gang of drug dealers and cartels dealing in human trafficking? They may not be an invasion in the legal sense, but it is doing great damage just the same.
Whatever the definition, American voters know there is a problem at the border. The most recent Harvard CAPS-Harris poll asked voters their top policy concern. Immigration was first, and inflation was second. Border security and immigration are likely to be the most discussed issues in this campaign.

Kerby Anderson
Swatting has become a major problem in America. In case, you are not familiar with the term it is a form of harassment that occurs by calling in a fake report to law enforcement that often requires a SWAT unit to go to the victim’s home. It may involve a false report that shots have been fired or that a family member has been taken hostage.
Swatting only got the attention of corporate media when Maine’s Secretary of State was swatted after she ruled President Trump was ineligible to be put on the primary ballot. Many of the news accounts, and even a recent op-ed in the New York Times, makes it seem like only Democrats have been targeted with this criminal action. That is not the case.
For example, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene was swatted on Christmas Day. She reports that she had been swatted eight times before that. She is frustrated that law enforcement can’t seem to figure out who is responsible. Representative Brandon Williams is a Republican member of Congress who was also swatted on Christmas Day. He posted his thanks to the Deputies and Troopers, who left with homemade cookies and spiced nuts. Republican Senator Rick Scott has also been swatted and expressed his frustration about this wasted time and resources of law enforcement. He also added that it terrorized his family.
John Paul Mac Isaac is the computer repairman who exposed Hunter Biden’s laptop to the world. His home was swatted by the Wilmington Police Department. He applauded them for their professionalism.
Swatting is not only a waste of time and money. It is dangerous. One man was killed a few years ago, and another tragic accident could easily take place again. This is a crime that has flourished because there is no significant deterrent. It is time to pass a law against swatting.

Kerby Anderson
When I first mentioned that banks were urged to flag purchases of Bibles and religious material, I think most of my friends and listeners thought I was making this up. I wish I were. For anyone still skeptical, you merely need to read a few articles or tweets to see what is now being investigated.
Representative Jim Jordan is the chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Two weeks ago, he sent a letter to the former director of the Treasury’s Division of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
His subcommittee has obtained documents asking financial institutions to look for persons of interest. These materials included a document suggesting that banks look for terms like “TRUMP” and “MAGA” or other indicators of extremism. They were to flag transportation and the “purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.”
The subcommittee also discovered that certain federal law enforcement agencies also were looking for data on transactions at sporting goods stores like Cabela’s and Bass Pro Shop.
In a recent tweet, Jim Jordan wrote, “We now know the federal government flagged terms like ‘MAGA’ and ‘TRUMP’ to financial institutions if Americans completed transactions using those terms.” He then added, “What was also flagged? If you bought a religious text, like a BIBLE, or shopped at Bass Pro Shop.”
I have been joking that I might be in trouble since this last year I purchased a Bible in a bookstore and bought a sleeping bag at Cabela’s. The typical response is this investigation is merely limited to investigating people at the January 6 riot. But if you look at the documents, “no specific time frame, frames, or limitations” are listed. That’s why this investigation needs to continue.

Kerby Anderson
Most Americans believe we should have a color-blind society. That was the direction the country was moving until a few anti-color-blind advocates promoted antiracism and critical race theory.
Professor Andre Archie has written about The Virtue of Color-Blindness. He reminds us that the Declaration and the Constitution rest upon the idea that all are created equal. That includes all Americans, regardless of race. In the 1850s, the Frederick Douglass wing of the abolition movement made their case for a color-blind reading of America’s founding documents.
Today there are advocates that highlight racial and cultural differences, which divide this country further. Andre Archie argues that this type of alienation has its roots in a hatred of this country. He uses a term coined by Roger Scruton that illustrates this alienation. It is oikophobia, which is a combination of two Greek words: oikos means home and phobia means fear.
People who suffer from this hate their host country. This attitude has been facilitated by the Left and by these so-called antiracists. The success of a white person is due to systemic racism. And the lack of achievement by a black person is due to discrimination and systemic racism. He explains that this view stokes racial consciousness and thus, resentment.
He also is surprised that his fellow African Americans aren’t more confident. They are some of the oldest Americans. They had a cultural presence in America since its colonial period and should feel proud and patriotic.
His book reminds us of the foundational principles of this republic and illustrates why we need to return to them.

Kerby Anderson
Yesterday while talking about the World Economic Forum and the gathering of global elites at Davos, Switzerland, I mentioned the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The term has been used to describe the remarkable changes in our world that have already taken place and will take place in the future. Here is how one article (Everything You Need to Know About the Fourth Industrial Revolution) describes the history.
The First Industrial Revolution started in Britain around 1760 and was powered by the steam engine. The Second Industrial Revolution came roughly one century later and was characterized by mass production in new industries like steel, oil, and electricity. The Third Industrial Revolution started in the 1960s and has given us personal computers and the Internet. It also opened the way to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which includes big data, robotics, and artificial intelligence.
Klaus Schwab is the head of the World Economic Forum. He believes that these technological changes will have a disruptive impact on the social, political, and economic areas of our lives. Their printed materials predict that the Fourth Industrial Revolution “represents a fundamental change in the way we live, work, and relate to one another. It is a new chapter in human development, enabled by extraordinary technology advances commensurate with those of the first, second, and third industrial revolutions.”
Who is going to guide this new industrial revolution? The global elites who gather at Davos, Switzerland have an answer: they are. These leaders in government and business are discussing these important issues, while members of Congress, the Parliament, and other legislative bodies seem to be ignoring them.
It’s time for our elected leaders to get in the game, and it’s time for all of us to speak out.

Kerby Anderson
Earlier this month, leaders from all over the world descended on Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum. Before the first speech was given, the perennial debate about its importance began.
Noah Rothman has noticed that people who tend to be paranoid believe this “international gathering of elites is a threat.” But he is convinced that “these masters of the universe make profound embarrassments of themselves.” He illustrates his lack of concern about these meetings by reminding us that “green-energy advocates have been pressuring the developing world to eschew fossil fuels for decades, only to be scrupulously ignored.”
On the other hand, Glenn Beck, in his book Dark Future, recognizes that “in the coming years, advancements in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, blockchain technologies, bioengineering, automation, the metaverse, and countless other areas will change the human race in unprecedented ways.”
Discussions about these important issues take place at the World Economic Forum and are too often absent in the legislatures of modern nations. The leaders who gather in Davos are talking about such concepts as the Great Reset and an emerging Fourth Industrial Revolution. We shouldn’t ignore their discussions
Dr. Kevin Roberts is the President of the Heritage Foundation and wrote about “Why I Am Going to Davos.” He told them that “trust must be earned” and that the “global elites have not merely failed on that score. They have squandered the vast reserves of credibility they inherited from their institutional predecessors.”
The current debate about the significance of Davos reminds us that we shouldn’t ignore these global elites and we shouldn’t assume they are unstoppable. It’s time for all of us to speak out against their global demands.

Kerby Anderson
Thirty years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a landmark essay “Defining Deviancy Down.” In case you are not familiar with him, Moynihan was an educator, counselor to the president, ambassador, diplomat, and four-term US senator from New York. He was a well-respected leader in the Democratic party but was also willing to challenge programs and policies he thought were detrimental.
When he wrote his essay, the rise in crime, the breakdown of the family, and even the rise in mental illness had reached significant levels. He argued that the only way the culture learned to deal with these social problems was to deny their existence. In other words, define deviance down.
Whenever I mention his essay during a speech, I immediately turn to Isaiah 5:20 where God says woe to those “who call evil good.” The values in Israel at that time were inverted. That was an apt description thirty years ago and a relevant description today.
But that was only part of the problem. Columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote an essay with the title, “Defining Deviancy Up.” He argued that in addition to making deviant social behavior seem normal, there were others in society making the normal seem deviant. Large areas of behavior we used to respect were now criticized.
Go back to Isaiah 5:20. The first part talks about those “who call evil good” and the second part of the verse condemns those “who call good evil.”
We live in a world with inverted values. Many in our secular culture call “evil good” and “good evil.” That’s why we should follow the command in Colossians 2:8 and “see to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy.”

Kerby Anderson
You may have noticed when someone criticizes you, often they are criticizing you for their own behavior. Sigmund Freud described this as “projection.” Another person “projects” their own motives or behaviors on you as a way of coping with their own problems.
We also see this in the political world, which is why on radio I often attribute many of the political comments these days to projection. Politicians are often guilty of condemning their opponent’s behavior when they are just as guilty of it themselves.
Columnist Robert Knight recently wrote about how projection and denial have become the way this president and his administration engage the political process. Projection is used to blame problems on the other party and candidates.
Denial is another Freudian concept. That occurs when someone dismisses external reality and formulates his or her own “truth.” Robert Knight concludes, “Both disorders are not only rampant among America’s political left but have become tools in their war on common sense, truth, and decency.”
He goes on to explain that these two disorders have significant consequences in our political discourse. “By painting opponents as ‘threats to democracy,’ they issue a license to would-be tyrants at all levels of government to silence speech.” He goes on to provide lots of examples from speeches by the president along with actions by many within his administration.
I might mention he is not the only pundit talking about this. For example, Columnist Victor Davis Hanson writes about how the president is arguing that he is “saving democracy” while at the same time “destroying democracy.” Many of his examples can be found in the attempts to keep Donald Trump off the ballots of some states.
During this election year, a wise voter should be aware of projection and denial when listening to the candidates.

Kerby Anderson
I have suggested that this year might be the year of the “third party.” To understand the impact of third-party candidates, let’s review their history and talk about how they have affected presidential elections.
When John Quincy Adams ran against Andrew Jackson in 1824, America was still a multi-party system. The Reform candidate William Crawford and Southern Democrat Henry Clay cost Jackson electoral votes in key states.
Once in American history, a third party won the White House. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln led a new party (known as the Republican Party) to victory over three other candidates. He won (with less than 40 percent of the vote) simply because the two-party-system fell apart. Quickly this new third party became one of the two dominant parties.
Three elections in the last half century once again have shown how a third-party candidate can change an election. In a close election in 1968, Richard Nixon was able to defeat Hubert Humphrey with help from American independent George Wallace who took 46 electoral votes.
In 1992 Ross Perot received nearly 19 percent of the popular vote. Many believe he may have cost George Bush the election. A change of about 300,000 votes in 10 states would have handed Bush a second term.
In 2000, Ralph Nader received more than 97,000 votes in Florida. Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in that state by 537 votes. Most pollsters are convinced that Ralph Nader’s presence on the ballot affected the 2000 presidential election.
What will happen in the 2024 presidential election? It is difficult to assess, but the third-party candidates who have announced may have a significant impact.

Kerby Anderson
Anti-Israel demonstrators have blocked traffic and bridges in many major cities across the country. Climate activists in other countries have also blocked traffic and vandalized priceless paintings and public monuments. These actions have created a societal problem we can no longer ignore.
Tal Fortgang argues that “Blocking the Road is Civil Terrorism.” Whether or not you accept his characterization of these tactics, you will have to admit the problem is getting worse, and poses a threat to decent, law-abiding citizens.
A blocked road or highway can be more than just an inconvenience. Whoever is on the road is prevented from getting to work, picking up kids, delivering packages, etc. A blocked road can prevent an ambulance from getting to a victim or even prevent the ambulance from getting to an emergency for urgent, life-saving care.
The object of blocking roads or destroying paintings isn’t to convince you of the logic and morality of their position. It is to frustrate you so you will call on politicians to give them what they want so you can go back to normal daily life.
Of course, those activists blocking traffic assume that law-abiding citizens will put their cars in park and wait until law enforcement comes. That may not always be the case, if angry citizens decide to take the law into their own hands.
Of course, the activists know they may not even be arrested. Even if they are arrested, they will pay a fine because it is merely a misdemeanor. This election season, you need to ask candidates a question: Isn’t it time to increase the penalty for blocking traffic and bridges? If we don’t, this problem will get worse.