Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Penna Dexter
It may not be their ideal life dream, but a Wall Street Journal analysis concludes that “American women have never been this resigned to staying single.”
In response to major demographic shifts and also divergent beliefs about what a family should look like, today’s single women are less anxious to get married than they used to be and less interested in marriage than their male peers.
In her piece, titled “American Women Are Giving Up on Marriage,” Rachel Wolfe, economy reporter for the Journal, writes “A rise in earning power and a decline in social stigma for being single has allowed more women to be choosey.” She cites a 2023 survey of over 5000 U.S. adults conducted by Pew Research Center in which “48% of women said that being married was not too or not at all important for a fulfilling life, compared with 39% of men — up from 31% and 28% in 2019.”
In an American Enterprise Institute survey of college-educated women, also done in 2023, half of respondents said they’re single because they haven’t found anyone who meets their expectations.
Throughout her article, Rachel Wolfe presents stats that show that American women of marriageable age are better educated and have better career prospects than men. She quotes sociology professor Brad Wilcox, a fellow at the Institute for Family Studies who says, “people prefer to date in terms of comparable education or income.”
Lyman Stone, a researcher at IFS points out that “Men’s odds of being in a relationship today are still highly correlated with their income.” In an interview for an article in The Atlantic, he said “a lot of young men today just don’t look like what women have come to think of as ‘marriage material’.”
The bitter fruit of 60’s feminism is that many women really do want marriage, but they don’t think they need it.

Kerby Anderson
Rich Lowry proclaims that “Safety is the Worst Word in the English Language.” You might think that statement and commentary are strange unless you have been paying attention to the release of the “Twitter Files.” Safety has been used as a justification for the censoring of Twitter posts and the de-platforming of certain people who post tweets that some of the leadership at Twitter considered harmful or unsafe.
He is not the only person to focus on the misuse of the word safety. In previous commentaries, I quoted Jonathan Haidt, who was on my radio program to talk about his book, The Coddling of the American Mind. One of the key points in his book was the “Untruth of Fragility: What Doesn’t Kill You Makes You Weaker.”
He argues in the book that the younger generation has been protected by a culture that promotes “safetyism.” It has become a cult of safety that is obsessed with eliminating threats (whether real or imagined) to the point where fragility becomes expected and routine.
Concerns about safety morphed from a desire to protect bicycle riders with helmets to protecting students and the public from harmful ideas. Professors issued “trigger warnings” to “show students that you care about their safety.” The former Global Head of Trust & Safety at Twitter used concerns about safety to protect readers from encountering offensive speech.
Rich Lowry adds one more ingredient to this toxic mix. The 2016 election of Donald Trump was supposedly won because of misinformation. Once you considered that a threat, the “license to censor became broad and far-reaching.” That’s why Rich Lowry says safety has become the worse word in the English language.

Kerby Anderson
Merrill Matthews was in my radio studio recently to make the case that the “Axis of Evil” is now bigger, bolder, and more evil than twenty years ago. Back in 2002, President George W. Bush identified three countries during the State of the Union address that he designated as the “Axis of Evil.” Those countries were Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
Merrill Matthews suggested that we now identify the countries that should be listed as part of the “Axis of Evil.” Twenty years ago, those three countries were relatively small, failed states. His current list of countries is composed of countries that are much stronger and more dangerous.
China, for example, is the world’s second-largest economy and brings numerous financial and industrial resources to the network. Both China and Russia have huge natural resources. If you look at those countries, along with the other countries aligned with one or both, you are talking about a land mass that includes most of Asia. And their proximity to each other allows them to expand trade and even allows the movement of banned or sanctioned products (like weapons and drugs).
Not only do these countries have stronger economies, but they are also dedicated to expanding their territory. Neither Russia nor China is content with their borders. Russia is expanding through war (in the case of Ukraine). China is expanding through threatened aggression (in the case of Taiwan).
China has already absorbed Hong Kong and is now plotting how it will be able to take Taiwan. They have also built islands in the South China Sea that can be forward military bases. And it is worth mentioning that China has the largest army in the world and the largest navy in the world.
Twenty years ago, the “Axis of Evil” was dangerous. Today our world is more dangerous than ever before.

Kerby Anderson
Doubt is a perennial concern for Christians. Every Christian has feelings of doubt at one time or another. Unfortunately, many Christians assume that doubt is the opposite of faith. They assume that wandering among the hard questions of faith will lead us further from a belief in God.
Travis Dickinson is a professor of philosophy at Dallas Baptist University. His latest book is, Wandering Toward God: Finding Faith Amid Doubts and Big Questions. He was in my radio studio recently to talk about his book and provide hope and guidance for Christians who have questions about their faith.
Doubt is a natural phenomenon. He quotes from C.S. Lewis who said: “Now that I am a Christian, I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable, but when I was an atheist, I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable.”
Part of the problem with the way many see doubt is that they assume we must have certainty. But even prominent atheists reject the idea of certainty. Bertrand Russell observed, “The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.” Voltaire concluded, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one.”
Travis Dickinson encourages us to ask big questions and then look for answers. There are so many theologians and apologists who provide clear and cogent answers to the many questions Christians and non-Christians are asking today.
In the concluding chapters, Dickinson gives us reasons for God and reasons why we can trust the Bible. He also addresses a few of the common questions raised against the gospel and Christianity: Is the God of the Bible Good and Loving? and Why is There So Much Pain and Suffering?
If you know people struggling with doubt about their faith, this is a book that will take them on a journey back to a biblical foundation.

Kerby Anderson
We face a battle for truth every day. That is why I was delighted to interview Dr. Jeff Myers (Summit Ministries) on his new book, Truth Changes Everything. His first four chapters focus on truth in various ways. One chapter explores the difference between the Truth viewpoint and the truths viewpoint. Another chapter tells ancient stories about truth. Most importantly, he provides a method to evaluate different views of truth and shows how non-biblical views of truth always fail.
One of the most valuable sections of the book are the eight chapters that go into detail about how Jesus’ followers have changed art, science, justice, and work as well as our perspective on so many important ideas. For example, Jesus’ followers have changed how we value life. Until Jesus, care, charity, and compassion were usually seen as defects rather than virtues. That we consider human life valuable and want to help others through the development of medicine and mental health care can be attributed to a biblical worldview.
Jesus’ followers have changed the world of science. He explains that nearly every founder of various scientific disciplines during the scientific revolution was a Christian, or at least a theist. Jesus followers have changed the world of art by making the case for objective beauty and by their involvement in the transformation of the visual arts. We would also add the influence Christians have had in politics with the writings that set forth principles we hold based on law, liberty, and freedom.
He concludes with practical ideas and describes fourteen ways to practice speaking up, personally, in a way that builds truth. If you want to understand today’s challenges and want to provide a wise, biblical response, I recommend Truth Changes Everything.

Kerby Anderson
If you want to understand the collapse of the Judeo-Christian consensus in this country, you need to look beyond individual programs and policies and take a more expansive view. In a speech for Hillsdale last year, Christopher Rufo (Manhattan Institute) provided a multi-decade description.
The original leftist dream expected a rebellion from the working class in America. That never took place by the end of the 1960s. Leftists, therefore, abandoned their original plan of waging a revolution with the proletariat and instead, they focused on the elites.
That idea can be easily traced to an Italian communist by the name of Antonio Gramsci, who I sometimes mention on my radio program. He proposed, “capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” This long march through American institutions began a half-century ago. If you look around today, you can see it has been most successful.
Christopher Rufo says he has “looked at the federal bureaucracy, the universities, K-12 schools, and big corporations.” What he found is that the revolutionary ideas of the 1960s “have been repackaged, repurposed, and injected into American life at the institutional level.”
He adds that most Americans were shocked to discover this. They were outraged that children were being taught gender theory and critical race theory. And that the educational elite saw no problem with teaching about race, sex, and gender at very young ages.
Those revelations and the inevitable backlash had an impact on various state and local elections and will continue to be issues that parents will need to address in the future. The lesson here is that all this didn’t happen by chance but was planned decades ago.

Penna Dexter
President Trump has signed an executive order directing U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to dismantle the Department of Education. The order recognizes the fact that the administration cannot shut down the department on its own. Congress must be involved.
However, there is much the secretary can do to begin the process of closing the agency. She is quickly proceeding to slash the Department of Education’s staff by half, eliminating 1,950 positions. She has ended some of the department’s smaller programs, including its research arm. She has scaled back the Office for Civil Rights.
The Department of Education carries $1.6 billion in student debt on its books. The Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel figures that this would make it the nation’s fifth largest bank. The program has become an entitlement and is ripe for reform. President Trump has suggested it be managed by the Small Business Administration or the Treasury or Commerce Department.
Secretary McMahon points out that test scores have been falling since the department was formed in 1979. She frames the task of shutting down the department as her “final mission.”
In a column, The Journal’s Kim Strassel says, “never has a department been more deceptively titled.“  The reality is, “Our federal education bureaucracy takes no part in the daily, hard-fought grind of teaching.”
“The department’s only job,” she continues, “is to act as the keeper of the education treats.” The agency hands out about $80 billion per year to get school districts to comply with its directives, one of the most recent of which was Former President Biden’s transgender requirements.
Until Congress sees fit to close the Department of Education, reform-minded governors should be tapped for expertise. Funding should be in the form of block grants to states and school districts, removing the conditions on how these funds are spent. Better yet, authority over how children are educated should fall to parents through school choice. 

Kerby Anderson
Elon Musk is in the news again, but his comments this time are about the military. Recently he posted that “America needs a large quantity of long-range drones.” He argued that “Anything manned will die very fast in a drone war.” In a previous post, he shared a video of Chinese drones, with the caption, “Meanwhile, some idiots are still building manned fighter jets like the F-35.”
This is a quick way to get criticized by certain members of Congress and companies that make up the military industrial complex. But there are military strategists who believe we need to change strategies. An essay in The New York Times explores the idea of “Reimagining the American War Machine.”
The war between Russia and Ukraine illustrates why the current administration wants to change the type of weapons the Pentagon buys. “In Ukraine, drones of all types — from cheap quadcopters and radio-controlled boats to long-range attack drones — have radically altered battle in the war with Russia.” And it is worth mentioning the speed of innovation. “The Ukrainian military reportedly introduces drones with new capabilities every few weeks. As the Russians adapt, the Ukrainians respond in turn.”
We are entering into a new age of autonomous warfare. However, as I mentioned in a previous commentary about “killer robots,” we must not allow AI, robots, and drones to fight battles with little or no human oversight.
Modern warfare is changing, and the Trump administration is ready to scrap a 20th century warfare mindset and swap it for a 21st century military. Elon Musk may be the one criticized for his comments about the military, but there are others in the administration convinced we need to be better prepared for the future.

Kerby Anderson
Many stories are surfacing about waste, fraud, and abuse, but there is one story that is being mentioned by numerous commentators. The Department of Justice has been investigating the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. This was created when Congress passed President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund was a $27 billion program within the Environmental Protection Agency and was lauded as a “first-of-its-kind” program to address the climate crisis while revitalizing marginalized communities. Although it was supposed to help people in communities that were “historically left behind,” very little of the money went to those communities. Instead, the money went to the bank accounts of environmental nonprofits with boards and staff that included Democratic donors and people with connections to the Obama and Biden administrations.
Bari Weiss described a Free Press investigation that concluded that most ($20 billion) of the funds allocated were “rushed out the door to eight nonprofit groups after Biden lost the election—but before President Donald Trump took office.” On my radio program I recently talked about how a former EPA official admitted (in a secretly recorded video) it was like they were “tossing gold bars off the Titanic.”
Katie Pavlich quotes the Washington Free Beacon story that DOGE discovered that $2 billion of those funds went to a “non-profit linked to perennial Georgia Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett concluded: “We all think there’s waste. There is abuse. I think there may be real fraud here.”
Perhaps you can now understand why there has been such a rabid response to the DOGE investigation.

Kerby Anderson
In her book, Uncommon Courage, constitutional lawyer Keisha Russell warns that the seeds of tyranny have taken root and are reaching a critical tipping point. She was on my radio program recently to describe what is happening and expose the tactics of forces attempting to undermine the foundations of this republic.
She begins by talking about the foundation for freedom in this country that comes from Christianity. The framers had a biblical view of government and of human nature. That is why our republic is constructed this way.
She then talks about how tyranny and totalitarianism have spread in other countries and applies those historic patterns to the US. She believes we have an opportunity through the church. She has been defending the religious liberty of Christians and others and commends them for their courage: hence the title of her book.
She applies her biblical worldview to many of the contemporary issues of our day. A Supreme Court decision about contraception led to the infamous decision about abortion. Once life was redefined, it was only a matter of time before marriage would be redefined.
She focuses due attention on America’s original sin: slavery. In many ways, the argument justifying slavery was only slightly modified to justify abortion and even legalizing dehumanization. It even led to the legalization of infanticide.
How should be respond? We should live with purpose. We should pursue a kingdom agenda. We should stand for what is right and resist the pressure placed upon us. She also had instructive suggestions on how to improve our criminal justice system and public education.
Finally, we need to boldly speak out. We should recognize truth in a world filled with historical propaganda. Put simply: it’s time for Christians to take a stand.

Kerby Anderson
John West (Discovery Institute) was on my radio program recently to talk about his book, Stockholm Syndrome Christianity. To understand his conclusions, you need to remember what Stockholm Syndrome means.
The phrase comes from a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden that took place in 1973. An escaped convict and his accomplice took four bank employees hostage, who began to bond with the criminals and started to view the police and the government as enemies.
John West asks a powerful question: What if American culture isn’t collapsing because of crusading secularists? What if it’s failing because many leading Christians identify more with secular elites than with their fellow believers?
His book catalogs many examples. One chapter describes how Stockholm Syndrome Christians have infected the pastorate of churches leading to a dismissive view of the Bible. He quotes a pastor who wants to discard the Old Testament. He quotes others who are deconstructing God’s Word.
He details how Stockholm Syndrome Christians promote a diminished role for God in creation. He discusses the rise of scientific materialism. And he talks about Christians who seem to be evangelizing for Charles Darwin’s evolution.
As you might imagine, he also describes how Stockholm Syndrome Christians damaged our understanding of sex and gender. This has led to a redefining of marriage and abandoning biblical standards.
He concludes with a call to wisdom, a call to action, and the call to faithfulness. He also includes a website (www.stockholmsyndromeChristianity.com) with an online assessment that will help you diagnose you, your church, and others. He also provides discussion questions and a curated list of resources.
If you want to diagnose Stockholm Syndrome Christianity and provide a remedy, this is a book and website you will need.

Kerby Anderson
The U.S. has two debt problems: one long term and one short term. The first problem is a national debt of $36 trillion that has been increasing. Also concerning is the fact that the rate of indebtedness is also increasing.
The second problem is the current need to refinance so many federal treasuries this year. These T-bills are how we finance our debt, and $7 trillion of debt needs to be financed, along with the $2 trillion deficit this year. That means $9 trillion of current debt needs to be purchased.
Who is going to buy our debt? Not China, probably not Japan or any country in Europe. We need something to entice countries and companies to buy our debt.
Bitcoin might be the answer. At the Bitcoin Policy Institute, Michael Saylor ran models to show how investing in the bitcoin strategic reserve would build assets to offset the growing national debt. I mentioned that in a previous commentary.
But another presentation proposed a bitcoin bond (called a bit bond) that would increase an investor’s interest in buying bonds. Most of the purchase would go to the government, but a portion of the purchase would go to buy bitcoin. At maturity, the holder would receive all the upside price appreciation of bitcoin to a certain level. After that the additional appreciation would be split by half with the government.
The benefit to the holder would be an investment that likely would return a better percentage than normal. The benefit to the government would be the purchasing of bitcoin for the strategic reserve that is “budget-neutral” as required by the executive order signed by President Trump earlier this month.
Bitcoin might be way to pay off our national debt in the future but also attract needed investors to finance our debt today.

Penna Dexter
One of the United Nations’ largest annual feminist gatherings, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), is meeting in New York. Rebecca Oas from the Center for Family and Human Rights says, this year, there’s “a dramatic mood shift, largely because of the change in U.S. leadership.” A declaration adopted on the first day of the 2-week conference contained some language friendly to the gender identity agenda. But, to the chagrin of representatives from the International Planned Parenthood Federation, references to sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights, and sexuality education were left out.
Feminists are not happy. Dr. Oas says, normally they ignore conservatives at the CSW. But not this time.
She reports that at a townhall for CSW attendees, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres spoke of a “ferocious backlash against the rights of women and girls” which, he says, “is growing in power and strength.” He opened the Commission with a warning: “The poison of patriarchy is back….with a vengeance.”
A change in the party controlling the White House normally brings a switch in how the U.S seeks to influence international abortion policy. Notably, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejoined the Geneva Consensus Declaration, which states that there is no international right to abortion and that no nation is obligated to fund or promote abortion.
UN agencies constantly work to implement a version of gender equality that is outside their mandate. They are supported by certain NGOs and by groups like Women Deliver, which has voiced its concern that conservatives now “hold power in key global capitals.”
Dr. Oas says “The presence of conservative groups at the U.N. is often derided and their messages have been increasingly denigrated as ‘anti-rights,’ including by U.N. officials.”
Conservatives are pushing back with a statement declaring that, in many countries, majorities or sizable minorities of women ”hold pro-life and pro-family values, which ‘are mainstream positions’ and not anti-rights.”
It’s their views that should drive U.N. policy.

Kerby Anderson
For decades, progressive professors and politicians have been promoting universal basic income, known as UBI. It is the fiscal program to pay a regular income to everyone without any conditions. Proponents argue that we all benefit from technological advances and thus deserve a steady income, especially as we enter a world where AI might take away many of our jobs.
Chuck Bentley (CEO Crown Financial Ministries) has been warning about the perils of UBI in his articles and in a chapter in his book, Seven Gray Swans. Giving free money to everyone doesn’t make sense economically nor does it make sense theologically. People benefit from working and enjoying the fruits of their labor.
The National Bureau of Economic Research published a study of UBI, which was summarized in a lengthy thread by Athan Koutsiouroumbas. They found that giving people in Compton, California at least $500 per month in free money did little to help them. The participants only ended up $100 richer and smoked more cigarettes.
Here is a summary of some of their findings. For example, “Receiving guaranteed income had no impact on the labor supply of full-time workers, but part-time workers had a lower labor market participation by 13 percentage points.” The researchers discerned “no overall effects on indices of psychological and financial well-being.”
These results should not be surprising. Many studies show that happiness and fulfillment come from earned success. People who work hard and receive the benefit of their work are much happier and fulfilled than people, who for example, win the lottery.
Proverbs 13:11 says, “Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers it little by little will increase it.” This recent study merely confirms what the Bible teaches and most of us know.

Kerby Anderson
President Trump wants manufacturing reinvigorated by bringing many jobs back to the U.S. That is great for America and great for American workers. But who is going to fill those jobs?
The latest numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show 7.6 million job openings along with 6.8 million unemployed workers. You might ask why those millions of unemployed workers haven’t snapped up those millions of job openings.
Mike Rowe (host of “Dirty Jobs”) says the problem of filling those jobs is two-fold. He says we have a “skills gap,” and we also have a “will gap.”
The skills gap is the disparity between the skills an employer expects their employees to have, and the actual skills employees possess. It is certainly true that jobs in the medical field require a science degree and jobs in big tech require a computer science degree. But most of the blue-collar skills don’t require a degree but require some mechanical ability and training.
Unfortunately, lots of high schools removed shop classes that could be training the next generation of Americans who like to work with their hands. Instead, students have been convinced they should go to college and take out massive student loans to get a degree that may not even prepare them for a future job.
The will gap is best illustrated by what economist Nicholas Eberstadt refers to as the “flight from work.” His Washington Post op-ed three years ago lamented that at that time there were seven million men who were not working and not looking for work. The number of non-working men has only dropped a percentage point in the last few years.
If the president is successful in bringing jobs back to America, pastors, parents, and other leaders must encourage the next generation to go to work.

Kerby Anderson
Dr. Sean McDowell reminds us, “Apologetics in an ever-changing culture must be about taking timeless truths and applying them to timely issues and challenges.” Sixteen years ago, he was the editor of the book, Apologetics for a New Generation, and I have recommended it as a resource. At the time, he and the other authors attempted to answer many of the questions teenagers and college students were asking.
He has updated that information in his new book, Apologetics for an Ever-Changing Culture. He argues that we need apologetics now more than ever because Christian students are bombarded by anti-Christian messages on social media, in the classroom, and among friends.
When he was on my radio program earlier this month, we talked about some of the additions and changes in his new book. For example, he said that if someone suggested he have an author write a chapter on transgenderism, he would wonder why that should be included. The chapter on the transgender debate is a necessary addition.
Even though Sean studied philosophy, it didn’t seem like the earlier book should include a chapter on critical theory. Anyone who has heard anything about critical race theory or critical queer theory, knows why that chapter was included.
His book also highlights the work of men and women making a significant contribution to the discussion. One example is the addition of a chapter on urban apologetics. Another is a chapter by Natasha Crain on “doing apologetics in the home.”
The forward to both books is written by David Kinnamen, CEO of the Barna Group. You will also appreciate some of the interviews Sean does with apologists like Lee Strobel, Jeff Myers, and Hillary Morgan Ferrer.

Kerby Anderson
Two weeks ago, I talked about President Trump’s countermarch through the institutions. Progressive activists have been marching through the institutions of this country, and Trump is engaged in a countermarch.
Victor Davis Hanson provides a different perspective on what is happening. He is asking, “Who Caused the Counter Revolution?” He observed that at some point, “some president was going to have to stop the unsustainable spending and borrowing.” He then looks at the crisis at the border and concluded that “to have any country left, some president would eventually have had to restore a nonexistent border and stop the influx of 3 million illegal aliens a year.” He also added, “Some commander-in-chief finally would have to try to stop the theater wars abroad.”
Eventually, someone in authority would have to deal with these issues. President Trump is leading a counter revolution because he is convinced there is a need to restore common sense. Yes, some may be disturbed at the speed or the breadth of action, but most would agree that some changes needed to be made.
Most Americans believe there are two genders. Most Americans don’t think biological men (with greater size and strength) should compete with women in sports. Most Americans believe too many people crossed the border and fear a percentage of migrants who are criminals, believing they should be removed.
We may not like it when a federal employee is fired or when a government program is terminated. Getting to a balanced budget, at times, might seem heartless. We may not agree with every decision being made to deport people here illegally. But Americans voted for a change from the previous four years. That is why there is a Trump counter revolution.

Kerby Anderson
Earlier this month, President Trump signed an executive order that establishes a strategic bitcoin reserve. It will capitalize the bitcoin already owned by the Department of Treasury that was taken from criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings. It will not sell any bitcoin. And the Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce have been given the task of developing budget-neutral strategies for acquiring more.
At the same time, the executive order also establishes a digital asset stockpile that would consist of other digital assets owned by the Department of Treasury. There are no plans to acquire any more, and it is likely those will be sold off.
As you might imagine, there are proponents and opponents to the strategic bitcoin reserve. Many members of Trump’s cabinet are proponents of bitcoin and have bitcoin within their own financial portfolios. The executive order reminds voters of the pledge by candidate Trump to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.”
The opponents can be divided into two groups. One group opposes a bitcoin strategic reserve because they believe it won’t work. I first discussed bitcoin on the radio in 2017. For the last eight years, I have read and heard what is often called FUD: fear, uncertainty, and doubt. We will no doubt hear all those erroneous claims once again.
The other opponents are those who believe the strategic reserve will work, and don’t want to reward bad behavior. This asset with a fixed supply of 21 million coins will increase in value and can be used to offset our current and future national debt. The debt came from politicians who ran up massive deficits and the Federal Reserve that printed the money to fund that fiscal irresponsibility.
Some people in the past feared the government might ban bitcoin. Instead, the government will be acquiring bitcoin.

Penna Dexter
Thankfully, the predicted long wait to learn the 2024 presidential outcome did not come to fruition last November. But results for many down-ballot races were delayed — some for weeks.
Experts warn that we have much more to do to clean up our elections.
The Daily Signal’s Fred Lucas points to Germany’s recent election in which all votes were counted on election night. We should ask ourselves why we often can’t do that here in the U.S.
Mr. Lucas cites several differences between our elections and those conducted in European democracies:

In many countries, especially parliamentary systems, the ballots are simpler. Germans voted for the party. The U.S. is a larger country with ballots which are longer and more complex.
Plus our system is decentralized. States run their own elections, creating most of their own rules.
But the most consequential cause of delays in vote counting in U.S. elections is the widespread use of mail-in ballots.

In his book, The Myth of Voter Suppression, Fred Lucas notes that nearly three fourths of countries in the European Union “don’t allow mail-in voting without specific reasons.”
According to J. Christian Adams, President of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, “These countries have in-person voting at the polling place and have results on election night.” What’s more, he says, “every European country except Britain has voter ID requirements.”  In the U.S., several states lack this fundamental protection.
Election law attorney, author and podcaster Cleta Mitchell founded the Election Integrity Network, a coalition dedicated to the security of every American vote. She recommends several commonsense protections. One that should be a no-brainer is: Do not let non-citizens participate in our elections. A federal bill requiring voter ID, the SAVE Act, awaits a vote in Congress.
Ms. Mitchell also says we should return to election-day and precinct-based, supervised voting. And paper ballots. For more, see Votefair2026.com.

Kerby Anderson
A recent educational report illustrates that our public schools are politically skewed. It concluded that the Marxist Howard Zinn’s book is used in a fourth (25%) of all American classrooms.
Educator Larry Sand explains that Zinn’s best-selling book, A People’s History of the United States, approaches history from a Marxist perspective. “Zinn maintained that the teaching of history should serve society in some way and that objectivity is impossible, and it is also undesirable.” Zinn even admitted that he wrote his book to create a revolution.
If you want to know more about Howard Zinn and his education project, you can follow the link to this commentary. Even better, you might want to obtain the book, Debunking Howard Zinn, written by Mary Grabar. I did an hour interview with her about the book a few years ago.
Larry Sand concludes that students may be becoming an experts in Marxist dogma, but they aren’t learning U.S. history. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni conducted a national survey of college students. It tested them about their basic knowledge of American history and government and found that significant numbers of college students graduate without a basic grasp of the nation’s history and political system. He also cites other surveys that come to the same discouraging conclusion.
In many cases, foreigners who come to the U.S. to become citizens learn more about our history and governmental structure than young people who attend our public schools. Why not require high school students to pass the citizenship test? Recently, the governor of Iowa announced a bill that would require high school students to pass the citizenship test to graduate. If the bill passes, Iowa will become the 14th state to adopt such a measure.
Our schools aren’t teaching history, and what they do teach is often politically skewed.