Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Penna Dexter
The nation’s two largest pharmacy chains, CVS and Walgreens, are about to start filling prescriptions for the abortion pill, mifepristone, in states where it is legally allowed. Since restrictions on prescribing the drug through telemedicine have been lifted, the reckless practice of providing abortion drugs through the mail has exploded. The availability of mifepristone at drug stores will increase the ease of getting an abortion with no doctor or nurse present. In excruciating pain, the mother will expel her baby, or pieces of it, into a toilet, or her hand.
Mifepristone cuts off progesterone, which is required to sustain a pregnancy.
The FDA approved the abortion pill in 2000 with strong requirements to mitigate its risk to women receiving it. The stipulation that abortion pills be dispensed by a qualified prescriber at a clinic or hospital or similar health care setting was once deemed crucial. Since non-surgical, or chemical, abortions must be done within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, the gestational age of the unborn baby must be accurate. If a woman misdates her pregnancy, she risks infection from fetal tissue left in the uterus. And not seeing a medical professional often rules out a timely diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy, which can be life-threatening.
Board certified OB-GYN Ingrid Skop, vice president for the Charlette Lozier Institute, says, “This is not health care. This is an ideology that prioritizes destruction of unborn human life and does not care that the women injured by these abortions, whom I see in the ER on a regular basis, are collateral damage.”
In just a few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether mifepristone should remain available for abortions. At issue is whether the FDA approval of mifepristone, and the agency’s removal of health safeguards in 2016 and 2021, adequately protected women.
Nonetheless, CVS and Walgreens are moving ahead. Depending upon where you live, your corner pharmacy may be about to become an abortion business. 

Kerby Anderson
You may have noticed that the American Library Association and even your local library has become quite political. Perhaps the best way to illustrate that is to tell the story of Ron Kelley, an ALA member.
In the summer of 2020, the American Library Association encouraged its members to support Black Lives Matter. Ron Kelley expressed his concern in an email that he believed that promoting a political organization was “extremely unwise.” He also wondered why the ALA wasn’t up in arms about the profession’s gender gap since “82 percent of American librarians are women.”
As you can probably imagine, other woke librarians complained about him and filed complaints against his boss. Then he was fired. One article about his situation explained that he was hardly a right-wing culture warrior. He was a mobile librarian who served the Navajo Nation and previously had traveled the world writing about Bedouins, Kurdish refugees, and Native Americans.
He and many other librarians were caught up in what has been called the Critical Librarianship movement. The goal is not merely to educate but to use library resources to change people’s minds. A review of the literature shows the desire to become political actors and participate in the battle for young minds.
The current ALA president said (in a now deleted tweet) that: “I just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of @ALALibrary.”
As I’ve mentioned previously, several states have decided to reevaluate their relationship with American Library Association. My suggestion is for you to check out your local library and the school library. You might be surprised at what you find.

Kerby Anderson
One of the rallying cries during the American Revolution was, “No taxation without representation.” If the founders thought taxation without representation was bad, they should see what taxation with representation looks like.
That is one of the reasons John Stossel wrote about “Taxation Without Reason.” Our income tax forms are due in a few weeks. He says he feels like he must hire an accountant because Congress keeps adding to the tax code. He picks just a few of the bizarre aspects of our tax policy.
“I can get a deduction for feeding feral cats but not for having a watchdog. I can deduct clarinet lessons if I get an orthodontist to say it’ll cure my overbite, but not piano lessons if a psychotherapist prescribes them for relaxation. Even though whaling is mostly banned, owning a whaling boat can get you $10,000 in deductions.”
No wonder so many Americans pay for tax assistance. We spend about $104 billion each year and waste 2 billion hours filling out tax forms. He says the tax code exists “to satisfy the whims of politicians.” Mortgage deductions invite us to buy bigger homes. Solar tax credits entice us to put panels on our roof.
We are told that tax incentives are a good thing and even encourage giving. On the contrary, Steve Forbes explains that “Americans don’t need to be bribed to give.” He reminds us that, “In the 1980s, when the top rate got cut from 70% down to 28% … charitable giving went up. When people have more, they give more.”
We need a simple tax code, but politicians want to use tax incentives to manipulate behavior and control us. During this election season, you need to ask candidates whether they plan to make it easier and simpler to pay our taxes.

Kerby Anderson
An article in Barrons two weeks ago reported that births in Japan dropped to a new low last year. The country recorded more than twice as many deaths as new babies. Marriages are at the lowest level since 1933.
The sobering numbers highlight the dramatic challenges facing the nation of Japan. It may have the world’s fourth-biggest economy in the world, but it is dying a slow death. And there are healthcare shortages for the significant number of elderly Japanese.
Here in America, we can be grateful that we aren’t in this situation, but we are headed there. The US birth rate has been below replacement level for many years. We are now averaging about 1.6 children over a lifetime. In fact, the birth rate has been falling since the Great Recession.
This wasn’t always the case. The average woman had three children in the 1950s. Eventually, the birth rate dropped to the replacement rate of 2.1 children and is currently about 1.6 children.
A below-replacement birth rate affects so many aspects of society. We may not be able to economically support an aging population. Below-replacement fertility means closing schools, shrinking college enrollments, fewer workers, and fewer consumers.
A shrinking population has been used to justify increased immigration. But a tsunami of illegal immigrants crossing the border is not the solution. The right kind of legal immigrants, who have been vetted and assimilated, will forestall a demographic collapse.
Christians understand that the family is the fundamental unit of society. “Children are a heritage from the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). They are like arrows, and we are blessed with a quiver full of them (Psalm 127:4-5). That is why pastors and Christian leaders need to teach about the importance of marriage and family.

Kerby Anderson
We keep hearing that inflation is down, but it doesn’t seem like it when we go to the grocery store or take our family out to eat. You get the bill and wonder if our mental math is correct. The bill can’t be that much.
No, you are not imagining food inflation. Two writers for the Wall Street Journal ran the numbers and concluded that Americans are spending a higher percentage on food than any time in the last three decades. Here’s how they described it:
“The last time Americans spent this much of their money on food, George H.W. Bush was in office, ‘Terminator 2: Judgment Day’ was in theaters and C+C Music Factory was rocking the Billboard charts.”
They concluded that “eating continues to cost more, even as overall inflation has eased.” They found that prices at restaurants and other eateries were up 5.1 percent last month compared with January 2023. As you would imagine, grocery costs also increased.
What does the future hold? The writers don’t have good news. They don’t believe that relief will arrive anytime soon. “Restaurant and food company executives said they are still grappling with rising labor costs and some ingredients, such as cocoa, that are only getting more expensive. Consumers, they said, will find ways to cope.”
Food producers have found one way to keep prices from rising: shrinkflation. You might remember the message from President Biden during the Super Bowl. He was sitting in the White House theater surrounded by Doritos, Oreos, Gatorade, and ice cream.
After he complained about shrinkflation, many got on social media to suggest he talk to the person in charge of the economy that caused that problem. I would suggest that dumping trillions of dollars in new spending might have something to do with inflation and the problem of shrinkflation.

Kerby Anderson
Immigration is the major problem facing this country according to the most recent Gallup polls. The pollsters asked, “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” Immigration was the first problem listed, even outdistancing inflation and the economy.
On my radio program, one guest asked me if I could ever remember a time when the issue of immigration rated as high as it does now. I never have seen it rated so high even back when immigration was being debated and immigration reform was being proposed by the “Gang of Eight.” This is significant, since the current administration has tried to assure Americans for this last year that the border is secure, and immigration is under control.
The real question that some might ask is whether this concern is perception or reality. After all, the current administration has been saying that the economy is good, even though Americans feel like it is hard for them to make ends meet. What is the reality at the border?
According to US Customs and Border Protection, about 7.3 million people have unlawfully crossed the southwest border since President Biden came into office. To put that number in perspective, consider that it exceeds the population of 36 US states. If you took those 7.3 million and made them live in a city, that city would be the second largest city in the country.
I might mention one other statistic. The 7.3 million does not include the estimated 1.8 million “gotaways” that did not want to be caught. If you add those two numbers together, you have a city larger than New York City.
The American people accurately see the problem. We have a crisis at the border and have let in nearly 10 million people illegally into this country.

Penna Dexter
A Christian high school girls’ basketball team forfeited a playoff game last year because a transgender student, a biological boy, was playing on the opposing team. Now the Vermont Principals’ Association says the team will not be allowed to participate in future tournaments.
FOX NEWS reports that “Chris Goodwin, who coaches at Mid-Vermont Christian School, said he was notified of the transgender player on the other team, but it wasn’t until the playoffs last year that his team ended up facing them on the court.” The school is taking legal action against the state to regain the right to participate.
Coach Goodwin told FOX NEWS that “boys just play at a different speed, a different force.” He explained that he and school administrators held discussions with players and parents. He said, “we decided that instead of going against our religious beliefs” regarding the fact that males and females are created differently, just to forfeit that particular game and withdraw from the tournament.
“And at that point,” says the coach, “the state of Vermont Governing body kicked us out of all athletic competitions in the state.”
The coach’s decision was validated by viral footage from another recent girls’ basketball game, this one between Massachusetts Collegiate Charter School of Lowell and KIPP Academy. As two players vied for a rebound, one of them — a large, biological male from the KIPP team — threw a female player from the Charter team to the ground, grabbing the ball from her and causing her to grip her back in pain. The trans-identifying player took out two more Charter players before halftime. Not wanting to lose more players, the Charter team forfeited the game.
It’s unfair that women across America have been losing all sorts of athletic competitions, titles, and scholarships to men identifying as women. And when males play on girls’ teams, it’s downright dangerous. These coaches were right to forfeit. Let’s pray Coach Goodwin and Mid-Vermont School win their lawsuit.

Kerby Anderson
John Stossel says the problem is “bad laws.” Rafael Mangual describes it as the “overcriminalization of America.” Both are talking about the same problem and teamed up to produce a video that highlights an issue that needs to be addressed.
To put it simply, we have too many laws on the books, many of which are outdated and need to be removed. For example, there is a law in South Carolina that bans 18-year-olds from playing pinball. Taking a rake from New York to New Jersey is actually a federal crime.
Stossel pushes back on some of the examples in the video by pointing out that nobody goes to jail for silly or outdated laws. Mangual responds, “That doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem.” Compliance takes time, money, and effort. He then provides an example where people were prosecuted.
A woman was prosecuted for sheltering animals during a hurricane. She said she was just trying to make sure these poor animals weren’t drowning. But North Carolina prosecutors filed criminal charges against her for practicing veterinarian medicine without a license.
In Kentucky, one man was giving eyeglasses to needy people who could not afford eye doctors. But the state officials told him that his act of compassion was a crime.
In these cases, you can see that part of the problem is that established businesses are using existing laws or getting other laws passed so they can push out competition. They have lobbyists and can use laws and bureaucratic regulations to give them a market advantage.
The bigger issue is that we have too many laws on the books. People commit crimes nearly every day without even knowing that they are doing so. State legislators need to focus some of their attention on existing laws that are outdated and unnecessary. Before they pass new laws, they should repeal the laws that we no longer need.

Kerby Anderson
Members of a very popular South Korean boy band were denied draft exemptions even though it would reduce revenue to the country. Why? Because there aren’t enough boys available to serve in the military. Lyman Stone uses this illustration to highlight the extremely low birth rate in South Korea.
But that country is just one of many examples of what has become a global birth dearth. Fertility rates have been declining in all the developed countries of the world. The US figures are better than in many countries in Europe and Asia, but still illustrate the decline. Fertility rates in this country declined from 2.12 children per woman in 2006 to just 1.72 today. The figure might even drop lower if we hit another recession.
Although legalized abortion, contraception, and a down economy are often cited for the reasons for lower fertility, those factors only explain part of the decline. The US first reached birth rates around two children per woman during the Roaring Twenties, not during the Great Depression and long before contraceptive access was readily available.
Modern economies depend on various transfers of wealth across generations. The obvious examples are Social Security and other so-called entitlement programs. An older generation also expects the younger generation to buy their houses and other assets. But that is not happening. Even the trade deficit is due in part to the fact that there are more assets than there are buyers to purchase them.
The solution, it seems, is not to pass government policies that try to make people want to have children. The best that can be done would be to eliminate government policies that currently penalize couples with children. At the least, government should reduce the financial barriers for parents who want to bring kids into the world.

Kerby Anderson
What is the American Creed? That is a question David Gelernter asks in his book, America-Lite.
He has been on my radio program to talk about his book and his op-ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.
He is a fascinating individual. He received two degrees in classical Hebrew literature, but then became a professor of computer science at Yale University. Some have called him a “rock star” in the world of computing. You might also remember that he was one of the people who was critically injured when he opened a mail bomb sent by “the Unabomber.”
He believes that we need to return to the principles that made this country great. Unfortunately, he says “many of us don’t know what they are, or think they can’t work.” He blames the public schools and the academy for their failure to pass on the basic ideals that have served America so well for centuries.
He laments that: “Almost no one believes that our public schools are doing a passable job of teaching American and Western civilization.” Textbooks and class lectures in our education system today often start with the assumption that America and Western ideals are bad for civilization. He concludes that “Many American children have never heard a good word for the United States, the West, Judaism or Christianity their whole lives.”
He also laments that our “American culture is in the hands of intellectuals” which he says are usually people “born with high IQ and low common sense.” He gives lots of examples of this. You can probably think of many other examples of people who are very bright but lacking in basic common sense.
America’s creed is quite simple: “Freedom, equality, democracy and America as the promised land.” The early founders believed in America as a city on a hill, as did many presidents right up to President Reagan.
It is time to use our American creed to evaluate those who are teaching our kids and those who are leading our nation.

Kerby Anderson
Jonah Goldberg talks about “The Miracle” in his book, The Suicide of the West. The major focus of his book is on tribalism and populism, but he begins with a description and an explanation of the remarkable change in western societies in the last few centuries.
“The Miracle is about more than economics, but economics is the best way to tell the story of humanity’s quantum leap out of its natural environment of poverty.” People used to live on the equivalent of a dollar or more a day. By the 18thcentury, human prosperity exploded in Europe and North America. And now so many people in so many countries have been lifted out of poverty.
A major reason for this dramatic change had to do with a change in the way human beings thought about the world and their place in it. Sure there was trade, science, and technology. But those things existed before The Miracle. He argues that ideas brought about this change.
What were those ideas? Here are three: that the individual is sovereign, that our rights come from God and not government, and that the fruits of our labor belong to us. These are Christian ideas, but Jonah Goldberg doesn’t give credit to Christianity. In fact, he begins his book with this statement: “There is no God in this book.” Instead, he assumes humans are merely an evolutionary product that eventually discovered the ideas that ushered in The Miracle.
He does give credit to John Locke. That would be the man who referred to the Bible over a thousand times in his first treatise on government and invoked the Bible more than three hundred times in his second treatise.
Jonah Goldberg rightly reminds us that we are the beneficiaries of a change in thinking that affected our political institutions and economic systems that brought us both liberty and prosperity. But I also think Christianity deserves some credit for The Miracle.

Kerby Anderson
For the last few decades, politicians and high-tech companies have been talking about the digital divide. They wanted to make sure that poor and underprivileged students had access to the same digital devices as wealthier ones.
I have always felt there was a bigger issue that fewer people were talking about. Fortunately, Naomi Schaefer Riley addresses this in her New York Times op-ed on “America’s Real Digital Divide.” She warns that, “If you think middle-class children are being harmed by too much screen time, just consider how much greater the damage is to minority and disadvantaged kids, who spend much more time in front of screens.”
One study, for example, found that minority children watch 50 percent more TV than their white peers. They use computers for up to one and a half hours longer each day. And the amount of time black and Hispanic children spend in front of any screen is substantially longer each day than for white children.
Another study found that every additional hour of TV increased a child’s odds of attention problems by about 10 percent. “Kids who watched three hours a day were 30 percent more likely to have attention trouble than those who watched none.”
The push from politicians and educators has been to bridge the digital divide and get computers and other technology into the classrooms. Apparently, minority students already have access to technology. One Pew Research report documented that African-American teenagers are more likely to own a smartphone than any other group of teenagers in America.
Put simply, the problem today is not a lack of technology in the schools, in the homes, and in the hands of young people. The problem is too much technology. They are spending a significant number of hours every day in front of a TV screen, a video game screen, a computer screen, and a smartphone screen.

Penna Dexter
Last week thousands of Christians gathered in Nashville for the National Religious Broadcasters Convention. The NRB was formed in the early years of radio broadcasting, when evangelical broadcasters, who were faithfully proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, built radio audiences in the millions. This threatened liberal mainline denominations who wanted a ban on religious broadcasting that was not done by “responsible” religious broadcasters — like themselves.
On Thursday night of the conference, Donald Trump was the speaker. He hit every issue Christians and conservatives care about. He identified himself as a believer. But he focused on his audience — people involved in communicating the gospel and spreading God’s truth. He spent a lot of time on religious liberty, the freedom of Christians to practice our faith. He addressed the growing threats to religious liberty and promised to “protect God in the public square” if he is elected.
But, as I sat in that audience, what impacted me most was President Trump’s words about the good Christians do for the country and the world by using pulpits and the media to tell people about Christ and His principles and by loving people and caring for their needs. It was as if he was speaking, not so much to get our votes, as to encourage us to keep doing what we are doing and step it up.
This was encouraging. But I couldn’t help wondering if the church is doing enough. Is our message clear, or watered down?  Are we worthy of the compliments this former president was articulating.
In his four years in the White House, Donald Trump got a taste of how difficult it is to govern people hostile to faith and biblical principles.
On Friday morning at NRB, Bott Radio Network hosted a breakfast. Leesburg, Virginia pastor, Gary Hamrick told attendees, “The marriage between woke ideology and liberal theology has produced passive pastors.” Faithful pastors — and broadcasters — need their freedom protected. They also need courage.  

Kerby Anderson
Sixteen years ago, I published my book, A Biblical Point of View on Homosexuality, and predicted that the legalization of same-sex marriage would open the door to all sorts of sexual experiments. Polyamory is the practice of having more than one sexual partner at the same time. We are now seeing a push for the normalization of this practice.
John Stonestreet, in a Breakpoint commentary, talks about a New York Times article that describes a “Polyamorous Mom Had ‘a Big Sexual Adventure’ and Found Herself.” A New York Magazine has the headline, “Polyamory: A Practical Guide for the Curious Couple.” And USA Today helps readers deal with the supposedly “misunderstood” polyamorous subculture known as “swingers.”
Jim Denison, in his Daily Article, talks about the latest “reality” show with the provocative title, Couple to Throuple. It tells the story of four couples who are curious about polyamory and head to a resort where they begin dating a group of singles.
Of course, the Bible doesn’t condone such behavior. Marriage is a covenant of one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:22-33), and we are to flee from sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18, Galatians 5:19). Many of us predicted that once you said that marriage could be with two men or two women, where would it stop? The Supreme Court decision nine years ago essentially opened the door to any sexual variation you could imagine.
I might mention that the article by Jim Denison has numerous links to research by secular counselors and other professionals that all conclude that polyamory doesn’t work. The lack of intimacy and the problems with jealousy and power plays are just a few reasons for its failure.
shouldn’t be surprised at these conclusions because God’s plan for marriage and family is the best. All other human ideas are destined for failure.

Kerby Anderson
No doubt you have noticed that pundits and politicians seem to be constantly warning about a threat to democracy. This has intensified during this election season. Republicans and Democrats may not agree about much, but they both are sounding the alarm about a threat to democracy from their opponents.
It is worth mentioning that the idea that there is a threat to democracy isn’t just an American phenomenon. This year of 2024 will be the biggest voting year in history. Some 4.2 billion people (more than half of humanity) live in the 76 countries that are scheduled to hold elections or have already held elections.
Many of these elections will not be free or fair or secure. Fortunately, most people living in developed countries will be able to cast their vote in a way that will determine the political future of the country. And that brings us back to the United States.
First, this country isn’t a democracy, but is a constitutional republic. The framers were rightly fearful of a majority rule that could become a mobocracy. It’s also worth noting that before the founding of this country, representative government was hardly the norm. The framers gave us checks and balances and a structure of government to protect individual rights.
Second, consider which political group is trying to remove those checks and balances. Progressive groups want to abolish the electoral college, pack the court, and eliminate the allocation of two senators to each state. They also believe that most important decisions should be made by an elite group of unelected experts.
This election season, pay attention to the people shouting the loudest about a threat to democracy. In many cases, they are the same people who have been putting forward policies and proposals that would put an end to democracy.

Kerby Anderson
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a case related to the abortion pill. That is why pro-life researchers question the decision by an academic publishing company to retract studies that suggest significant health risks after taking chemical abortion drugs.
Earlier this month, Sage Publishing announced it has retracted three studies related to the abortion pill. The justification was that there were undeclared conflicts of interests. The study authors, they contend, did not disclose their ties to a pro-life organization.
One of the authors spoke to the Christian Post and explained that she and her fellow researchers never concealed their connection. In fact, they fully disclosed who they were affiliated with and even reported that the studies were funded by a pro-life institute.
I don’t claim to know all the details of the dispute, but I must admit that the reaction seems like a classic case of the genetic fallacy, where data is dismissed based solely on the source or origin rather than its content.
Facts are facts. Data is data. If an argument for abortion comes from researchers working with a pro-abortion group like the Guttmacher Institute, it should be evaluated based on factual analysis. Likewise, an argument against abortion or the abortion pill that comes from researchers working for a pro-life group should be evaluated the same way.
The reason for these studies was to determine the safety or lack thereof of chemical abortion compared to surgical abortion. The only research group that would likely be interested in that question would be pro-life researchers. They would want to know what percentage of women end up in the emergency room after using the abortion pill. This should be relevant data in the Supreme Court decision.

Kerby Anderson
“Owning a home has long been considered the quintessential American dream, but the path to those white picket fences is far from smooth.” That’s how a recent survey by Lending Tree opened its article. The survey found that 84 percent of Americans said they’d like to own a home one day. A majority (51%) of those who don’t own today worry they’ll never get there.
Glen Beck, in his book Dark Future, confirms that “after decades of homeownership being an essential part of life in America, a trend has developed that’s transforming the United States into a nation of renters.” Part of the reason is increasing cost. According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the average cost of buying a home at the end of 2022 was more than $152,000 higher than it was just two years earlier. The National Association of Home Builders found in their 2021 study that regulatory costs for new homes across all levels of government increased by $94,000.
A significant majority of Americans own their homes, but the future trend is not as promising. The number of first-time homebuyers declined to just 26 percent in 2022, which is the lowest level since the National Association of Realtors began tracking data. That figure also represents a significant drop from 34 percent one year earlier.
Owning a home is an important part of building wealth for most households. But being a homeowner also provides freedom. Landlords can impose all sorts of requirements and regulations if you are living under their roof. Renters face prohibitions against pets, parties, smoking, and alcohol. You may have the constitutional right to own a firearm, but a landlord can ban you from possessing a weapon while renting a dwelling.
We aren’t a nation of renters yet, but the trend is in that direction.

Kerby Anderson
A shooting earlier this month in the third largest church in America should have been a wake-up call for churches to evaluate church security. Unfortunately, many merely hit the snooze button. The secular media moved on, perhaps because the shooter (a 36-year-old Salvadoran woman) didn’t fit the media narrative. And many Christians merely took the news in stride without considering how to protect their congregation.
In the past, I have written about the need for church security. One of the people I interviewed is Jimmy Meeks, who works in the area of church security. In fact, he and his wife were married at a church (Wedgewood Baptist Church) that was the site of one of the first church shootings. He has documented hundreds of violent deaths in churches and other faith-based facilities.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council recently interviewed church security consultant Tim Miller on his radio program. Perkins talked about the increase in incidents in churches and said his organization documented more than 500 attacks on churches from 2018 through March 2023. Tim Miller added, “We’re seeing not only the frequency, but the severity of these attacks continue.”
Tim Miller explained, “Security is about being wise and prepared with a plan.” Proverbs 22:3 warns, “The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.”
He drew two principles for church security from Nehemiah 4:9, which says, “And we prayed to our God and set a guard as a protection against them day and night.” He says we need to first pray to God and then we post a guard.”
This is a wise admonition that I believe all churches should follow.

Penna Dexter
President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are speaking by phone lately. A major topic of the calls is the clearing out of Rafah, Gaza’s southernmost city, a military necessity in order to dismantle Hamas. President Biden is making demands about hostages and civilian protections.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly criticized “recent talk about forcing a Palestinian state on Israel.” He says this “would be a huge prize for terror, the likes of which we have never seen.”
Hamas must be removed. The Heritage Foundation’s David Harsanyi points out that “no Israeli Prime Minister would act any differently in Gaza. Israeli voters rightly demand it.”
Our dealings with Israel should always occur in light of the existential threat Hamas represents. These threats were fulfilled in the carnage that began October 7th, an event which should not have surprised us.
Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has been meticulously cataloguing Hamas’s threats of ‘total war’ for years. The organization publicized Hamas’s articles and videos advertising its drills preparing for an invasion of Israel.
The threats are incessant. But we must pay attention. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, MEMRI’s president and co-founder Yigal Carmon said “If they publish it many times, it suggests they mean it and you cannot ignore it. You must take it seriously.”
MEMRI documents the terrorists’ competing messages. Hamas politbureau chief Ismail Haniyeh tells the West he wants to end the war and signals that Israel and Hamas can live side by side, But, in a January 9th speech aired on Al Jazeera, he said: “We should hold onto the victory that took place on Oct. 7 and build upon it.” He says “the time has come for the jihad of the swords.”
MEMRI’s Executive Director, Steve Stalinski told the Journal, “We’ve monitored it since the beginning of the jihadis going online, and there have never been so many open threats to the U.S.—explicit threats.”
We must pay attention.

Kerby Anderson
Reporter Leonardo Blair says that the youngest generations are “mired in debt” and that a “majority of young adults are financially dependent on parents.” He based these conclusions on a recent study by Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel.
The study was a collection of two surveys taken in October and November. The researchers found that less than half (45%) of these young adults (18-34) reported being completely financially independent from their parents. As you might have expected, the older adults (in their early 30s) were much more likely to be completely financially independent from their parents.
On the other side, nearly half (44%) of young adults said they received financial help from their parents in the past year. The survey identified two major areas where they needed financial help from their parents. One was to pay for household expenses. The other was to pay for their cellphone bill or subscriptions to streaming services.
The survey also found that the debt load of young adults has skyrocketed. This includes not only student loan debt but mortgage debt. The article and the research study compared mortgage debt in previous decades as well as the price of a home. Both have increased due to inflation and due to rising interest rates on those mortgages.
This also has an impact on marriage and families. A much lower percentage of young adults (18-24) are likely to be married today compared to previous decades. And young adults are much less likely to have a child living in their household than in previous decades.
As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, many politicians have been trying to tell Americans that the economy is doing well. Many of these young people just don’t feel that way.