Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Most events in history are mere footnotes in history books, but there is some reason to believe the Hamas attack on Israel will change just about everything. That includes everything from the current US policy on the Middle East to American attitudes towards university campuses.
Victor Davis Hanson is one commentator convinced of the significant changes. He notes that it has been 22 years since we saw crowds in the Middle East celebrating the killing of 3,000 civilians. This time it was the cheering of the murder of people in Israel.
He argues that the current administration’s policy of appeasement of Iran and the gift of billions of dollars to Gaza and the West Bank are less likely to pass Congress, though I must admit that the president tried his best in a television event from the Oval Office to make the case for humanitarian support. But the attempt to continue giving aid to terrorist groups or the attempt to normalize relations with theocratic Iran seem destined to failure.
Hanson also points to the difference in attitude toward the Ukrainian military and the Israeli military. The State Department put few restrictions on Ukrainian retaliation, including operations against the Russian Black Sea Fleet. By contrast, some in the State Department already called for a “ceasefire” while others called for a “proportionate” response from Israel. Can you imagine any American diplomat trying to lecture Ukraine about ending the “cycle of violence?”
Finally, America’s perspective on higher education seems to be changing. University presidents and professors could not condemn the Hamas attack. Scores of student groups pledged their support of Hamas and the Palestinians. Hanson says they seem like “kindred spirit to the anti-Semitism, intolerance, and fascism of the 1930s German universities.”
These are just a few examples of what has changed since the beginning of this month.

Penna Dexter
Israel’s critics have denounced even it’s very first efforts to defend itself against Hamas’s horrific massacre. These voices warn that any civilian casualties will be seen as war crimes. And it’s true: the deliberate targeting of civilians is a violation of international law and the laws of war. But unlike Hamas, Israel does not target civilians.
Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich asks this question in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:“Does international law require a nation to choose between committing war crimes and having war crimes committed against it?” He says “The answer is no.”
Professor Kontorovich teaches at George Mason University Scalia School of Law and heads up the international law department at a Jerusalem think tank. Since civilians often become victims, “countries like Israel, “he writes, “resort to war only as self-defense, which, according to the United Nations Charter, is every nation’s inherent right.”
Hamas launches its rockets from civilian population centers. Its weapons infrastructure is located among civilians, by design, as shields and for propaganda. The professor points out that “Hamas has violated international law by hiding among civilians.” Hamas has even ordered Gazans not to flee to avoid Israel’s defensive campaign. He says the presence of civilians in and around military targets does not mean those targets are immune from attack.
Hamas has ruled Gaza since 2005 and has attacked Israel from there several times. In defending against those attacks, Israel targets Hamas fighters and infrastructure.  With this horrendous attack, Israel must operate with the knowledge that “Hamas’s goal is the annihilation of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.” Destroying Hamas is now, rightly, Israel’s existential goal.
Professor Kontorovich writes: “When military objectives and civilians are intermingled, siege aimed at the former will also affect the latter.”  Siege is a part of lawful war. He wonders whether those who deny Israel’s right to self-defense “are merely naïve or wish to leave Israel perpetually exposed to genocide.”
Israel cannot look away. 

Kerby Anderson
For many months, I have been saying that if the 2024 presidential election becomes a rematch of 2020, many voters will stay home. Recent polls confirm my prediction.
There is another possibility. The lack of enthusiasm for Biden and Trump might increase the possibility of more Americans voting for a third-party candidate. The announcement by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that he is running as an independent makes that possibility even more likely.
Of course, he is not the only third-party candidate. The Libertarian Party and the Green Party will no doubt nominate candidates that will appear on most ballots. The No Labels Party is a centrist party that may nominate one Democrat and one Republican for the ticket.
This scenario certainly explains why leaders in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have engaged in a scorched earth campaign against these parties and their candidates. The attacks last time on Jill Stein (Green Party) and Evan McMullin (Independent) will pale in comparison to the attacks we will see against third-party candidates.
We will be hearing that voting for a third-party candidate is throwing your vote away. It is not. The two major political parties don’t own your vote. They need to earn your vote. If you see a candidate worthy of your vote, you should vote for that person.
We will also be hearing that voting for a third-party candidate takes votes away from another political party. But that assumes the voter would have voted for a main-party candidate if a third-party candidate wasn’t on the ballot. That is a difficult argument to prove. Perhaps the best example of that is the 2000 Presidential election in which Democrats argued that Ralph Nader’s candidacy kept Al Gore from winning Florida.
This may be the year of the third-party, which will remind the major parties that they don’t own your vote.

Kerby Anderson
 
For some time, political commentators have lamented the end of “Pax Americana.” Noah Rothman believes that the Hamas attack on Israel reflects dangerous changes in the international world. In case you are wondering, Pax Americana has been a term used to describe the influence of the US and its military after World War II.
“More than 1,500 Hamas terrorists participated in this savage attack, the scale of which demonstrates the level of planning involved.” The Wall Street Journal, for example, revealed that “officers of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard” had been working with Hamas for months.
We also know that Iran provides hundreds of millions of dollars to Muslim groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Noah Rothman reminds us, “When Hamas terrorists, Hezbollah mercenaries, and Iranian theocrats chant “Death to America” after murdering Israelis, they’re not confused.”
But the global conflict involves other countries. “Moscow has received hundreds of attack drones from Iran over the course of the war.” It appears to have received ballistic missiles, helicopters, and radar systems from Iran. He adds that “China is Iran’s largest trading partner and the source of nearly a quarter of its weapons imports. Beijing and Tehran have reportedly agreed to conduct joint military exercises and training, just as China and Russia have increased their joint military activity.”
The Hamas attack on Israel shows that this post-American world will become even more dangerous. Our enemies are joining forces. We need to pray for our leaders and find more astute ones soon.

Kerby Anderson
Columnist Charles Cooke is blunt in his assessment: “Hamas Apologists Are Freaks.” I might not have used that description, but his assessment is correct. Well-adjusted people do not look at the bloodshed by Hamas terrorists and use woke, intersectional words to justify this evil act.
Some of the people who have tried to justify the Hamas butchery are backing away from those statements. They argue they never made those statements, or else they were misinterpreted. Before these apologists are successful in rewriting history, it’s worth thinking about the mind games you must use to justify such horrific acts.
“It is simply not within the normal bounds of human behavior to look at what has happened in Israel and to filter one’s instinctive moral reaction through whatever goofy, specious, ugly ideology one might have picked up in an overpriced seminar hall.” Yes, words like “colonialism” and “imperialism” have a place in some discussions when properly defined. But well-adjusted people don’t read about machine-gunning concertgoers and beheading babies and use woke language to justify something that would repulse any normal person.
“Well-adjusted people do not learn of the largest single instance of antisemitic butchery since the Holocaust and muse about how intersectional the dead might have been.” And they don’t write open letters holding the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all the violence used against it.
But we cannot just shake our heads at such comments. Unfortunately, we learn from history that the first step in the road to barbarism is any attempt to dehumanize other human beings and justify their elimination with adjectives and phrases meant to lessen their value. We should never justify evil.

Kerby Anderson
A framed copy of a March 1993 Wall Street Journal editorial can be seen in the Midtown Manhattan conference room. “No Guardrails” is the title of this Daniel Henninger piece and has become a phrase often used by Journal opinion writers.
This editorial written three decades ago is like a time capsule. It laments the loss of “a time in the United States when life seemed more settled, when emotions, both private and public, didn’t seem to run so continuously at breakneck speed.” Ten years ago, he revisited the concept of “No Guardrails” by suggesting “we would be better off if our intellectual, political and cultural elites rediscovered—and publicly revered—the protective virtues of self-control and self-restraint.”
If only he could have predicted the world we live in today. We are barraged by angry public statements from presidents, pundits, and members of Congress. Woke ideas, once located on a few universities, have made their way into classrooms, boardrooms, and courtrooms. A cancel culture has been institutionalized and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with what the cultural elite propose.
As we have discussed in previous commentaries, life in many cities is becoming more difficult every day. Essential guardrails have been pulled down. Prosecutors are no longer prosecuting criminals. Major drug store chains and big box stores are leaving cities. Politicians are complaining about food deserts because grocery stores can’t even make enough to pay their employees.
That framed copy of his editorial is a reminder that the current chaos did not happen overnight. It has been coming for a long time. It may take a long time to return to a society of order and civility.

Kerby Anderson
When Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, much of the world was shocked and horrified, while other parts of our world celebrated. Everyone, it seemed, needed to make a comment. Some were insightful, many more were forgettable and even regrettable.
Some important insights came from Mark Penn, who was a chief strategist for Hillary Clinton and author of the book, Microtrends. He listed several lessons that we learned from the Hamas attack and the subsequent reactions.
“First, we learned that Hamas and much of the Palestinian movement is drenched in antisemitism, has no interest in Middle East peace, and openly preaches the annihilation of Israel and its people.” Most of us already believed that, but it is reassuring that many more Americans are now coming to that conclusion.
“Second, we learned that many of our institutions of higher learning and their leaders are the root of our society’s problems instead of the solution.” He points to university presidents unwilling to condemn the killing of children in Israel. He then asks us to “imagine how long it would have taken for these university presidents to issue statements if Israeli settlers had murdered 1,000 Palestinian families during a Muslim holiday.”
“Third, we learned that much of the political left in America lacks a moral compass.” Once again, I think many people knew this, but I am encouraged that a liberal once again is acknowledging the extremism and immorality of leftist activists.
In the rest of his commentary, he takes some obligatory shots at Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump. That is to be expected. I am, however, encouraged that what happened in Israel earlier this month has been a teachable moment for many in this country.

Penna Dexter
Pediatric gender clinics once put patients seeking gender transitions through in-depth assessments and waited months before prescribing hormones. This was standard practice until caseloads at these facilities began ballooning. Last year an investigation by Reuters found that some pediatric gender clinics prescribe hormones on the first visit.
But these clinics at least provide more scrutiny of would-be transitioners than Planned Parenthood does.
The Washington Free Beacon reports that Planned Parenthood has become one of the largest and fastest-growing providers of cross sex hormones in the country. According to a Free Beacon article by Aaron Sibarium, “Hormones now appear to be in higher demand than abortion at some branches.”
Mr. Sibarium points to “Fred,” an 18-year-old high school student who is on the autism spectrum. At age 17, he announced to his parents he was a transgender woman. They found the only gender clinic in the country that specializes in autistic youth. Mr. Sibarium explains that they “wanted to be sure his dysphoria wasn’t transient or peer-driven.” But the Gender and Autism Program at Children’s National Hospital, known for lengthy assessments, told them the waiting list for an initial appointment was about a year.
Fred didn’t want to wait that long. Within a couple of months, he turned 18. While his parents were out of town, he went to a Planned Parenthood clinic. At Planned Parenthood,  any legal adult can receive cross sex hormones with no communication from a therapist, no formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and with only a consultation about side effects with a nurse practitioner
Phone-tracking data showed Fred’s parents that he “arrived at the Montclair, New Jersey clinic at 11 AM. “By 11:39, they received a text message from CVS, Fred’s estrogen prescription was on its way.”
Autism is a common undercurrent of gender dysphoria.  These cases deserve more than a 30-minute discussion when considering life-altering drugs and a young person’s permanent loss of fertility.
Planned Parenthood is a criminal enterprise.

Kerby Anderson
We live in an age of fear. Often at the top of the list, is fear of climate change. Bjorn Lomborg says one picture summarizes this age of fear. It is a girl holding a sign that says, “You’ll die of old age. I’ll die of climate change.”
The message from environmental activists and much of the media is that climate change is destroying the planet. And using the language of the apocalypse, the warning is that we have few years left before humanity will come to an end.
Bjorn Lomborg has been writing about climate change for decades. His 2001 book was The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. His current book is False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet. He reminds us that, “Over the past 20 years, climate scientists have painstakingly increased knowledge about climate change, and we have more — and more reliable — data than ever before. But at the same time, the rhetoric that comes from commentators and the media has become increasingly irrational.”
He agrees that: “Global warming is real, but it is not the end of the world. It is a manageable problem. Yet we now live in a world where almost half the population believes that climate change will extinguish humanity.” Instead, he recommends that we “dial back on the panic, look at the science, face the economics, and address the issue rationally.”
We are told that humans are on the brink of extinction. The opposite is true. “In almost every way we can measure, life on earth is better now than it was at any time in history.” Life expectancy has more than doubled. The world is more literate. And even the planet is getting healthier.
He is convinced we have the power to make a better world. But the first thing we need to do is calm down.

Kerby Anderson
George Barna has been doing an extensive inventory of the worldviews of Americans through the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University. He was on my radio program recently to talk about two of his most recent surveys dealing with truth and morality.
Past generations of Americans viewed God as the basis for truth. Not only has that changed for the general population, it has also changed significantly within the church. He found that there were certain groups that rejected the idea of absolute truth. That would be members of the LGBTQ community, political liberals, spiritual skeptics, Democrats, and young people under the age of 50.
By contrast, those most likely to see God as the basis of truth are the group called SAGECons. That stands for Spiritually Active Governance Engaged Conservative Christians. Nearly nine out of ten (87%) point to God as the source of truth and more than six in ten (62%) recognize the existence of absolute moral standards.
In his next report, he decided to see how we apply moral principles in real-life situations. The questions ranged from telling a “white lie” to failing to pay back a loan to speeding to abortion. It was troubling to see what percentage of Americans felt that some of these behaviors were not even a moral issue. In some cases, a significant percentage might have believed it was a moral issue but that it was morally acceptable in today’s society.
Another troubling finding was what Barna calls a “seismic shift” in Christian views about morality. For example, born-again Christians in the survey were three times as likely to say they rely on the Bible for primary moral guidance. But less than half (48%) actually do so.
The latest Barna surveys are a reminder to pastors and other Christian teachers that we need to make the case for moral absolutes based on God’s Word.

Kerby Anderson
In the 21st century, warfare doesn’t always happen on the battlefield. Cyberwarfare is becoming an important tool for many countries. That is why we have been seeing warnings about cyberattacks against the West and the US.
With US sanctions being used against Russia, Professor Ryan Wright (University of Virginia) predicts that “it is only a matter of time until the US is targeted more directly. This may mean attacks on your personal device through ransomware but also attacks on the infrastructure such as your internet access or even the power grid.”
We have seen such attacks in the past on the SolarWinds on the Colonial Pipeline. These were state-sponsored actors using increasingly sophisticated cyberwarfare. Russia might try to disrupt financial systems and crucial infrastructure such as the power grid or oil production to put pressure on the US to relent on sanctions.
Dr. Amy Zegart (Hoover Institution at Stanford) is the author of Spies, Lies, and Algorithms. In a recent conversation she noted this paradox: “In cyberspace, the most powerful countries, including the United States, are simultaneously the most vulnerable countries because we are so digitally connected. And that’s especially true of democracies because our freedom of speech enables the possibility of deception at scale. And, of course, the good neighborhoods and the bad neighborhoods in cyberspace are all connected, as we find out when our information is stolen or hacked.”
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been taking place more than 5,000 miles away. While the military battlefield is far away, a cyberattack could be as close as your computer and cell phone. And I’m not sure we are ready for those attacks.

Kerby Anderson
When you say the word “invasion,” you will likely think of the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army. But Graham Cunningham talks about another invasion. That would be the “Invasion of the Virtue Signalers.”
The group he talks about goes by various names. They might be called “social justice warriors” or “virtue-signaling liberals” or merely called “the woke.” Whatever name you give to these groups, they have been successful in influencing nearly every institution in America and much of the Western world.
Unlike the Russian invasion, they don’t use guns or bombs. They use rhetoric and what he calls “ex-cathedra incantations of pseudo-values so absurd that only a few years ago it would have seemed like they must be kidding.” That’s a fancy way of saying that you can’t believe people are completely serious when they are saying crazy things about race, gender, and science.
He rightly focuses his attention on what has taking place on university campuses across the nation. Professors are the “academy’s pied-pipers” influencing the “ambitious young minds of the future opinion-forming elite.” But he also focuses on the “feedback loop between an overwhelmingly left-wing academy and a largely left-wing MSM (mainstream media).”
This is an important principle. In the past, many people used to argue that the nutty ideas in the heads of college students would fade away as they had to earn a living and deal with the realities of the world of business. Instead, they found previous graduates in some of these corporations who were woke soul mates. And the media continued to reinforce those crazy woke ideas.
That is why we must challenge these ideas being presented on university campuses and being promoted by much of the media. We should be “destroying arguments and all arrogance raised up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Kerby Anderson
The financial system in this country, and in the world, is based on trust. When you write a check, the shopkeeper must trust that you have money in the bank. When a major corporation sends ten million dollars to another company in another country, it assumes that the money being sent exists. Of course, there are checks in the system to make sure that the funds are transferred correctly.
But some of the trust we have had is beginning to break down. For example, we assume that when we put money in the bank, it will be there when we need it. But the truckers in Canada (and some of their supporters) discovered that Justin Trudeau and his administration could freeze their accounts and even seize their financial assets.
I am starting to see commentators express their concern that you could lose your finances simply because a politician decided your views were unacceptable. We have seen that in third world dictatorships, but this happened in one of the most advanced democracies in the world.
More recently, we have seen how the US and EU seized assets in Russia. The governments seized gold and Russian central bank assets. Even if you are the head of a country, you could have another country freeze and seize your assets. Not only are other countries concerned about what could happen to them, but companies in these countries are also beginning to wonder what could happen to their assets.
How confident can you be in your property rights? Every person, every company, and every country must now consider what could happen to them in the future. Add to that rising inflation and currencies that are declining in value. It’s been years since we boasted that the dollar is as good as gold.
We used to trust in the government. We used to trust in the banking system. We used to trust in our currency. Not any longer. So much of that has disappeared in just the last few months.

Penna Dexter
There’s nothing like a looming re-election battle to derail, or at least delay, a politician’s campaign promises — especially radical ones like allowing men to compete in female sports.
In July 2022, the Biden Administration released a proposed revision to Title IX that effectively forces every school district to allow transgender athletes to compete in school sports. This means biological men on women’s teams and in their locker rooms.
The Washington Stand points to the latest Gallop poll on the issue, which shows that nearly “70% of Americans — including 55 percent of Democrats — don’t want their daughters on teams competing with biological boys.”
The new guidelines were scheduled to be released in May, and then pushed out to October and look likely to miss that deadline. The regulations have not even been sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review, a necessary step that can take up to 120 days.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was passed in recognition of the inherent distinction between men and women. It prohibits discrimination based on sex in any educational program or activity that receives federal assistance. A huge beneficiary has been women’s sports.
Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville says he coached girls’ basketball when Title IX kicked in and the numbers of girls playing high school sports exploded. The senator explained that Title IX “opened up facilities, funding, athletic scholarships — and almost immediately you saw the rise and dedication of women’s sports across our country.”
The Department of Education reports a “historic number of comments” on this issue. Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon, an education official in the Trump Administration, told The Washington Stand, “The fact that the rule isn’t final means that overwhelming public comments made a difference.” She expects the rule to be published closer to the election “to get the rule in place late in the game, and deal with the consequences after the election.”
They are stalling, but not dropping this. 

Kerby Anderson
Over the last few years, we have heard more pundits and futurists talk about transhumanism. It is an intellectual and cultural movement that seeks to transform the human condition. The leaders of this movement want to use the developing technologies to eliminate aging and enhance human potential.
Two primary ways they want to do this is through genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. They want to genetically create “the new man,” and they want to use technology to merge humans with machines. My previous booklets on A Biblical Point of View on Genetic Engineering and A Biblical Point of View on Artificial Intelligence can provide some helpful background.
One part of the equation concerns technology. The leaders of transhumanism believe we are on the cusp of a technological threshold in both artificial intelligence and human-machine technology.
The leaders of transhumanism also see genetic engineering as a tool to be used to speed up the process of evolution. We can use genetics to enhance and improve humans. If we believe that humans are merely the product of the undirected forces of evolution, then certainly intelligent scientists can “improve on nature.”
Evolutionary biologist Julian Huxley looked forward to the day in which scientists could fill the “position of business manager for the cosmic process of evolution.” Transhumanists believe that possibility is within our grasp. One proponent explained that transhumanism is “humanity taking control of its evolutionary destiny.”
But if humans are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), then we can and should use genetic technology to treat and cure the physical effects of the Fall (Genesis 3). That does not mean we should usurp the role of the Creator and breed a superhuman race.

Kerby Anderson
The First Amendment has 45 words that provide free speech, a free press, and religious liberty. Most Americans say they approve of the First Amendment free speech protections, but there are some concerning issues once you start asking additional questions.
Nearly all Americans (91%) think First Amendment protection for freedom of speech is a good thing. But it becomes clear that Democrats and younger voters are more likely to support governmental regulation of speech, especially on social media.
For example, just over one-third (34%) of Democratic voters say Americans have “too much freedom.” A much smaller percentage (14.6%) of Republicans agree with this assumption. In fact, Republicans are quite likely (46%) to say Americans have “too little freedom.”
Age is another factor. Those under age 30 are more open to censorship by the government. More than four in ten (42%) feel it is more important for the government to censor to protect national security. A much smaller percentage (26%) of Americans over age 65 felt that way.
Poll respondents were read this famous statement: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Less than a third (31%) of Democratic voters “strongly agreed” with the statement, compared to a majority (51%) of Republicans that approved that sentiment.
Poll respondents were shown headlines and then told they were false. Even when Republicans knew the content was false, they were half as likely as Democrats to say that the content should be removed. And they were more than twice as likely to consider removal as censorship.
This survey shows a significant partisan divide and age divide that makes it easier for the mainstream press and social media to censor unpopular ideas. It is time to go back to the foundation of the First Amendment.

Kerby Anderson
Since the founding of this country, we have had public officials quote Bible verses. But apparently that tradition can no longer exist in some areas of the country. An Arizona school board member is under fire because she recited a verse of Scripture.
Heather Rooks is a member of the Peoria Unified School District and was about to respond to questions and concerns from parents. She decided to quote an inspirational verse from the Bible. Her hope was that it would encourage her and provide strength during the meeting.
A few days later, she received a “cease-and-desist” letter demanding that she stop quoting the Bible. In case you are wondering, the offensive verse was Isaiah 41:10 – “Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look around you, for I am your God.”
Andy Gould serves as senior counsel with First Liberty Institute. Previously, he served as a Justice on the Arizona Supreme Court. He is now representing Heather Rooks in a lawsuit against the Peoria Unified School District. He argues that her actions are protected under the free speech and free exercises clauses of the Constitution.
He also argues that many presidents and other political officials have quoted religious texts in their official capacity. He asks, why can a president quote the Bible but not a member of the school board?
In the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District case, Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch said, “Nor does . . .  a proper understanding of the Amendment’s Establishment Clause require the government to single out private religious speech for special disfavor. The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike.”
Recent Supreme Court rulings provide more religious freedom than we have had in decades. It is time for each of us to claim our religious liberty.

Kerby Anderson
You have probably heard about the mass baptisms that took place at Auburn University. I heard about it when I was out of the country. While I was baptizing people in the Sea of Galilee, Auburn Coach Hugh Freeze was baptizing some of his players. Who could possibly be opposed to that?
As you might have guessed, the Freedom from Religion Foundation sent a letter to the university warning that the baptisms in September were a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. They had a problem with a coach expressing his Christian convictions while on campus.
The first thought in my mind was: Didn’t we just have a Supreme Court case that ruled that a coach does have a right to express his Christian convictions while on campus? Why yes, we did. And Coach Kennedy was doing so while in his capacity as coach when he went to pray at the 50-yard-line after the game. By contrast, Coach Freeze was doing this after hours.
First Liberty Institute Attorney Jeremy Dys has been on numerous programs to talk about this group “upset that Christian people are doing Christian things at a Christian organized event.” He reminded the hosts of these programs that their recent Supreme Court victory shows that coaches do not “shed their constitutional rights when they walk to the schoolhouse gate.”
Alabama Governor Kay Ivey responded to the letter from the atheist group and called their interpretation of the Constitution misleading. “As governor, I can assure you that we will not be intimidated by out-of-state interest groups dedicated to destroying our nation’s religious heritage.”
The many Supreme Court rulings in favor of the cases by First Liberty Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom have given us more religious freedom than we have had in decades.

Kerby Anderson
Inflation and high interest rates are making it harder for Americans to navigate the current economy and still be able to pay their bills. At a time when the administration keeps promoting the benefits of Bidenomics, most Americans aren’t having a positive experience.
Here are some economic facts and figures that illustrate why Americans are facing difficult economic decisions. These are available on the Internet, but I have provided a link to an article by Jim Geraghty who provides most of these economic statistics.
The chief economist at Moody’s Analytics says that buying a home or car right now is “completely unaffordable for the typical American household because you’re mixing the higher borrowing costs with the high prices.” He estimates that the typical American household would need to use 42 weeks of income to buy a new car.
The National Association of Realtors calculates that the typical American family can’t afford to buy a median-priced home. The latest economic research discovered that Americans are applying for mortgages at the lowest rate in 28 years.
Similar economic calculations found that it now costs $734 more each month to buy the same goods and services as two years ago (for households who earn the median income). Paying an additional $734 more each month adds up to $8,808 more per year for the same purchases.
How many Americans have an additional $9,000 lying around? Perhaps that is why the Federal Reserve reports that household debt and credit card debt are continuing to climb even higher.
Although politicians may try to tell you the economy is doing well, you’re personal experience and these number suggest otherwise. Numbers don’t lie, even if politicians do.

Penna Dexter
It was hard fought, but North Carolina recently became the 10th state to approve a universal school choice program. The effort began in 2013 with the creation of North Carolina’s Opportunity Scholarships. Now, the legislature has expanded the program to grant eligibility to all students in the state, though the amount of the scholarship declines for higher-income families. Families can use the assistance for the schooling of their choice, including private school tuition, instructional materials, and homeschooling expenses.
School closures during the pandemic forced education online and into homes across America. Some parents found a lot they didn’t like in what the public schools were teaching their kids. The Washington Stand reports that, since the pandemic, “1.2 million K-12 students have not returned to public school, with 26% choosing to homeschool.”
Legislatures in states across the nation are responding. Just since 2022, universal school choice has been enacted in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia. During the same period, 8 other states, have either expanded existing programs or created alternative school choice programs.
School choice has its opponents. When North Carolina’s legislature took up a choice bill, Governor Roy Cooper declared a “state of emergency,” warning “that the Republican legislature is aiming to choke the life out of public education.” The issue led State Rep. Tricia Coddle to switch parties, from Democrat to Republican, and provide the majority needed to override the governor’s expected veto.
Governor Greg Abbott is calling the Texas legislature into special session this month with the express purpose of passing school choice for every child. During the regular session, the Texas Senate passed a bill, but the House did not. The governor promises consequences for Republicans who choose teachers’ unions over Texas parents. When Iowa governor Kim Reynolds faced a similar situation last year she got involved in nine House primary races. In January, Iowa passed universal school choice.
Texas lawmakers: choose the easier way.