Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
One striking difference between Europe and America has been the temptation of many European countries to fall into totalitarianism. Dennis Prager reminds us that after World War I, many of these countries embraced communism, fascism, or Nazism. There is a very good reason why.
The primary beliefs that gave rise to meaning in life were patriotism and the Judeo-Christian religion. The senseless slaughter during the Great War (as it was called) challenged both of those foundations. National identity was seen as the cause of the war. And religion was deemed unnecessary and perhaps a relic of the past. The void that was left was filled with communism in Russia, fascism in Italy, and Nazism in Germany.
In the US, there were communists and many other activists promoting other totalitarian temptations, but they never took root. Americans did not lose their faith in religion (especially in Christianity). Patriotism not only flourished, but Dennis Prager reminds us that the words “under God” were even inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily in American schools.
But the baby-boomers born after World War II began to challenge God and country. These students were indoctrinated in secularism and anti-Americanism. The generations that followed them grew up in a country that was less religious and more likely to criticize America’s government and history.
Today we have a void that is similar to the one found in Europe a century ago. Most likely, the totalitarian temptation today will be a Leftist totalitarianism that promotes Leftist political correctness and bans free speech and religion.
There are many reasons to pray for a spiritual revival, but one of the more important reasons is to prevent this country from falling for the totalitarian temptation.

Kerby Anderson
Professor Paul Kengor has a book on The Devil and Karl Marx that reminds us how much Marx hated God and Christianity. In his book and on my radio program, he cited Marx and many of the biographies that showed how scary he was. His own family and friends were frightened by his demonic fits of rage and his bizarre focus on violence.
Marx wrote, “When our turn comes, we shall make no excuses for the terror. There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified, and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”
In his book and also in a recent column in The American Spectator, Kengor also asks a relevant question: Why not cancel Karl Marx? His writings are filled with racist rants and anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic statements. Paul Kengor documents that Karl Marx was “after all, a bigot. His attitude toward blacks and Jews alone (not to mention women) would stun Stonewall Jackson. Ugly racial-ethnic stereotypes by Marx are littered throughout his writings.”
If you want to find examples, I suggest you read the book or his column in The American Spectator. I simply cannot repeat some of the awful things that Karl Marx said about people of different races and ethnic backgrounds.
On the university campus today, we are told by students and professors to ignore those “dead white European males” that have given us Western Culture. But isn’t Karl Marx one of those dead white European males? Of course, he is, but once again he gets a pass.
Karl Marx should be canceled for his bigotry alone, but even more so for the fact that his writings provided the foundation for totalitarian regimes responsible for more than 100 million deaths in the 20th century.

Kerby Anderson
In previous commentaries, I have quoted Michael Shellenberger and his book, Apocalypse Never, which deals with environmental issues. But his latest book documents the problem of homelessness in one city. The title is: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. He documents various reasons why the homeless problem has become worse.
Limited housing has been one reason. Expensive housing and warmer climates explain why the homeless can be found in California, Florida, and Hawaii. Not only is the climate warmer, but the real estate costs are very high.
Drugs and substance abuse are other issues. In the past, Michael Shellenberger promoted decriminalization of drugs but has changed his mind. For example, drug overdoses are the number one cause of accidental death.
He also notes this irony. “No state in America has taken more aggressive action to reduce the public’s exposure to chemicals, and to second-hand smoke, than California.” But while cities and the state focus on “the remote dangers of cosmetics, pesticides, and second-hand smoke, they downplay the immediate dangers of hard drugs including fentanyl.”
Mental illness is another reason for homelessness. While about 52 million people suffer from a mental illness, about 13 million adults are seriously mentally ill. A significant percentage of them are now on the streets because of policies that forced their release from psychiatric hospitals. People with serious mental illness are more likely to be homeless, to interact with drug dealers, and to be victimized.
His book reminds us that to deal with the problem of homelessness, we need to look at root causes, not just symptoms.

Penna Dexter
Because of a new rule the Biden-Harris administration issued last spring, students in nearly half the states face some disturbing changes as they return to their schools and colleges. The rule is the result of a rewrite of Title IX of the Education Amendments, enacted in 1972 specifically to protect women and girls. Title IX forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program. The new rule expands the definition of sex to include gender identity.
Title IX was a hard-won feminist goal that has resulted in groundbreaking opportunities and protections for women.
In issuing the rewrite, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona stated, “For more than 50 years, Title IX has promised an equal opportunity to learn and thrive in our nation’s schools, free from sex discrimination.”
With the stroke of a pen, the president erased this progress.
Attorney Sarah Parshall Perry is the Heritage Foundation’s expert in Title IX.  She explains that “In over half the nation, girls and women will no longer have any sex-separated bathrooms, locker rooms, housing accommodations, or other educational programs.” Despite disclaimers, Sarah Perry says “Women’s sports are likely on the chopping block too.”
On August 1, the new Biden rule went into effect with no celebratory statement from the White House. Perhaps the administration didn’t want to call attention to the rule’s unpopularity. Twenty-six states and several membership organizations and individual plaintiffs filed a total of 10 lawsuits against the new rule. The lawsuits describe the administration’s action as illegal, unconstitutional, and “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Sarah Perry says “Ultimately, the bulk of the litigation over the Title IX rule seems destined for resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Meanwhile, in most of the lawsuits, the new rule is temporarily enjoined from taking effect. There’s going to be some uncertainty out there. Hopefully the Court stops this nonsense.

Kerby Anderson
If you type the words “tablet kids” into a search engine, up will pop all sorts of tablets for young children. If you look far enough, you will see a press report of a medical study that would warn you not to purchase one of those tablets.
The Journal of the American Medical Association on Pediatrics documents such concerns in the article on “Early-Childhood Tablet Use and Outbursts of Anger.” The researchers found that children who spend 75 minutes or more per day on a computer screen at age 3.5 are more likely to experience anger and frustration outbursts a year later. The study also warned that this cycle may continue, as children who are more likely to express anger and frustration at age 4.5 may spend even more time on a tablet a year later.
As you might imagine, the study was greeted by many skeptics with comments like: Tell me something I didn’t know. Any parent or grandparent who has children or grandchildren who are becoming addicted to digital devices has seen this behavior. The value of this study is to document it and predict that it will get worse over time.
There is some value in allowing a young child to look at a computer screen for a few minutes just to get some sanity as you are walking through “the valley of the diapers.” Giving a computer tablet to a young child might distract them for a moment. It might even help avoid a temper tantrum, but the long-term impact on the child is not good. It will perpetuate a cycle where a parent gives a tablet to an angry child, only to later have an even angrier child.
This study warns against allowing young children to become addicted to digital devices. If you allow that to continue, you will likely create an unsocialized, tech-dependent, angry child.

Kerby Anderson
Americans have been concerned about immigration, and particularly about the lack of border security. I wondered how the mainstream media would try to deflect the issue.
The New York Times published a report with the headline, “In JD Vance’s Backyard, Conspiracy Theories About Migrants and Voting Abound.” The headline of a Washington Post report proclaims that “Republicans Flood TV with Misleading Ads about Immigration, Border.”
In a recent commentary, Rich Lowry explains “all of this represents is not so much fact-checking by the press as narrative-policing — certain facts and opinions are deemed false, or conspiracy theories based merely on their political inconvenience.”
Are illegal immigrants voting? Even the New York Times article admits that they are voting in local elections in mostly deep-blue areas. Officials argue they should be allowed to vote because they pay taxes.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how that argument will be used to expand the voting franchise. In fact, the left-wing Center for American Progress argues that “a pathway to citizenship . . .  is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future.”
The Washington Post article complains that political ads create “a false impression that migrants are flooding unchecked into the United States.” Rich Lowry asks: “A false impression? What would it take to convince the Post that migrants are flooding into the country?”
The article also criticizes another political ad that mentions terrorists and prostitution. Rich Lowry points to the established fact that terrorists have been crossing the border, and women have been sex-trafficked across the border.
Concerns about immigration and border security aren’t conspiracy theories but well-documented facts.

Kerby Anderson
Charles Gasparino, a TV network business correspondent, begins his latest book on the radicalization of corporate America by talking about “The Great Goldman Chick-fil-A Debate.” A handful of young Goldman Sachs associates wanted to order chicken sandwiches from the local Chick-fil-A restaurant. Others felt it would be racist and bigoted to do so. An angry debate broke out.
A business colleague of Charles tipped him off to the story. He was amazed that, as he puts it, “some of Goldman’s best and brightest that night” were convinced eating a “Chick-fil-A sandwich would signal a significant step in America’s de-evolution, sending the nation back to the darker times of the antebellum South.”
He explains why Chick-fil-A might be controversial to some, but still finds the reaction unreasonable. Chick-fil-A is a franchise business that is owned by entrepreneurs from all walks of life. The person working at the local restaurant “could be an Asian or Hispanic immigrant, or some dude from Ghana, not a real or imagined southern redneck.”
When his network contacted Goodman for a comment, they wouldn’t rule out that the Chick-fil-A debate occurred. Someone at Goldman later asked why he thought this this story was worth reporting. His response is simple. Just read his new book, Go Woke, Go Broke: The Inside Story of the Radicalization of Corporate America, to find out.
As you might imagine, he tells the stories of Target, Disney, and Bud Light, He provides detailed discussions about ESG, DEI, and critical race theory. And he also reminds us of the history of the so-called “summer of love.”
Wokeness is destroying corporate America, and his new book explains why.

Kerby Anderson
Political campaigns become intense after Labor Day. You will need wisdom and discernment to evaluate the numerous proposals because much of the mainstream media doesn’t evaluate counter proposals with the same objectivity. Here are two examples.
In June, Donald Trump announced a proposal to end taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers. At the time, CBS News reported, “Former President Donald Trump’s vow to stop taxing tips would cost the federal government up to $250 billion over ten years, according to a nonpartisan watchdog group.”
In August, Kamala Harris made a similar proposal. How did CBS report that announcement? “Vice President Kamala Harris is rolling out a new policy position, saying she’ll fight to end taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers.” As far as I can tell, there was no mention of the cost. There was a discussion of whether he or she came up with the proposal first.
Consider the contrast in how the media covered the idea of a child tax credit. When Senator J.D. Vance proposed a $5,000 child tax credit, it was usually linked with the claim from a tax foundation that it would cost “about $3 trillion over 10 years.” By contrast, when Kamala Harris proposed tax relief (that included up to $6,000 for parents of newborns and $3,600 for an expanded child tax credit) the headlines were about her plans to lower costs for families.
I appreciate the media estimating the costs of these campaign proposals, especially at a time when the federal government is $35 trillion in debt. But a fair way to cover these campaign proposals would be to remind voters of the costs when either candidate announces a policy.

Kerby Anderson
Today is Labor Day. Although this day was set aside to honor trade and labor organizations, I believe it is a day when Christians can also consider how they view work and labor. The Bible has quite a bit to say about how we are to view work, and so I devote part of a chapter in my book, Making the Most of Your Money, to a biblical view of work.
First, we are to work unto the Lord in our labors. Colossians 3:23 says, “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men.” We may have an earthly master (or boss) but ultimately, we are working for our heavenly Master.
Second, work is valuable. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 to “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” He also warns in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 that “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”
The Proverbs talk about the importance and benefits of work. Proverbs 12:11 says, “He who tills his land will have plenty of bread, but he who pursues worthless things lacks sense.” Proverbs 13:4 says, “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the soul of the diligent is made fat.” And Proverbs 14:23 says, “In all labor there is profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.”
The Greeks and Romans looked upon manual work as a menial task that was only for slaves (or else for people of lower classes). The biblical view of work changed that ancient view because work and labor were combined with the idea of vocation and calling.
These ideas were reinforced in the Middle Ages through the gild movement and even expanded during the Reformation. Martin Luther, for example, taught that all work can be done for the glory of God. John Calvin taught that all should work because they were to serve as God’s instruments on earth. This led to what today is called the Protestant work ethic.
Let’s use this Labor Day to teach and reinforce biblical ideas of work.

Penna Dexter
You’ve heard of sanctuary cities. These are municipalities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing immigration law, thus providing a sanctuary, or safe haven, for illegal aliens, helping them to break U.S. law.
Now, a California coastal town has declared itself a “sanctuary city for parental rights.”
Huntington Beach is a great surfing spot. In WalletHub’s poll of “Best Places to Raise a Family,” it ranks number 10. The city’s school district is highly rated.
Huntington Beach Mayor, Gracey Van Der Mark is hoping to keep it that way. She has introduced an ordinance to make Huntington Beach a “Parents Right to Know” city. She wants to protect parents’ rights to be informed if their child is going through a gender “transition.”
Mayor Van Der Mark told The Daily Signal, “California is one of the most dangerous states to raise a child.” This summer, Governor Gavin Newsome signed AB 1955 which prevents school districts from enforcing any policy that requires schools to disclose  information related to a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without the pupil’s consent.
AB 1955 requires schools to conceal gender transitions from parents, overriding school board policies that mandate transparency.
Some school boards have complied by enacting policies forbidding transparency. In Northern California, the Chico Unified School Board’s “parental secrecy policy” requires schools to socially transition students upon their request and states that school staff should not reveal a transgender student’s gender identity to parents. A lawsuit against this policy is pending at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
State law currently violates parents’ constitutional rights by giving ”perfect strangers” discretion to facilitate a child’s gender transition. Huntington Beach’s mayor hopes that her “Right to Know” ordinance will pave the way for parents to sue the state to overturn AB 1955.
May God raise up courageous parents to oppose this arrogant, godless government.

Kerby Anderson
Are more Americans becoming unemployable? In previous commentaries, I have mentioned that we have 7 million men (ages 25-54) who are not working and not looking for work. Last year to coincide with Labor Day, Senator Marco Rubio issued a critical report on the working and non-working man. His research discovered that two-thirds of these non-working men “have never married” and nearly “a third live with their parents.” Also, half of them take painkillers daily.
Steven Malanga concludes in his essay, Unemployable, that “a growing number of Americans aren’t simply out of a job. They’re no longer fit for work.” This is due, he explains, to worsening social dysfunction, changing attitudes toward work, and failures by the schools to prepare students for the labor market.
This problem could not come at a worse time. This surge in unemployable Americans is taking place as millions of baby boomers are retiring. Some of the impact has been cushioned by the steady rise of women entering the workforce, but that percentage reached its peak years ago.
One major reason more Americans are unemployable is drugs. The lockdowns during the pandemic detached people from work but also increased the percent of Americans using drugs. Quest Diagnostics reported that workers testing positive for drugs hit a ten-year high in 2021.
Two dozen states have legalized recreational marijuana. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, workers regularly using cannabis are not only hazardous to themselves but to others. Many positions go unfilled because companies cannot find workers who do not test positive for drugs.
Drugs are just one reason more and more Americans are now unemployable. I will talk about other reasons in future commentaries.

Kerby Anderson
James Lindsay knows what the next big woke trend will be because he knows how the Left thinks. He calls it Critical Immigration Theory, which is not to be confused with Critical Race Theory. He says that critical theory is so flexible that you can stick any word between critical and theory and you have a new way of seeing the world.
For example, Critical Colonial Theory argues that colonial exploitation by Europeans allowed them to get rich by taking advantage of weaker countries in other parts of the world. When critical theory is applied to mass illegal immigration, it uses a human rights perspective by talking about having compassion for the poor and oppressed people of the world. He warns that what it is really about is targeting national citizenship and national sovereignty using mass illegal immigration as a wedge.
He observes we’re already hearing some of the language from the mainstream media. The descriptions have “migrated from illegal aliens to illegal immigrants to undocumented migrants to just migrants.” He predicts what comes next will be no adjective at all. “In other words, people who enter the United States illegally are just as American as any American citizen.”
He then provides several examples illustrating his prediction. Then he concludes by explaining that the goal isn’t merely to water down the idea of national citizenship. The real goal is to eliminate it. Instead, we will be hearing about “global citizenship” that “allows migration from anywhere to anywhere as a human right. This will be a world where borders are just meaningless lines on a map.”
We need to be ready for the next political trend based upon the plight of migrants and illegal immigration.

Kerby Anderson
This month of August is the 53rd anniversary of our government going off the gold standard. Saifedean Ammous wrote his book The Fiat Standard to explain the impact that political and economic decision has had on our lives.
His earlier book, The Bitcoin Standard, was a bestselling book that has been translated into more than two dozen languages. He argues that by first understanding the operation of bitcoin, someone can then better understand the equivalent operations in fiat. “It is easier to explain an abacus to a computer user than it is to explain a computer to an abacus user.”
Why the complexity? The reason is simple. The fiat system (we use today) was not a carefully constructed economic system. It was not a deliberately designed operating system like bitcoin. Rather, it “evolved through a complex process of compromise between political constraints and expedience in managing government default.”
He explains that fiat currency affects what economists describe as time preference. A person with high time preference focuses on present needs, while a person with low time preference is willing to delay present gratification and places more emphasis on future needs.
When the world was on the gold standard, people knew that money would hold its value in the future. This enticed people to save. But when the countries moved to fiat currency, the value of the currency declined and there is less inclination to save.
His book describes how the “fiat standard” has affected such diverse items as fiat food, fiat science, fiat fuels, and fiat states. He also explains why the quality of the buildings we construct and the goods we buy are declining. That is also why our dollars are worth less.

Kerby Anderson
Yesterday, I talked about why price controls are a bad idea, and I thought I might continue by looking at two policies being proposed to attract young voters: student loan debt and housing prices.
Let’s start with a simple statement about supply and demand. If you want to lower prices, you need to increase supply and/or decrease demand. Unfortunately, colleges aren’t governed by a free market of supply and demand. That is why the cost of tuition has risen twice the rate of inflation over the last few decades.
Demand for higher education might be going down due to one surprising demographic fact. Fewer children were born during the Great Recession years of 2008 to 2011. There will be a 15 percent decrease of potential students.
However, colleges won’t reduce their costs because both the federal government and state governments are giving students and their parents scholarships and loans. And President Biden has been cancelling billions of dollars in student loan debt, essentially signaling that students won’t have to pay back the loans they are taking out this year.
The principle of supply and demand also works in housing. When there aren’t many houses for sale, the price goes up. President Biden has called for building 2 million housing units, and Vice-President Kamala Harris has now called for building 3 million units.
To achieve this, the Harris campaign talks about offering expanded tax credit to home builders. The campaign, however, also proposes a $25,000 subsidy for first-time homebuyers. This would increase demand and not bring home prices down.
Giving money to students and giving money to home buyers seems like a good idea until you get back to basic economics. Understanding supply and demand is necessary to evaluate campaign promises.

Kerby Anderson
You only get one chance to make a good first impression. Americans were trying to get a first impression of Kamala Harris before the Democratic National Convention. Yes, they knew something about her as vice-president, but now she was running for president.
Her first decision about personnel for her future administration was to pick Governor Tim Walz as her vice-presidential running mate. He was one of the most liberal governors or senators she could have picked.
Her first policy statement was a speech on price gouging given the Friday before the convention. Her solution was price controls. The headline of a Washington Post op-ed was: “When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls.” On radio, I suggested she might want to give her speech in the original Russian.
Price controls were a failure in the Soviet Union, in Venezuela, and even in the US when President Richard Nixon tried it decades ago. Giving more “authority” to the Federal Trade Commission to punish grocery companies who charge too much won’t solve the problem of high prices. I suspect the speech was more about trying to placate the base and appeal to swing voters by showing she “cares about people.”
Price controls won’t happen, but this is a teachable moment. Why are price controls a bad idea? First, they distort the market. The aforementioned op-ed explained it “would lead to shortages, black markets, and hoarding, among other distortions.” Second, it is hard to find price gouging as the problem. Last year, profit-margins in the grocery industry were at a low of 1.6 percent.
Kamala Harris was trying to remove one of her liabilities before she sat down for interviews. Inflation is a problem, but price controls aren’t the solution.

Penna Dexter
School choice is a 2024 election issue and we need to hear more about it from candidates seeking public office. Gaining educational freedom is an important goal for families who live in neighborhoods with sub-par public schools. This is why black voters, more than any other race, support school choice. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Joshua Robertson, senior pastor of the Rock Church in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, encourages the presidential candidates in both major political parties to “listen to these constituents when it comes to educational freedom.”
Pastor Robertson, who is also CEO of Black Pastors United for Education, points to Morning Consult survey data which states that nearly 80 percent of black voters endorse policies like education savings accounts and vouchers. These plans allow public education funds to follow students to the schools or services that best fit their needs. He says black communities “need courageous leadership that will equip our students to thrive.”
And yes — Democrat candidates do need courage to face the opposition. While 71 percent of all voters support greater access to better education options, teachers’ unions stand in the way, claiming that choice harms public schools financially. Pastor Robertson responds to that concern, stating: “We want properly funded public schools and education freedom at the same time. It’s possible if our leaders don’t play politics.”
In an interview before the presidential debate this past June, Donald Trump said, “I’m a big fan of school choice. I think school choice is a great thing.” He added, “School choice is a big deal, and we’re going to get it.”
Actually, we are getting choice in some states.  And the recently-adopted Republican platform endorses universal school choice.
As Kamala Harris courts the votes of black Americans, she hears the cries for educational freedom. Pastor Robertson says he’d like to see her party “earn our votes” by backing school choice.
It’s wise policy and smart election strategy. 

Kerby Anderson
At a conference last month, two presidential candidates talked about establishing a strategic reserve for America’s finances. Both Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy, Jr. spoke to a bitcoin conference and called for the establishment of a “Bitcoin Strategic Reserve.” In addition, Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) explained her Bitcoin Reserve legislation to the audience that also included other members of Congress and CEOs of companies and billionaire investors.
Not so long ago, conversations about bitcoin were taking place in the periphery of society. No longer. Two presidential candidates spoke at the conference, and even the presidential campaign for Kamala Harris has been talking about cryptocurrency. Consider just a few of the comments by the two candidates.
Kennedy referred to a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve as “corruptions’ greatest foe.” He also said bitcoin is “anti-war.” Trump promised to make America a nation that leads in bitcoin. He also called for an end to “Operation Chokepoint 2.0” and for an end to the development of a CBDC.
One of the other speakers, Michael Saylor (Former CEO of MicroStrategy), refers to this idea as the Louisiana Purchase of our generation. He reminds people that, “Thomas Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory for $15 million in 1803 and nearly doubled the size of the United States. William Seward paid $7 million for Alaska that has a trillion dollars of oil underneath it.”
Will a strategic reserve be implemented in the next few years? It deserves attention and should be debated in Congress after the November election.

Kerby Anderson
Revenge porn and the publishing of deep fake abuse are a growing problem on social media. That is why US senators from both parties have sponsored a bill known as the Take It Down Act. It would criminalize the publication of non-consensual intimate image abuse and require social media platforms to remove such items immediately.
On my radio program, we have been encouraging listeners to contact their two senators about the legislation. Recently, I had the bill’s author, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), on my program to explain why such legislation was necessary. “In recent years, we’ve witnessed a stunning increase in exploitative sexual material online, largely due to bad actors taking advantage of newer technologies like generative artificial intelligence. Many women and girls are forever harmed by these crimes, having to live with being victimized again and again.”
Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) further explained, “As artificial intelligence continues to grow and become more prevalent in daily life, we must prevent it from being used to produce non-consensual intimate images.”
Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) acknowledges the benefits and dangers of AI: “Artificial intelligence is the future and provides an infinite number of possibilities of how this new technology can be used to improve lives around not only in this country, but across the entire globe. With any new industry comes the need to ensure it is not being used by bad actors, and AI is no different.”
We need this bipartisan legislation to deal with this growing problem on social media.

Kerby Anderson
A few weeks ago, Donald Trump argued that we are closer to World War III than we have been in decades. Is that merely campaign hyperbole or an honest assessment of reality? Global conflicts seem inevitable no matter who is elected president.
The Commission on the National Defense Strategy just issued a 114-page report. The commission was created by Congress in 2022 and began its deliberations in April 2023. It is co-chaired by former Democrat congresswoman Jane Harmon, and by Eric Edelman, a top Pentagon official during George W. Bush administration. Here are a few of its conclusions:
“The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war.”
“China and Russia are major powers that seek to undermine U.S. influence… China is outpacing the United States and has largely negated the U.S. military advantage in the Western Pacific through two decades of focused military investment.”
“China and Russia’s ‘no-limits’ partnership, formed in February 2022 just days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has only deepened and broadened to include a military and economic partnership with Iran and North Korea, each of which presents its own significant threat to U.S. interests. This new alignment of nations opposed to U.S. interests creates a real risk, if not likelihood, that conflict anywhere could become a multi-theater or global war.”
This report is a reminder that we live in a dangerous world and that a global war is possible. Who we select as the next Commander in Chief will face some significant challenges.

Kerby Anderson
Three months ago, I wrote about the disconnect between the mainstream media and American citizens concerning crime statistics. The media says that crime is decreasing. According to the latest Gallup survey on the subject, nearly all (92%) Republicans and a majority (58%) of Democrats thought crime was increasing.
The disconnect now seems to be between members of the Biden administration and the public. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg went on television to argue: “If you look this up at home, you will know that crime went down under Biden and crime went up under Trump. Why would America want to go back to the higher crime we experienced under Donald Trump?”
As I explained back in my previous commentary, if you decide to defund the police, arrest rates will go down and people will be less inclined to report crime.
Professor John Lott writes about “The Truth About the Crime Explosion.” The American people can see that crime is increasing, he says, when they go into a CVS or Walgreens and find many of the products behind glass. Not only is property crime increasing, but so is violent crime.
He explains that crime is reported in two ways. The first is through the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System, which only counts crime reported to police. The other is the National Crime Victimization Survey that asks about 240,000 people each year whether they have been victims of crime. Those numbers are much higher.
If there are fewer police on the street, there will be fewer arrests. And if people think criminals won’t be caught and punished, they are less likely to report a crime to the police. And some DAs have been downgrading felonies to misdemeanors.
There is a crime explosion even if the media and the administration refuse to admit it.