Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Kerby Anderson
Peter St. Onge asks, “How did American voters get so dumb?” If you have ever watched the answers given by people on the street to historical or political questions, you know that many American voters are not well educated about our history or form of government. Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” and Jessie Watters’ “Watters’ World” provide many laughs but also cause us to shake our heads.
When he was a professor, Peter St. Onge ran every inaugural address through a Flesch-Kincaid text analysis to measure the grade level. Most of the inaugural addresses during the 20th century were written at the 13th and 14th grade level. Barack Obama’s inaugural was 8th grade level. Donald Trump’s inaugural was 9th grade level. Joe Biden’s inaugural was 7th grade level.
George Washington’s inaugural began with: “Among the vicissitudes incident to life.” Andrew Jackson’s inaugural began with: “Undertaking the arduous duties that I have been appointed.” Joe Biden’s inaugural began with: “This is America’s day.”
Back to his original question: How did we get so dumb? His answer: the public schools. He reminds us that the modern government school came from 1800’s Prussia that suffered from worker riots and peasant revolts. The goal was indoctrination, not education.
Parents and taxpayers have every right to ask: What are we teaching in the schools? Graduates who we see interviewed on the street corner don’t seem to have a clue about this nation’s history or about the structure of government.
Most of them could not pass the citizenship test we give to people who come here from other countries and desire to become U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, they will vote in November even though they don’t know enough to make an informed vote.

Kerby Anderson
During this campaign season, will voters settle for generalities, or will they demand specifics? We will find out in seven weeks. Politicians are known for speaking with vague platitudes, but usually they are forced to give more specific answers when asked by voters or the media. Because this commentary is heard nationally, I will focus on the presidential candidates, though I could also use the state and local elections to illustrate my point as well.
Kamala Harris talks in generalities: “In our nation, I think the people are ready to turn the page … one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class … we need a new way forward.” Every time she uses one of these catch phrases and filler words, I want to ask: How do you plan to do this?
There are some specifics like a proposed 28% tax on long-term capital and a tax on unrealized capital gains for taxpayers with a high net worth. But specifics are rarely mentioned. Instead, phrases about hope, optimism, and a way forward are used frequently.
By contrast, you have speeches and interviews with Donald Trump where he proposes an extension of his previous tax rates and a targeted tax cut. He wants to establish a Government Efficiency Commission. This time he proposes removing 10 regulations for every one regulation.
One of the biggest criticisms at the Democratic Convention was of Project 2025, which is full of specific recommendations. The Trump administration may not implement many of them, and you may not like some of them. But the 900-page document is detailed and specific.
This election will determine if voters settled for generalities or demanded specifics. American voters deserve more than vague platitudes and campaign slogans.

Kerby Anderson
Should parents be held criminally liable if their child shoots others in a school or public place? That is a question being considered in Georgia. The 14-year-old shooter (who killed four people) has been indicted, but so has his 54-year-old father.
Earlier this year, a jury in Michigan convicted parents after their son killed four students and wounded six others. They were prosecuted for being negligent. They knew of their son’s mental health issues and failed to secure the family firearms.
Let’s look at this question logically and take guns out of the equation for a minute. Imagine a 4-year-old is left in a car that is running for a moment by a mother (who went to get the mail or open the garage door). He jumps into the car seat, somehow puts the car in reverse and backs over and kills four people. I think all of us would assume the parents are fully responsible for his act because of negligence.
Now change it to a 30-year-old in a car who mows down and kills four people in a moment of road rage. We wouldn’t hold the parents responsible at all. But what would we think if it was a 14-year-old doing the same thing?
In the Georgia case, there are other factors. The shooter had made previous threats and was interviewed by the police. His father bought him the gun. Other family members report the family was dysfunctional and the boy was the subject of lots of verbal abuse and suffering from significant emotional turmoil.
Those factors explain why the Georgia authorities charged the father with involuntary manslaughter, second degree murder, and cruelty to children. We will learn more as the case progresses, but this case sends a clear signal to parents that they are responsible for their child’s mental state and subsequent actions.

Penna Dexter
South Dakota is one of the most pro-life states in America. Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, South Dakota had enacted 111 statutes restricting abortion, the most of any state. Under a trigger law that took effect after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, abortion is illegal in South Dakota, except to save the life of the mother.
The state’s pro-lifers work hard to elect legislators who will protect the sanctity of human life. Now they are battling a proposed constitutional amendment that could reverse much of the pro-life legislation on the books in South Dakota.
In states that allow Initiative and Referendum, activists can go directly to voters and sometimes use deceptive language and tactics to win the PR battle and undo the work of legislators.
Post-Dobbs, six states, including purple Kansas, have enshrined abortion rights into their constitutions via ballot measure. This November, voters in nine states will consider similar pro-abortion initiatives. Make that ten states, if an extreme pro-abortion amendment ends up on the ballot in South Dakota
The passage of Amendment G could legalize most late-term abortions and reverse protections and restrictions on abortion enacted over the past 20 years.
Life Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit alleging various instances of wrongdoing during the process of gathering signatures to place Amendment G on the ballot.
An army of pro-lifers blanketed the state, hitting farmers markets and other outdoor events where paid signature-gatherers were at work. Folks even wore body cameras to record arguments being used to get people to sign. Evidence showing that Amendment G operatives were breaking laws or lying to get signatures could augment efforts to invalidate the ballot measure.
There’s also a well-organized education campaign to inform people in every South Dakota county of the extreme nature of Amendment G.
South Dakota could be a test case for defeating these pro-abortion initiatives.
To help, go to lifedefensefund.com.

Kerby Anderson
We have idols today, but rarely are they in the form of carved statues and found in religious shrines. A study by Lifeway Research asked Protestant pastors in this county what they felt were modern-day idols.
Two-thirds (67%) of the pastors believe comfort is a desire that Christians have made into an idol. A majority also reported that control or security (56%), money (55%), and approval (51%) are idols that have significant influence on their congregations. They were also asked to choose the potential idol with the most sway over people in their churches. These pastors again pointed to comfort (30%) and control or security (20%) as the most important.
Scott McConnell serves as the executive director of Lifeway Research. “It’s easy to think that those in Christian churches have chosen their God and are faithful to Him.” He also noted that “pastors quickly acknowledge how divided their congregations’ allegiances can be. These gods don’t have a physical shrine, but they compete for the hearts of Christians.”
There were other modern-day idols that were reported by many pastors but not a majority of them. Fewer said that success (49%) and social influence (46%) are idols in their congregations. Even lower on the list were political power (39%) and sex or romantic love (32%).
One interesting statistic was the fact that a smaller percentage (14%) of pastors said none of these idols had an influence in their churches. Differences in age and education were also relevant. Younger pastors, for example, were more likely to say that money is an idol in the church, while more educated pastors pointed to both money and control.
If you are a pastor or a Bible fellowship teacher, you need to look at this survey and consider what teaching you might bring to this issue of modern-day idols.

Kerby Anderson
Many Americans are concerned about the impact that social media and Big Tech are having on society. Therefore, it is not surprising that a number of documentaries have been focusing on problems from this technology.
One of the most important documentaries to come along is “The Social Dilemma.” It features an interesting blend of talking-head interviews with various Big Tech figures, with a fictional dramatization of what happens when children in one family become addicted to social media.
Much of the discussion follows Tristan Harris. He is referred to as “the conscience of Silicon Valley.” In the past, he worked for Google, but left because he was concerned about the direction of technology and decided to establish the Centre for Humane Technology.
Near the end of the program, he raises the issue of the ethical and philosophical foundation rarely discussed. He concludes, “If we don’t agree on what is true or that there is such a thing as truth, we’re toast. This is the problem beneath other problems. Because if we can’t agree on what’s true, then we can’t navigate out of any of our problems.”
It was a great admission and illustrates the foundational problem confronting Big Tech in particular, and society in general. The assumption running through this video is that there is no absolute truth. Truth is relative, or truth is personal. Relative ethics or postmodern ethics is the ethical assumption made when a critic expresses his or her own opinion. There is no appeal to an absolute standard of right and wrong.
The problem isn’t the technology. Tristan Harris describes the technology as “simultaneous utopia and dystopia.” The problem is the lack of an ethical foundation to evaluate it.

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.