Viewpoints with Kerby Anderson

Penna Dexter
Whenever there’s a new session of Congress, the House of Representatives adopts a new set of rules to govern the way it conducts business. Four years ago, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced, and the House passed, a resolution aimed at making all House rules “gender inclusive.”
The resolution expunged sex-specific words from House rules.
So where the terms “father” and “mother” had previously appeared in the House Code of Official Conduct, they were replaced with “parent.”  “Husband” and “wife” became “spouse.” ”Son” and “daughter” became “child.” And “brother” and “sister”: ”sibling.”
It really gets awkward: “Aunt” and “uncle” were replaced with “parent’s sibling” and “cousin” became “sibling’s child.” For in-laws, the terms are “parent-in-law”, “child-in-law” and “sibling-in-law.” The absurd list goes on. There’s even a section that eliminates all gendered terms.
To be clear, these changes only affected the rules document and do not prevent the House members from using gendered language in floor speeches or legislation. But this hat tip to the far Left’s desire to eliminate every distinction between the sexes is silly and just makes it harder to communicate clearly.
This ridiculous action by the 117th Congress should have been reversed two years ago by the 118th Congress, But, with extended wrangling over who would be speaker, this crucial task was skipped
The Wall Street Journal recently published an op-ed by Washington attorney Eileen O’Connor calling on members to now complete what she calls “The House’s Unfinished Gender Business,” and restore the “pre-117th Congress’s language.”
That language, Ms. O’Connor argues, is the opposite of gender inclusive. “It denies the existence of the sexes and the words used to describe their relationships to each other.”
She writes, “When even elected officials can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the basic facts of life, it is no wonder the rest of society loses its nerve as well.”  The House should restore clarity to its rules and eschew all gender-blending nonsense.

Undo Gender Blending Read More

Kerby Anderson
We have learned over the last few years how the government and various media outlets have engaged in systematic censorship. It is one thing to talk about the problem of censorship. It is quite another to do something about it. A recent commentary by Katelynn Richardson provides a glimpse into what the incoming Trump administration plans to do about censorship.
Andrew Ferguson has been nominated by Trump as the new Federal Trade Commission chair. He said in a recent interview that Trump can cut off some censorship outright by prohibiting officials from participating with platforms and by cutting off funding for entitles that suppress speech.
Brennan Carr will head the FCC and has addressed concerns about censorship. In one of his interviews, he explained that one of his top priorities would be to “smash this censorship cartel.”
Harmeet Dhillon has been nominated to run the DOJ’s civil rights division. She worked with her firm on a case challenging the California Secretary of State’s Office coordination with Twitter to suppress speech.
Even Trump appointees who aren’t working directly on free speech will likely have an impact. Trump’s nominee for NIH is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration that challenged COVID-19 lockdowns and responses. And HHS nominee Robert F. Kennedy filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration for alleged First Amendment violations.
Of course, much of the fight against censorship will come from Donald Trump himself. In one campaign video he promised to “shatter the left-wing censorship regime.” He will likely sign an executive order banning agencies from collaborating with social media to suppress speech.
This is good news for free speech in America.

Ending Censorship Read More

Kerby Anderson
The incoming Trump administration seems dedicated to reducing the size of government. What about reducing the size of the American waistline? Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders sent a letter critical of the food stamp program to Trump’s nominees to head the departments of agriculture and health and human services.
When the food stamp program was launched, it was intended to address the issue of hunger in America. While it is still true that some pockets of hunger remain, the bigger problem is that Americans are, well, bigger.
The governor argues that the food stamp program is one reason for obesity in America. She lamented that “this Nutrition Assistance program is undermining the health of millions of Americans, on the taxpayers’ dime, by encouraging families to eat highly processed, unhealthy junk food.” The governor is asking for a waiver from the current federal guidelines.
Jack Butler, in a recent commentary, quotes Chris Edwards (Cato Institute) who documents that nearly a fourth of the food stamp benefits go to such items as sweetened beverages, salty snacks, sugars, and candy. Edwards argues that even though we keep hearing the word nutrition used for food stamps, much of the food consumed is not nutritious.
Butler also notes that Senator Marco Rubio last year sponsored a bill that would have required the Department of Agriculture to collect data on the health effects of the food stamp program to see if the program could be improved. Senator Rubio argued, “In the midst of America’s obesity crisis, taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be spent on junk food.”
Changing the food stamp guidelines makes sense if you want to make America healthy again.

Changing Food Stamps Read More

Kerby Anderson
Yesterday I talked about “debanking,” which occurs when an individual is denied banking services because of their political stance or business venture. What happens when this happens to a nation? We call that action “financial sanctions” and have seen many examples of that in the last decade.
The U.S. and its allies were able to freeze Russian financial accounts and shut off the Russian central bank’s access to hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign reserves. The IMF was able to suspend the Taliban’s access to various funds and financial instruments.
As legitimate as these actions might be (punishing Russia for invading Ukraine or punishing the Taliban for terrorist activities), they concern other countries. Will the U.S. or other international agencies one day punish them for a policy they enact? That is why many countries are looking for another currency than the dollar, which still serves as the world’s reserve currency.
That is why the BRICS nations have been talking about developing another currency. That is also why they and other nations are turning to bitcoin. Harvard PhD student Matthew Ferranti argues for that in his research paper, “Hedging Sanctions Risk: Cryptocurrency in Central Bank Reserves.”
These banks have begun to acquire gold and bitcoin. But, he warns, they might not be able to collect enough gold and should consider the digital asset of bitcoin to hedge the risks of sanctions.
Why are nation-states talking about acquiring bitcoin? First, they see it as a digital asset. Recently Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell referred to bitcoin as “digital gold.” Second, they see it as a hedge against sanctions risk. You never know when a nation or international organization would want to shut down your finances.

Financial Sanctions Read More

Kerby Anderson
More than a year ago, I talked about the phenomenon of “debanking.” This occurs when an individual is denied banking services because of their political stance or business venture.
At the time, I talked about Nigel Farage who lost access to banking services in the U.K., which he believed was due to his previous involvement in Brexit. I also talked about Dr. Joseph Mercola, who was informed that his business bank accounts along with the bank accounts of his family members were all closed. He believed that was because of his previous statements about the Covid vaccine.
The allegation of debanking was given more prominence due to an interview Joe Rogan did with Marc Andreesen, who is in the tech industry and best known as the co-founder of Netscape. In the interview, he said he knows 30 tech company founders who have been debanked within the past four years. His claim set off a flood of anecdotes from other social media users complaining they also lost access to their accounts.
Add to this the claim from Melania Trump who wrote in her memoir that her “longtime” bank closed her account. It also refused to open an account for her teenage son Barron (who was just in high school at the time).
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency denies that it directs banks to open or close bank accounts. But it is worth remembering that years ago, the Department of Justice began a program (known as Operation Choke Point) with banks to fight fraud. But the program apparently was also used to hurt legal businesses (like gun sellers) that the administration didn’t like.
The incoming administration will no doubt investigate the issue of debanking. And I predict they will discover there was validity to these many allegations.

Debanking Read More

Kerby Anderson
Today is January 6. For the last four years, anytime you said the words “January 6” your mind went to the mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and resulted in more than $2 million in damage. This year, the date, January 6, 2025, will have less drama. As one commentator put it, “Donald Trump’s victory has made January 6 boring again.”
This date is when a joint session of Congress counts the Electoral College votes to formalize the election. There was some controversy eight years ago since Hillary Clinton won the popular vote while Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote. Some prominent Democrats and media personalities had encouraged the electors in some of the states to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump. But the session that took place eight years ago had little controversy.
But the 2016 election did highlight concerns about what is called “a faithless elector.” In that election, ten members of the Electoral College voted or attempted to vote for a candidate other than the one for whom they were pledged. Three votes were invalidated under that state’s faithless elector law. The remaining seven did not affect the election but illustrated a future problem.
Perhaps the biggest controversy in Congress this January was the vote for Speaker of the House. In the past, voting for the Speaker and counting the Electoral College votes have been perfunctory. That either of these votes or tabulations is controversial points to the divided nation we live in today.
There are certain to be other controversies in Congress this session. But when Donald Trump won both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote, he made January 6 boring again.

Counting the Votes Read More

Kerby Anderson
More than three decades ago, I wrote and recorded a week of radio programs on “The Decline of a Nation.” One of the days I focused on the decline of the family and quoted J.D. Unwin.
I was encouraged to see that in a recent Breakpoint commentary John Stonestreet quoted from this Oxford sociologist who published a book in the 1930s summarizing his research. In it, he described 80 tribes and six historical civilizations over the course of five millennia. His focus was on whether sexual restraint or sexual liberation was a positive factor in these civilizations.
The pattern was repeated many times. Marriage and family may have varied but usually were based on mutual consent and a lifelong association. But decline came when marriage and commitment faded, and sexual restraint was abandoned. He concluded, “The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”
Whether you are talking about sex or finances, the person who is able to delay gratification will be more successful. Sexual liberation becomes sexual anarchy and eventually social anarchy.
We shouldn’t be surprised that our sex-saturated society is in decline. J.D. Unwin looked at it merely from the practical perspective and even said he had no opinion about the rightness or wrongness of what he studied.
The Apostle Paul looked at the moral implications and warned us in Romans 1 about those who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” There is a price to pay for abandoning biblical principles about human sexuality.

Sexual Restraint Read More

Kerby Anderson
Everything you know about income inequality, poverty, and other measures of economic well-being in America is wrong. Former senator Phil Gramm was on my program to make that case recently. He is the co-author of the book, The Myth of American Inequality: How Government Biases Policy Debate. I might mention that his co-authors hold very different political views than he does, but they do agree that we need to get the facts right before we have a policy debate about economic issues.
The myth of American inequality began back in the late 1940s when the Census Bureau excluded all income that was not paid in the equivalent of cash. That simplification made sense back then but made less sense when the 1965 War on Poverty expanded government benefits. Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and hundreds of other government benefits are not counted as income to the recipients.
Another popular myth is that income inequality is growing. When all the transfer payments just mentioned are counted as income to the recipients and all taxes are counted as income lost to the taxpayer, income inequality is lower today than it was 70 years ago.
As you might imagine, the bias we just mentioned also affects the official measure of well-being. For example, the government does not measure 88 percent of all transfer payments the poor receive when calculating the poverty rate. If those payments are included, then the poverty rate in 2017 would be 2.5%. For comparison, the official poverty rate that year was 12.3%.
The authors also make specific recommendations for dealing with some of the reasons for income inequality. If we are going to have a productive policy debate about these economic issues, we need to listen to these authors and get the facts right.

American Inequality Read More

Kerby Anderson
Let me begin by wishing you a Happy New Year. At the start of this New Year, I wanted to pass on some advice. In previous commentaries, I have talked about the value of using this time of year to change something in your life. There is nothing magical about using January 1 as a start date, but why not use it to improve yourself?
First, I would recommend you pick just one thing to change. If you try to change too many things at once, you are probably not going to succeed. And I would also recommend that you make it a specific, concrete goal that you write down. The more specific you are, the greater likelihood you will be successful.
Second, aim low. In previous New Year’s commentaries, I have quoted from Tristan Taylor who encourages people to “strive for mediocrity.” Don’t pick something that is too big to achieve. Start small. After all, you are where you are right now due to dozens of small changes or compromises you made in the past.
I realize that motivational speakers challenge us to strive for excellence. We should pick a goal that challenges us. But also pick a reasonable goal so we can see and enjoy some level of success. Short-term success can lead to greater success.
Third, expect difficulties. It seems like the moment you start a diet, people around you start inviting you to banquets and all-you-can-eat buffets. The day after you join a fitness club, your life gets busy, and you cannot find time to get to the gym. The moment you decide to do a daily quiet time, your boss asks you to come in earlier for work.
Fourth, accept failure. You might find that for every two steps forward you take one step back. Sometimes you even take two steps back. This is where dedication and perseverance come into play.
Finally, plan a reward. This gives you a goal to achieve and a reward for your dedication. This is the first day of the year, so go for it.

New Year Read More

Penna Dexter
On Christmas Day, as I rushed to set my dining room table, I felt a strange sense of gratitude — for the table. And for the dining room. More and more Americans don’t have them and, in my opinion, they’re missing something special.
In an article for The Atlantic, city planner M. Nolan Gray wrote of the disappearing dining room: “Americans now tend to eat in spaces that double as kitchens or living rooms — a small price to pay for making the most of their square footage.” He points to housing scarcity and regulation as reasons many new apartments “lack even a space to put a table and chairs.” Residents are eating on their couches or in their bedrooms, and “hosting a meal has become virtually impossible.” The unfortunate result, says Mr. Gray, is that we’re “designing loneliness into American floor plans.”
For his article, Mr. Gray spoke with real estate developer and floor plan expert, Bobby Fijan who told him, “The reason the dining room is disappearing is that we are allocating [our] limited space to bedrooms and walk-in closets.”
Consumer preference, lack of housing supply, and certainly zoning codes are all behind what Mr. Gray describes as “the death of dining space.”
So is demographics.
“Shrinking household size” is a huge factor. Lower marriage rates and lower birthrates mean fewer people are living together in families. Mr. Gray cites U.S. Census figures showing that “the share of one-person households more than tripled from 1940 to 2020.” Of necessity, or by choice, people are more isolated and often lonelier.
M. Nolan Gray, the urban planner, wants to know “how many more dinners would be shared if we had the space to host guests?
Do you live alone? Invite someone in for dinner. No dining table, no kitchen table? Use the coffee table, an end table or even an electrical spool with a cloth over it.
Voila! You have a dining room.

Disappearing Dining Rooms Read More

Kerby Anderson
The U.S. faces a significant threat from communist China. Gordon Chang goes into disturbing detail about this threat in his new book, Plan Red: China’s Project to Destroy America. It is a sobering warning about the plans China has developed so that it can be the one superpower for the rest of this century.
China is preparing for war. But Gordon Chang explains that this would not be just “unrestricted war” or even political war. It would be a hot war initiated to destroy the U.S. and its influence around the world.
China is also waging a campaign against America and American values. The goal is to destroy American society. It is working to accomplish this goal by using both forces outside of this country as well as forces deployed inside this country.
In one of his chapters, “Killing Americans,” Gordon Chang explains how China has been able to penetrate American society, that the Communist Party has been able to kill Americans with impunity.
As you would imagine, he also talks about the pandemic. The virus was from China and has devastated other countries around the world. Meanwhile, a Chinese spy balloon drifted over the U.S. without any major response from the current administration.
One of his final chapters describes “China’s War Plans.” He warns us that Xi Jinping cannot stop talking about going into battle with the U.S. Of course, he is doing more than just talking. He has implemented the largest and fastest military buildup since the Second World War. He is stockpiling grain and other commodities. He is surveying America for strikes and sabotage. He is mobilizing China’s civilians for battle.
His final chapter details “What America Must Do Now.” I pray that the incoming administration is taking note.

Plan Red Read More

Kerby Anderson
As the year of 2024 winds down, I predict the year 2025 be different. There is reason to believe that the political landscape will be different in the U.S. due to the election of Donald Trump. But there is growing evidence that the political change here will also be felt in other countries due to the rise of populism.
But I also predict that the economic landscape will be different. Earlier this month I talked about the desire by some members of Congress to build a bitcoin strategic reserve. And Trump has been exploring the possibility of issuing an executive order to create a bitcoin reserve. Other countries have noticed.
Sarah Knafo is a European MP from France. She recently gave a speech in front of the European Parliament. The quotes I am using here have been translated into English using AI. She began by giving a brief history of how one country has successfully used bitcoin and then asked these questions. “Bitcoin is skyrocketing and what about the European Union? What is the European Union doing? It’s squandering our money on unbelievable waste. It continues to accumulate tragically inflationary deficits.”
She then suggested that it is time to change the paradigm. “It’s time to protect our people from inflation and the poor economic choices of our states. It’s time to say no to the totalitarian temptations of the European Central Bank which wants to impose a fully controlled digital Euro.” Instead, she argues, “It’s time to bet on freedom. It’s time for our states to invest in bitcoin to build national strategic reserves.”
I would suggest to you that a speech like this wouldn’t have been given six months ago in front of the European Parliament. We may be seeing an entirely new economic paradigm in the year 2025.

New Economic Paradigm Read More

Penna Dexter
“Some people are calling it a “Vibe Shift.”  Before anyone is sworn into office, we are seeing the fruits of the November election. There’s a new optimism as we reflect on the things that need change. There’s much to pray for, so let’s begin:
Heavenly Father, we’re grateful that voters rejected the gender ideology that allows, even encourages, the mutilation of bodies, especially the bodies of children. Bring us aid and wisdom to banish it from our government, our education system, our military and our national psyche. Help the confused to understand we humans are created, male and female in Your image.
If there’s a vibe shift, let us take advantage of it to get rid of the DEI mentality that rewards identity over real accomplishment. 
Lord, remove from government any tendency to force hardworking Americans to pay the rightful bills of favored interest groups. We ask You to help our leaders enact policies that will bring able-bodied men, who have become discouraged from working, back to productive lives. 
Lord, restore a culture of life and marriage and lawfulness.
Let’s allow Psalm 128 to guide us as we seek the Lord’s blessing in 2025.
Holy God, in the coming year, let us be a people who fear You as we increasingly understand your power and might.
May we walk in Your ways. 
Father, grant us the opportunity to eat the fruits of our labor.
May our society flourish as we delight in Your will and walk in Your ways.
May more of us marry and form godly families.
Let marriages prosper and be blessed with children who thrive under the loving care and discipline of their parents. 
In Your great wisdom, help us to discern good from evil and provide us with good things all the days of our lives.
Let us be godly influences in the lives of our children’s children.
And grant us Your peace. 
In Jesus Name, 
Amen

Prayer for 2025 Read More

Kerby Anderson
Will the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) really be able to reduce the size and scope of government? There is good reason to be skeptical, since this isn’t the first-time involved citizens have tried to cut government programs.
There is a sizable segment of Americans (politicians, government employees) against cutting government. And there are others who believe we can successfully reform government. David Brooks, a conservative writing for the New York Times, argues we should “mend it and not end it.” Columnist Cal Thomas countered that past attempts to reform government from within have been tried and always failed.
But there is a third group who support cutting government but might be less excited when the government agency being cut is an agency they like. As one politically involved person told me, “Trump supporters will like the idea of cutting government until DOGE recommends it cut a government agency in their town.”
Cal Thomas remembers the outcry from members of Congress when the Base Realignment and Closure process closed many unneeded military bases. But I think its success decades ago provides a model we need to use again.
It was an idea Representative Dick Armey talked about on Point of View radio. A panel was appointed by the President and solicited testimony. The panel created a list of bases to be closed, then submitted them to Congress to approve or disapprove the whole list. When Congress failed to act, the commission’s recommendations became final.
Downsizing the government is in the interest of Americans even if one of those cuts may not be so popular for a small segment of the population. Make a list of cuts and get an up or down vote on the whole list together.

Cutting Government Read More

Kerby Anderson
Now that Christmas is behind us, you may be thinking of any final gifts you might want to give to your church or Christian organizations. If you are listening to this right now, I would certainly recommend you support the radio station that is carrying this commentary. If you are reading it, you might follow the links to the platform that provides it.
The December issue of Outlook produced by the Point of View Radio Talk Show focuses on generosity. I wrote an article about “Generosity and Charitable Giving” by citing the research done by Professor Arthur Brooks in his book, Who Really Cares? He reminds us that Americans are givers. Professor Rodney Stark documents that Christians out-give the U.S. government in addressing global poverty.
One of the other articles was by David Green, founder of Hobby Lobby. In the excerpt from his book, Giving It All Away, he talks about his success and his decision to give the ownership of Hobby Lobby to God. He calls for Christians to give generously to churches and other ministries. We have had three generations of the Green family on my radio program. They have left a legacy of giving to ministries.
Another person we quote is Randy Alcorn, author of The Treasure Principle. He affirms “God’s full ownership of me (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) and everything entrusted to me (Psalm 24:1). I recognize that my money and possessions are in fact His.” He does this in obedience because he desires God’s blessing (Malachi 3:6-12).
We learn in 1 Chronicles 29:12 that “both riches and honor come from God.” Deuteronomy 8:18 reminds us that God is the one “who gives you power to get wealth.”
As we come to the end of this year, please be generous as you give to God’s ministry here on earth.

Generosity Read More

Kerby Anderson
On this Christmas day, I think it would be good to reflect for just a moment on the Incarnation. God became man and took on human flesh. This is a great theological wonder and mystery.
Malcolm Muggeridge wrote this to describe the importance of the birth of Christ. “Thanks to the great mercy and marvel of the Incarnation, the cosmic scene is resolved into a human drama. A human drama in which God reached down to relate Himself to man and man reaches up to relate himself to God. Time looks into eternity and eternity into time, making now always and always now. Everything is transformed by this sublime drama of the Incarnation, God’s special parable for man in a fallen world.”
God reached down to us by sending the second person of the Trinity to earth to become part of the human drama and human dilemma. God stepped out of eternity into time to become part of the human community. What an incredible act of love and mercy.
God did not just come to dwell among us and comfort us. He came that He might raise us up through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Although we celebrate the birth of Christ today, we also look to the death and resurrection of Christ that we celebrate at Easter. Romans 5:8 proclaims: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” 1 Peter 2:24 says that Christ “bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.”
On this Christmas day, we should pause to reflect on why Christ came to earth and what He did for us on the cross.

Christmas Read More

Kerby Anderson
This is Christmas week, and so I thought we might reflect on the hymn, “O Holy Night” by John Dwight.

“O holy night! The stars are brightly shining. It is the night of the dear Savior’s birth. Long lay the world in sin and error pining, Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth.”

Jesus came into the world to save us and so we feel valuable and our soul feels its worth. Perhaps the most quoted verse in the Bible is John 3:16. It tells us that Jesus came because “God so loved the world.” He came so that our souls would feel their worth to God.

This hymn also asks us to consider the fact that the King of kings was born as a human infant and placed in a manger. “The King of kings lay thus in lowly manger, In all our trials born to be our Friend. He knows our need, to our weakness is no stranger. Behold your King, before Him lowly bend.”

Isn’t it amazing that there were some who were willing to worship him even while merely a babe in a manger? The hymn then talks about how we should respond to one another in humility.

“Truly He taught us to love one another; His law is love and His gospel is peace. Chains shall He break, for the slave is our brother, And in His name, all oppression shall cease.”

We no longer have slavery in this country, but many people are still enslaved to various forms of sin and need Jesus as their Savior. And we as believers are to model the humility that Jesus demonstrated when He stepped out of eternity into time and gave up His rights as God.

This is a message we not only need at Christmas, but every day.

O Holy Night Read More

Kerby Anderson
During this Christmas week, I have taken the time to discuss the theology of some of the Christmas hymns and carols that we sing. Today I would like to talk about The First Noel. It is an English song dating back to the sixteenth century. Some people believe that the First Noel was French because of the French spelling of Noel, but it is actually an English song. The French word Noël does mean “Christmas” and it’s relevant to the lyrics of the song. The First Noel was first published in 1833 when it appeared in the work, Christmas Carols Ancient and Modern.
The first line of the song suggests a December date for the birth of Christ: “The first Noel, the angels did say; Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay; In fields where they lay keeping their sheep, On a cold winter’s night that was so deep.” Although many doubt that Jesus was born in December, there are some theologians (such as the author of the Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ) who believe that a December date is possible.
Whatever the case may be about the date of the birth of Jesus, the song continues: “Born is the King of Israel!” It reminds us that a king was born that night. Yet few understood the significance of a birth in Bethlehem.
Even the wise men from the East did not completely understand the significance of His birth, but they were guided to Him by a star. “For all to see there was a star; Shining in the east, beyond them far; And to the earth it gave great light, And so it continued both day and night.”
The song goes on to say that “three wise men came from country far.” The Bible does not tell us how many wise men there were. We know there were three kinds of gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh).
What the Bible clearly teaches, however, is that Jesus was born and that He is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

First Noel Read More

Penna Dexter
The massive National Defense Authorization Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week. The Washington Stand reports that the bill “takes a sincere stab at some of the worst forms of military wokeness.” The bill was a compromise, but the election results spoke volumes to senators who previously insisted on expanding the draft to women and on rolling back Biden transgender policies. The Washington Stand calls this a “Christmas miracle.”
The legislation strips out Senate language that would have required women to register for the draft. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) led against this effort to draft our daughters which Rep. Roy says is “just nonsense in a country of 330 million people.”
Speaker Mike Johnson included a provision that blocks minor children of members of the military from receiving puberty blockers, hormones, and gender mutilation surgeries through military health insurer Tricare. The Speaker said, “Taxpayer dollars should never be used to support procedures and treatments that could permanently harm and sterilize young people.”
Stats from the National Library of Medicine reveal that the hormones and drugs required by a transgender person cost “upwards of $3700 per person, per year. Transition surgeries cost from $20,000 to $150,000 depending upon their complexity.
Also, according to The Washington Stand, “Sources from inside the Trump camp say priority number one is weeding out the thousands of gender-confused troops this administration welcomed into the ranks under the guise of ‘inclusion’.”
The necessity for constant care of a transgender soldier curtails the ability for that person to deploy overseas.  Family Research Council’s Senior Fellow for National Defense, Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, says “that’s an extravagance the Pentagon cannot afford because it detracts from combat readiness.”
Under the next administration, the woke regime in the military must be rooted out. The sooner we get rid of the distractions and financial drain resulting from the current transgender policy, the better.

Detransing The Military Read More

Kerby Anderson
During this Christmas, we have been providing a theological perspective on some of the classic Christmas carols. But today, I thought we might look at a contemporary song associated with the Christmas story.
“Mary, Did You Know?” is a Christmas song addressing Mary, mother of Jesus. The lyrics were written by Mark Lowry in 1984. The music was written by Buddy Greene in 1991. It was originally recorded by Michael English on his 1991 solo album.
The song asks many questions. None of the questions are answered in the song. Instead, the lyrics poetically invite the listener to contemplate the relationship between Mary and her newborn divine son. It implies that she may not have understood what would unfold.
That is possible since Jesus humbled Himself to live as we do (Hebrews 4:15). The Bible tells us that Jesus “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7).
 The first stanza begins with these questions. Mary did you know that your baby boy will one day walk on water? Mary did you know that your baby boy will save our sons and daughters? Did you know that your baby boy has come to make you new? This child that you’ve delivered, will soon deliver you.
The last stanza ends with these questions. Mary did you know that your baby boy is Lord of all creation? Mary did you know that your baby boy will one day rule the nations? Did you know that your baby boy is heaven’s perfect Lamb? This sleeping child you’re holding is the Great I Am.
These questions cause us to reflect on the wonder of the incarnation of Jesus.

Mary, Did You Know? Read More