The possibility of an attack from North Korea has many talking about the impact
an EMP attack could have on this country. Fortunately, more Americans are aware of the
potential danger because of Hollywood.

Joseph Farah wrote that finally “Hollywood is Getting Something Right.” By that
he means that EMPs have become the plot line of various movies and television
programs. Even if it is true that most Americans get lots of their information from
entertainment programming rather than news, they will still be aware of the danger.

Hollywood recognized the scary potential of an EMP first with its remake of the
movie “Red Dawn.” It is also worth noting that the bad guys in the movie are from North
Korea, and they use an EMP to cripple our country.

Hollywood also advanced the theme of an EMP in the television show,
“Revolution.” Now in the second season, “we learn what caused massive deaths in the
U.S., what plunged it into darkness, how renegade militias came to terrorize the
population and why Americans no longer had electricity, computers, communications
and transportation more efficient than horses.” It was an EMP that caused all of that.

Government officials are concerned that North Korea (or another country like
Iran) could explode a high-altitude device over this country. It would destroy major
portions of the power grid and cripple the nation’s electronic devices. An Army War
College study estimated that such a detonation could wipe out the electrical grid for
hundreds or even thousands of miles. This may be what Kim Jong Un has planned,
although his country doesn’t seem to have the missile capability (at least yet) to launch a
nuclear device high above the U.S. and denote it. Let us hope and pray North Korea does
not develop the technology. If they do, I fear they would use it.

Perhaps the only good news is that the American people are finally learning from
Hollywood of the potential danger of EMPs.

Which group poses the greatest threat to America? If you attended a recent
briefing on extremism at an Army Reserve unit in Pennsylvania, you would conclude that
evangelicals pose the greatest threat. Evangelicals were listed along with other threats. Al
Qaeda was fifth on the list. Hamas was sixth. The Ku Klux Klan was eighth on the list.
At the top of the list was “Evangelical Christianity.”

The Family Research Council put it this way: “Most Christians who enlist in the
Army do so to fight terrorists and other enemies of our country—not be called one!” Not
surprisingly, the Department of the Army stated that this was an isolated incident. While
that is true, you have to wonder how such a presentation sees the light of day.

I think it is one more illustration of a federal government that no longer welcomes
Christian values. Remember the incident a few years ago where the Department of
Homeland Security was “profiling” conservatives. A few months ago, there was a West
Point report from their Combating Terrorism Center that warned about people with
“strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and
tyrannical.” This could apply to lots of people. The latest Pew Research poll found that a
majority of Americans (53%) do view the government as a threat to their liberty.

Todd Starnes, of Fox News, discovered why evangelical Christians were listed as
extremists and members of extremist organizations. The presenter got her information
from the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you go to their website, you will see they have
files on the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, and the
Family Research Council. These appear on the same website with dangerous extremist
groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and Skinheads. It is easy to see why someone could
draw the inaccurate conclusion that evangelical Christians are dangerous.

The real danger is that individuals (like the Army presenter) and groups (like the
Southern Poverty Law Center) cannot tell the difference between Christians and
extremists.

How safe are you in your church? This is not something most of us think about
too much. But hopefully you have someone in your church that is thinking about
security. The latest statistics are a reminder that we aren’t as safe in our houses of
worship as we used to be.

Last week I had Jimmy Meeks on my radio program to talk about church security.
He has been a police officer for more than three decades and an ordained minister for
four decades. He is also an expert in crime prevention and has conducted over 75 church
safety seminars. He and his wife were married at a church that was the site of one of the
first church shootings.

You might remember the church shooting at Wedgewood Baptist Church in 1999.
Jimmy Meeks says that since 1999 there have been 431 violent deaths in churches and
other faith-based facilities. More people have been killed in these venues than have been
killed in schools. These killings have been in Baptist churches, Amish facilities, even
Buddhist Temples.

His website (Cop and Cross) addresses many of the threats we face in society
from violence against women to violence against children to violence in the church. He
also speaks about the threat from pedophiles that often seek out churches and camps
looking for victims.

Alliance Defending Freedom has put together a resource of “Church Security
Recommendations.” Churches need to have a plan and put someone in charge. Then they
can begin to ask relevant questions about surveillance and layers of security. The church
also needs to know how to isolate or remove disruptors.

Childcare is another issue. A church needs to conduct background checks and
have a foolproof system for check-in. They also need a lockdown procedure.

Sadly churches and houses of worship are not as safe as they used to be. We need
to be trained and ready for whatever might happen in what used to be one of the safest
places on earth.

What is North Korea’s Kim Jong Un trying to accomplish? I hear that question
often as I travel around and speak to people. Usually, I try to give a short, thoughtful
answer to the question. In the future, I’m merely going to say that he is doing what his
grandfather and father have been doing for decades.

It’s true that they didn’t have his level of nuclear technology or missile
technology. But it is also true that his grandfather and father were able to get away with
murder. I mean that both figuratively and literally. Let’s first look at the legacy of his
grandfather, Kim Il Sung.

In 1968, North Korea boarded and captured the USS Pueblo. The American crew
were starved, tortured, and put before a mock firing squad. After spending time in POW
camps, they were eventually released. America did nothing. In fact, the ship is still in
North Korea to this day. It is the only ship of the U.S. Navy currently being held captive.

In 1976, North Koreans ax-murdered two U.S. officers in the DMZ. In 1983,
North Korea tried to assassinate South Korea’s president in Burma. They did blow up a
Burmese landmark that killed four cabinet officers and 16 other people.

In 1987, the North Koreans blew up a South Korean airliner that killed all 115
people on board. This occurred just a few years after Russians shot down Korean Airlines
flight 007. Each of these atrocities went unpunished.

What about the legacy of his father, Kim Jong Il? Under his leadership, North
Korea torpedoed a South Korean patrol boat. In 2010, his country shelled a South Korean
island, killing a number of people. Many called it one of the worst clashes since the
Korean War ended.

It is easy to see why Kim Jong Un is acting the way he is. He has seen his
grandfather and father act with impunity. He has seen them get away with murder. We
shouldn’t be surprised that he thinks he can do the same. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s
my point of view.

Let me introduce you to a new word and a fascinating dual purpose for it. The word is “CAPTCHA.” It stands for “Completely Automated Public Turning test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.” It is one of those squiggly words that you have to retype when you buy things online. I have become rather proficient at this test since I have to engage in it every time I purchase baseball tickets online.

These squiggly words actually serve an important purpose. Only humans can decipher them. That protects websites from hackers. It also prevents unwanted Internet bots from accessing websites. A normal human can usually read a CAPTCHA. The most sophisticated Internet bot cannot process these image letters.

But this is not the end of the story, but actually the beginning of an idea that is serving libraries around the world. Luis von Ahn who helped invent CAPTCHA felt guilty about the time wasted by the estimated 200 million CAPTCHAs being typed byhumans around the world every day. There is really no way to speed up the process, so why not use it for something productive?

Why not use humans to decipher words from ancient texts that have not been digitzed because the computer scanners have difficulty reading the handwriting. Computers cannot recognize nearly a third of the words printed in the millions of booksthat  are more than 50 years old.

His solution, therefore, was to add a second squiggly word (called a reCAPTCHA) that was taken from one of these ancient texts. While typing in the CAPTCHA, you are proving you are human. When you type in the reCAPTCHA, you are adding to the sum of the world’s knowledge.

About 350,000 websites have adopted reCAPTCHA. That means that more than 100 million words are being deciphered every day. That works out to about 2.5 million books a year that are being digitized because of our efforts. I don’t know about you, but now I feel much better about taking the time to decipher a CAPTCHA.

Although the goal for this country has always been to have a United States of America, often it has been the Divided States of America. That was certainly true in the mid-19th century with slave states and free states. In many ways, it is true today in terms of the different economic philosophies of the states.

Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore (“The Red-State Path to Prosperity,” Wall Street Journal, 27 March 2013) explain that you can tell a lot about prosperity “by observing places people are moving to and where they are packing up and moving from.” The fastest-growing metro areas were Raleigh, Austin, Las Vegas, Orlando, Charlotte, Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas. Cities in the blue states are the biggest population losers.

There is a reason for this migration: economic incentives. Red states generally are reducing tax rates and easing regulations. They also offer right-to-work laws as an enticement for businesses. Blue states in the Northeast, Midwest, and West seem to be doing just the opposite.

Laffer and Moore predict that within a decade five or six states in the South will entirely eliminate their incomes taxes. Already three of these states do not have a state income tax. If their prediction is true, a region stretching from Florida through Texas and Louisiana could become a vast state income-tax-free zone.

They also noted that the Northeast is bluer than ever. When you add states like Illinois and California, you see a similar trend. In fact, these blue states (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon) have all raised income taxes in recent years.

These are the Divided States of America. Red states (especially in the South) are moving forward with pro-growth tax reform. Blue states in the Northeast and elsewhere are doubling down on taxes and regulations. If these trends continue, expect moreAmericans to move from blue to red.

In previous commentaries I have talked about the impact of what many are calling
“Big Data.” We live in a world filled with digital facts, figures, books, music, and video.
Most of it is at our fingertips, and that is a good thing. But there is also the great concern
over what could be called “Dark Data.”

Marc Goodman has written about “Dark Data” (The Human Face of Big Data,
Against All Odds Productions, 2012) and is concerned. He has worked on security issues
in more than 70 countries and sees the possibilities for criminals in our digital world.

He reminds us that criminals and terrorists have found ways to use these new
devices and innovations. Sadly, we often underestimate their creativity and can easily be
a step behind those who intend us harm. Sometimes they have better access to
information than law enforcement and Homeland Security.

Drug-runners in Mexico not only have the latest smartphones but have actually
been building their own encrypted radio networks in a majority of the states in their
country. Drug cartels in Columbia are using their vast wealth from drugs “to fund
research and development programs in everything from robotics to supply chain
management.”

During the terrorist attack in Mumbai five years ago, the terrorists were armed not
only “with the standard artillery and explosives, but also with satellite phones,
Blackberrys, night vision goggles, and satellite imagery.” If that is what terrorists had
access to years ago, it is reasonable to assume that the next terrorist attack will come
from terrorists using even more sophisticated technology.

These new technological advances and the incredible amount of data will no
doubt make our world a better place. But we should also realize that criminals and
terrorists will also be there to exploit it. We need to do two things. First, train those in
law enforcement and counterterrorism in the latest technology. Second, make sure the
good guys win the technological arms race against the bad guys.

America has embarked on a social experiment by redefining marriage. This experiment
will continue no matter how the Supreme Court rules on the two cases they heard last month. We
already have states that have legalized same-sex marriage, and we have same-sex couples who
are raising children. This social experiment has been taking place in Europe for many years. As I
document in my book, A Biblical Point of View on Homosexuality, the impact counterfeit
marriage is having on traditional marriage is not good.

What will be the impact of same-sex marriage on children? Nelson Lund, writing in The
Wall Street Journal, challenges the idea that there won’t be any negative impact. He points out
that the many briefs filed with the Supreme Court argued that there was “no evidence” of bad
effects from child rearing by same-sex couples. He says we can put it another way. There is “no
reliable evidence that such child-rearing practices are beneficial or harmless.” Unfortunately,
various social-science advocacy groups have been promoting the myth that a lack of evidence
implies the nonexistence of such effects.

Proponents often cite the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study. As I have
discussed in a previous commentary, the study had its flaws. The sample was recruited at lesbian
events, women’s bookstores, and through lesbian newspapers. The sample sizes were small, and
much of the research “relied on reports by parents about their children’s well-being while the
children were still under the care of those parents.”

Contrast that with another study I discussed in a previous commentary. This study by
Mark Regnerus (a sociologist at University of Texas at Austin) was a large randomized sample
of grown children rather than their parents. His study found these children “were at a significant
disadvantage with respect to a number of indicators of well being.”

Soon we will have more data as America pursues this social experiment in redefining
marriage. I am not optimistic.

It looks like the Affordable Care Act may eventually be known as the
Unaffordable Care Act. As we get closer to the full implementation of Obamacare,
individuals and businesses are starting to count the costs. On this third anniversary
of Obamacare we are seeing the difference between the predictions made when the
legislation was being considered and the reality that is about to hit all of us.

Yuval Levin, writing in National Review, has noticed how various nuggets of
truth about health care reform are starting to surface in media reports. The New York
Times reported that: “the administration said it was unwise to tell consumers that they
could get health insurance that fits your budget. That message, it said, is seen as highly
motivational, but not as believable.”

Gone are the claims that health care reform will reduce the cost of health care.
Remember when we heard “if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you
like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan”? Most of those claims
are gone. Instead we are hearing that costs will go up 32 percent.

Yuval Levin believes that Obamacare faces two huge problems because of the
way the legislation was designed. First are the price controls on Medicare. Any across-
the-board rate cut to providers “would result in drastically reduced access to health care
for seniors.” Already we see that Medicaid’s low payment rates cause many doctors to
refuse Medicaid patients. That makes it difficult for many poor Americans to find health
care. If Medicare payments also drop, the same thing that has happened to the poor will
happen to seniors.

Second, the design of Obamacare will actually encourage many families to opt to
go uninsured until they need health care. The details are a bit complex to discuss here, the
impact is easy to see. In a few years, the out-of-pocket costs for a family will be larger
than the penalty they would have to pay for not having coverage.

These are just two reasons why health care reform may soon be called the
Unaffordable Care Act.