The president has been out speaking on the economy. He has been encouraging businesses to start hiring more people and start paying workers higher wages. A recent survey indicates that will be happening.

But Dr. Merrill Matthews of the Institute for Policy Innovation explains that these changes in the business mindset are not due to the president’s speeches. They are due to his decision to postpone the business mandate.

First, let’s look at the survey of small businesses done two weeks ago. The pollsters discovered that 24.4 percent of small business owners surveyed plan to invest in equipment and facilities over the next year. They also found the 16 percent will hire new employees, and 15 percent plan to increase wages or other benefits.

If the survey stopped there, I think the president, economic advisors in the administration, and members of Congress might be convinced their economic policies are the major reason for this dramatic shift in attitudes among small business. But the survey found that it was business mandate reprieve that was the reason. Businesses found they would have additional money they would have had to spend and were willing to invest, hire, and increase wages.

Dr. Matthews asks an obvious question. If this is what businesses are doing “with a one-year reprieve from the Obamacare mandate, what might they be willing to do if the employer mandate were repealed?” I think it is reasonable to assume that the U.S. economy would take off. The economy would grow. Businesses would be creating more jobs. And wages would rise.

Dr. Matthews reminds us that this president “has imposed more taxes, mandates and regulations on businesses than any other president in history—with the possible exception of FDR.” We shouldn’t be surprised the economy is sluggish. We also shouldn’t be surprised what a little incentive (like postponing the business mandate) can have on creating jobs and increasing wages.

The San Antonio City Council is considering an ordinance that would effectively ban anyone that has opposed homosexuality from being involved in city government. It would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to discrimination ordinances. And it would also ban anyone who has ever opposed homosexuality. Proponents of religious liberty fear that if passed it could have many negative effects.

Individuals that hold a biblical view of sexuality and marriage can be barred from involvement with city government. Churches could be forced to allow their facilities to be used for same-sex civil unions. Business owners could be sued and fined for not providing benefits to unmarried same-sex couples.

As you might expect, lots of people attended the public hearing on this ordinance and expressed their opposition. Senator Ted Cruz issued this statement. “Any attempt to bar an individual from public service based upon a personal religious conviction is contrary to the liberties guaranteed us under our constitution and should be emphatically opposed. It is encouraging to see so many Texans standing up to defend their religious freedoms in light of the misguided proposal put forth by the local city council.”

It is hard to imagine that this ordinance will be enacted. If it is, there are obvious legal challenges. The ordinance violates the First Amendment freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It also violates the Texas Religious Freedom Act by infringing on religious liberty while not providing a compelling need for the law and not using the least intrusive way to address the issue. It also fails to provide any protection for religious organization, non-profit organizations, and businesses.

You may wonder why the city council is so bold to even propose such an ordinance. You need look no further than the recent Supreme Court ruling on DOMA, Proposition 8, and same-sex marriage.

Perhaps you have read the short story “I, Pencil” by economist Leonard Read. He takes you through all the steps necessary to make a pencil and concludes that “nobody knows how to make a pencil.” To make something as simple as a pencil requires knowledge and technological expertise in fields ranging from forestry to mining to engineering to chemistry.

And yet pencils are made day after day, even though no one knows the whole process from start to finish. The worker on the assembly line doesn’t know all the steps. Even the president of the pencil manufacturing company doesn’t really know all of the steps necessary to make a pencil. There is no central authority. All of the necessary steps come together in a free market through what looks like spontaneous order.

Kevin Williamson in a recent column talks about how the market worked to provide us with much more than pencils. When he is speaking to students, he shows them a still from an Oliver Stone movie, Wall Street. The financier Gordon Gekko is talking on a cell phone, a Motorola DynaTac 8000X. The student always—always—laugh. There is good reason. The phone is more than a foot long and weighs a couple of pounds.

But here is the point. In the day in which that movie was shot, you had to be a millionaire to have one. The phone cost the equivalent of $10,000. It also cost about $1,000 a month to operate. You couldn’t put it in your pocket. You couldn’t text on it. You couldn’t get on the Internet with it. You couldn’t play Angry Birds on it.

Most of the students have a smart phone that does that and much more. Everyday they hold in their hands a technological wonder, especially compared to what only a rich and privileged few could use a few years ago. And while the price of nearly everything is going up, the price of these phones has dropped dramatically. It is also worth mentioning that if “nobody knows how to make a pencil” it is certainly true that “nobody knows how to make a smart phone.” Yet we have in in our hands because of the free market.

I have often felt that America has sometimes been guilty of overreaction to the threat of terrorism. So I was encouraged to see an op-ed piece by Ted Koppel making the same case.

He acknowledged that terrorism “is designed to produce overreaction. It is a means by which the weak induce the powerful to inflict damage upon themselves—and al Qaeda and groups like it are surely counting on that as the centerpiece of their strategy.”

Closing nearly two-dozen embassies and consulates for a week may have been a wise move on the part of the United States. But it certainly illustrates the point that Ted Koppel was trying to make. A perceived threat from a terrorist group is enough to disrupt the diplomatic corps in embassies all over the world.

He also brings his focus back home. He noted that the United States “has constructed an antiterrorism enterprise so immense, so costly and so inexorably interwoven with the defense establishment, police and intelligence agencies, communications systems, and with social media, travel networks and their attendant security apparatus, that the idea of downsizing, let alone disbanding such a construct, is an exercise in futility.”

Last week I talked about the new book by John Whitehead, A Government of Wolves. The title comes from CBS broadcaster Edward R. Murrow who said: “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” This nation of sheep is wiling to sit back and have allowed an antiterrorism network to expand and intrude into its lives. And those who question any overreaction are often accused of being against the war on terror.

Ted Koppel also notices how we live with the threat of terror. “We have created an economy of fear, an industry of fear, a national psychology of fear. Al Qaeda could never have achieved that on its own. We have inflicted it on ourselves.” That I would suggest is a perfect definition of overreaction.

For a moment, I want to talk about a subject many of us would rather avoid. But we cannot avoid it if we are concerned about our children and the children in our schools and churches. Recently I had Boz Tchividijian on my program to talk about how to protect our children from sex offenders.

He is the Executive Director of G.R.A.C.E (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) and has also served as an Assistant State Attorney dealing with sex offenders. He has written an article on five things you should know about child sexual offenders.

The first thing we should know is that offenders have many victims. That means that they most likely have victimized others long before they were caught. And it means that most who claim this was the only child they victimized are lying.

Second, offenders can be the most unsuspecting people. We expect every sex offender to be a “creepy guy.” That is not true. They are not easy to identify.

Also, offenders are not strangers. In the past, we told our kids that strangers could mean danger. While that is true, it perhaps gives our children a false sense of security. Only 10 percent of child molesters molest children they do not know.

Offenders often prey upon trusting and vulnerable young people. In order to gain access, an offender will have to take a potential victim through a “grooming” process. Once a relationship is established, the perpetrator is free to abuse.

Finally, offenders are often attracted to the faith community. They actually consider church people easy to fool. Christians and churches are often very trusting and provide an environment where sex offenders can easily gain access to children. Most churches are in need of volunteers. If someone steps forward to work in a church program, they are enthusiastically greeted. A church’s constant need for volunteers can easily cloud the church leaders’ judgment unless they are attentive to this potential problem.

We may not like to think about sex offenders, but we need to pay attention so we can protect the children.

One question I am sure to get on air whenever we talk about health care is, “Do I have to sign up for Obamacare?” The answer is yes, unless you are one of the exemptions to Obamacare. That often leads to another question: “What are the exemptions to Obamacare?”

As we get closer to the deadlines imposed by the Affordable Care Act, more and more people are starting to ask these questions. There are nine exemptions to the Obamacare mandate, and many of my listeners want to know if they qualify for any of them. Section 1501 of the law explains each of these.

There is a religious conscience exemption. You have to be a member of a recognized religious sect or division described in another section. If you are listening to this radio commentary, you likely don’t qualify. This exemption applies mostly to Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites that emphasize a strong separation from society.

Another exemption is for members of Indian tribes. The assumption is they would already be covered by the government’s Indian Health Care system. One Navaho woman called to ask if she qualified, and I suggested she check with her tribe. Recent news stories report complaints by Native-Americans that the published regulations define qualified Indians and their tribes too narrowly.

One exemption many Christians are considering is the exemption for a Health Sharing Ministry. To qualify for the exemption, a member must belong to a ministry that has existed in some form since 1999. This would include groups like Medi-Share and Samaritan Ministries. These and other similar groups are guided by Christian principles. Members promise to live a healthy lifestyle (no drugs, alcohol in moderation, etc.). They voluntarily share their resources within a ministry with others who have medical bills. And members know their dollars are not going to subsidize practices to which they might object.

As we get closer to the law’s deadlines, I expect more people to start paying attention to the law’s requirements and exemptions.

Should members of Congress and their staffs receive an exemption from some of the financial obligations of Obamacare? That is a question that has been

debated since the announcement last week.

The Affordable Care Act requires members of Congress and their staffs to participate in the insurance exchanges. There is history for such a requirement.

Former President Harry Truman enrolled as the first Medicare beneficiary in 1965. That is why Senator Chuck Grassley proposed an amendment that would

require most members of Congress to participate. I say “most” because some of the Congressional leadership is excluded from participation.

For months members of Congress have complained that when they and their staff enroll, they will lose the generous coverage they received from the Federal

Employees Health Benefits Program. They complained that it would drive talented staffers away and projected a significant “brain drain” unless something was

changed.

On my radio program I asked this simple question. If Obamacare would cause a “brain drain” in a public sector, wouldn’t it also have the same effect on the

private sector? Put another way, if it was going to have an adverse impact on Congress, wouldn’t it also have an adverse impact on businesses and

corporations?

Members of Congress begged the White House for relief and received it. The Office of Personnel Management announced that Congress and their staffs would

receive extra payments, which could amount to as much as 75 percent of the cost of insurance.

The announcement generated two types of complaints. First, there is a legal question. Does the Office of Personnel Management have the authority to do this?

That debate will continue for quite some time. The second is likely to last all the way to next year’s elections. Isn’t this one more example of the political class

requiring us to live by one set of rules while they live by a different set of rules? The voters next year might not take kindly to Congress once again making

itself a privileged class.

We in America have valued individual liberty and privacy. But we are a society that is turning into a culture that resembles a police state. We have quietly accepted surveillance cameras, no-knock police raids, and national databases filled with our personal information.

That is the contention of John Whitehead in his book, A Government of Wolves. The title comes from CBS broadcaster Edward R. Murrow who said: “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” He believes we are allowing government officials and corporations to intrude into our lives and violate our privacy.

He paints a chilling portrait of a nation that allows SWAT teams, drug-sniffing dogs, roadside strip searches, and blood draws at DUI checkpoints. We are monitored not only be the ever-present surveillance cameras, but also by drones in the sky and even mosquito drones we might not even be able to see.

To illustrate his concerns, John Whitehead draws upon various science fiction movies to show that much of these fanciful scenarios have now become fact. On my radio program he explained that most of the technology used in the movie Minority Report is now available to government and law enforcement. He also draws from other films like 1984, 2001, Children of Men, The Matrix, and V for Vendetta.

The book not only explains the problems we face in the 21st century, but also is a call to action. John Whitehead offers timely and practical action items in an effort to stop a growing police state.

This is the challenge before us. Will we continue to accept these intrusions in our lives, or will we stand up and stop the encroachment on our liberty and privacy? Some accept it as necessary to fight terrorism. Others believe it is merely evidence of the end times. I believe we should not allow this to happen. We cannot allow America to become a police state. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.