Americans are overwhelmingly pessimistic about their chances of achieving and sustaining the American dream. That is the only conclusion you could draw from a recent Marist-McClatchy Poll. Americans “see an economic system in which they have to work harder than ever to get ahead, and a political system that’s unresponsive to their needs.”

Americans also feel that the wealthy play by a different set of rules from everyone else. That actually connects the two conclusions together. Recently I heard that we now have a Congress that is dominated by a majority of millionaires. In the past, many members of Congress have been wealthy, but I believe this is the first time we have had a majority of millionaires in Congress. They are 14 times wealthier than the average American and no doubt view the world differently than you and I view the world.

Here are just a few of the findings in this latest poll. The researchers found that eight out of ten believe it will take more effort to get ahead when compared to previous generations. Only five percent thought it would take less effort. They also don’t think it will get better soon, with 78 percent saying it will be harder for the next generation to get ahead.

The changing economic landscape is one of the reasons Americans are pessimistic about the future. Fundamental changes due to globalization and new technology make them less certain that they or their children can get ahead.

The poll asked Americans: If people work hard, do they have a good chance of improving their standard of living? Less than a third (31%) thought that people who worked hard would be able to do so. More than two-thirds (68%) thought they would have a hard time maintaining their standard of living.

They are also pessimistic about the belief that everyone plays by the same rules. More than eight in ten (85%) believe there are different rules for well-connected, people with money.

This poll shows the disconnect between our elected leaders and the citizens. It also suggests that an optimistic candidate with sound economic ideas might still appeal to voters who are discouraged and pessimistic about America’s future.

Jim Denison recently found a “15-step strategy for converting Christians to atheism” and wrote about it in the Denison Forum on Truth and Culture. Although the article is supposed to help atheists convert Christians, I think that Christians can learn some valuable lessons about how to approach and dialogue with non-Christians.

The article tells atheists to think about building relationships before trying to convert them to atheism. That is certainly good advice for Christians. Jim Denison reminds us that we should earn the right to share the love of Jesus.

The article also encourages atheists to learn the common arguments leveled by theists and the best rebuttals. Again, Christians should always be ready to make a defense (1 Peter 3:15) for the hope that is in us. I have noticed that in many of the debates between Christians and atheists that it is the atheist argument that is often inadequate.

The article also encourages atheists to understand their holy book cover to cover. This would be good advice for Christians interacting with people of other religions or people who say they have no religion. What is their standard of authority? Do they believe in truth? Do they believe in revelation?

Atheists are also encouraged to study basic physics and biology because “believers may form arguments using a flawed interpretation of physics and biology.” Actually, Christians can benefit from the great work done by leading scientists, theologians, and apologists who use a proper understanding of science to show the reasonableness of biblical faith.

The article also encourages atheists to get Christians “in the habit of questioning their own faith.” Once again, that is a great suggestion for Christians. Jesus often used questions to teach biblical truths. I have found that getting people to question what they believe and why they believe it to be a very effective witnessing tool.

The article is a reminder that Christians aren’t the only ones in the world working to convert others. Atheists and apologists for other religions are also working to convert the hearts and minds of Christians. We should be prepared, but also learn some lessons from others about how to win people to Jesus Christ.

It is time for the president to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. He explained in a speech last summer at Georgetown University his standard for approving a project like this. “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest,” he said. “And our national interest will be served only if this project does not exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” In other words, he would approve the project if it didn’t make the problem of global warming worse.

Many have questions of whether the issue of global warming is as bad as the president considers it to be. But let’s, for a moment, concede his point. There is no reason to hold up the construction of the pipeline. The State Department completed an exhaustive environmental review and concluded that the pipeline would not “exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” In fact, it will actually make it better.

That is why Phil Kerpen recently wrote a column with the title: “Fight Global Warming: Approve the Pipeline!” He was obviously having a little fun at the president’s expense, but his title is indeed correct. He was on my radio program recently to explain why. If the pipeline was not built, then all the oil would probably be shipped by rail, which would lead to higher carbon emissions. It would be higher whether all of the oil was shipped by rail or some was also shipped to tankers for distribution.

If you don’t believe global warming is a major problem, then you should support the construction of the Keystone pipeline. But even if you are very concerned about global warming, constructing the pipeline would be better because there would be less carbon emissions.

I might also mention that the pipeline is a shovel-ready project. Five years ago this month, the president signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. We were promised that the stimulus would save the economy and that there were lots of shovel-ready projects that would be started. That was not the case.

By contrast, the Keystone pipeline has been extensively engineered, studied, and reviewed. The latest study estimates that it will create 42,000 construction jobs and give our country a more secure oil supply. It’s time to build the pipeline.

It appears that the FCC will be looking over the shoulders of journalists and asking some tough questions of broadcasters. This cannot be good. Some of us who have been around awhile remember the days when the FCC enforced the so-called Fairness Doctrine. It stifled debate and limited speech. It led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Once it stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, talk radio flourished. The FCC just took it off the books a few years ago.

Ajit Pai is an FCC Commissioner who is concerned with a new initiative that will thrust the federal government into the newsrooms around the country. The FCC is planning a “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CIN).” The purpose of the study is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters in order to determine possible bias. He says the FCC also wants to wade into office politics by asking if management rejected certain stories.

How does the FCC plan to get this information? “It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell them their ‘news philosophy’ and how the stations ensures that the community gets critical information.”

Participation in the study is voluntary—in theory, the commissioner says. But let’s put some of this in perspective. Broadcasters are dependent on the FCC for licensing. “They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.”

But there’s more. The FCC study also includes newspapers. Ajit Pai reminds us that the FCC has no authority to regulate print media. Of course, that doesn’t seem to bother bureaucrats in the FCC. A federal judge recently ruled that the FCC cannot regulate the Internet, yet the agency has already proposed Net Neutrality rules.

Once again we are seeing federal bureaucrats expanding their oversight without congressional approval. This is one more example of a lawlessness by an agency that must be reigned in.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal gave a speech the other day at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It wasn’t the kind of speech you might hear from a governor. Most likely a governor would be talking about taxes, spending, or education. The governor instead blasted the “silent war” on religion.

He certainly can speak on religion. He converted from Hinduism to Christianity. The last time I interviewed him, we talked about his involvement with Campus Crusade for Christ when he was in college. It’s just that you aren’t used to hearing candidates or elected officials talking about religious liberty. That is a sign that they understand what is at stake in our world.

He said that silent war “is waged in our courts and in the halls of political power. It is pursued with grim and relentless determination by a group of like-minded elites, determined to transform the country from a land sustained by faith into a land where faith is silenced, privatized, and circumscribed.”

He reminded the audience that Ronald Reagan said, “Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a chosen few, but the universal right of all God’s children.” Jindal added that Reagan “was reaffirming the most basic contention of the American founding, set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that we are a nation constituted in accordance with the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ and that we are a people ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.'”

To illustrate his concern, he pointed to the upcoming court case involving the craft store Hobby Lobby and even defended “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson. He even quoted from President Obama who at the National Prayer Breakfast said, “that nations that uphold the rights of their people—including the freedom of religion—are ultimately more just and more peaceful and more successful.” He ended by telling the president that his new line should be: “if you like your religion, you can keep your religion.”

I agree with Governor Jindal that religious liberty should be a major issue in the next few elections.

Welcome to utopia. Speaking a few years ago at a technology convention in San Francisco, Google CEO Eric Schmidt described this new world of utopia.

“It’s a future where you don’t forget anything… In this new future you’re never lost… We will know your position down to the foot and down to the inch over time… Your car will drive itself, it’s a bug that cars were invented before computers…you’re never lonely…you’re never bored…you’re never out of ideas.”

It sounds exciting doesn’t it? Computers will help you remember. Computers will keep you from getting lost. You will have a car that drives itself. Eric Schmidt even complains that the car was invented before the computer. He is thrilled we will have driverless cars. You will never be bored or lonely or out of ideas.

What could possibly go wrong? John Whitehead says that once you “strip away the glib Orwellian doublespeak” you find a world where privacy is gone. That smart phone in your pocket or purse can tell you where you are. It can also tell other people where you are as well. GPS devices help us find our way, but they also record where we have been. Satellites and traffic cameras can record our every move. Drones can find you and track you. The utopia the Eric Schmidt describes is also a Brave New World that John Whitehead documents in his book, A Government of Wolves.

In a recent column, John Whitehead talks about black boxes and V2V transmitters being put in cars. Some of the new cars coming out for next year have a performance data recorder which “uses a camera mounted on the windshield and a global positioning receiver to record speed, gear selection and brake force.” It even records noises inside the car.

As I said at the beginning, welcome to utopia. Actually, we should say, “welcome to a utopia where you have zero privacy.” The future may sound exciting, but we will all pay a price as we lose our privacy.

When the president raised the minimum wage for federal workers, lots of editorials appeared in newspapers. Jason Riley dug out an old editorial to illustrate how perceptions have changed in the media elite.

Back in 1987 the New York Times editorial read: “The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable—and fundamentally flawed. It’s time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for very little.”

Earlier this month, the New York Times posted this editorial: “An hourly minimum wage of $10.10, for example, as Democrats has proposed, would reduce the number of people living in poverty.”

Let me say this clearly: no it won’t. Numerous academic studies show that raising the minimum wage does not help people living in poverty. Families are usually poor not because they have low wages but because they do not have a full-time job. A job is the best anti-poverty program we can implement.

Jason Riley cites one study done by Joseph Sabia of American University and Richard Burkhauser of Cornell University. They could find “no evidence” that minimum wage increases lowered poverty rates. There are many reasons for this.

First, the minimum wage increases were “not well targeted to the working poor.” Second, only a small percentage of workers who would gain from an increase in the minimum wage live in poor households. Third, of those who gain, a very large percentage “are second and third earners in households with incomes twice the poverty line.” Many are well above the median household income.

The challenge for many people below the poverty line is that they don’t have a job. Their problem isn’t low wages. Their problem is no wages. Raising the minimum wage makes it even harder to get a job. On my radio program I pointed out that when I got my first job as a teenager, I seriously doubt that I would have been worth $10/hour to an employer. If people need a job, raising the minimum wage doesn’t help them.

On my radio program the other day, my guest made the point that you could fit the entire population of the world into Los Angeles. Since some people questioned that statistic, I thought I would provide some documentation.

Actually, the National Geographic website has already done the math. They have a quiz with the question: “Population 7 Billion—Could We All Fit in One City?” The quick answer is yes. “If all seven billion people on Earth stood shoulder-to-shoulder, we would fill Los Angeles.”

In the past, I have used the city of Jacksonville, Florida to illustrate the same point. It has the largest area of any city with over 800 square miles of land. If you assume that each person occupies an 18 inche square that means they would take up 2.25 square feet. If you multiply 7 billion by 2.25 square feet that equals 15,750,000,000 square feet.

That number seems large until you realize that Jacksonville, Florida covers over 800 square miles of land and that exceeds 23,000,000,000 square feet. There would be more than enough room even for some rather large and obese people.

Does that prove that the world is not overpopulated? Not necessarily. If you live in Hong Kong or Tokyo or Mexico City, you would definitely feel the world is overpopulated. If you were live in Wyoming or Montana, I doubt you would feel that your world is overpopulated.

You may have also heard the other statistic about the space necessary to put all of the world’s 7 billion population in a small home. If each person had a 1,000 square foot home, you could fit all of those homes in the 268,581 square miles of the state of Texas.

The point of all of this is that we aren’t running out of space for people. We may be running out of certain resources. We may need to build dynamic economies in third world countries. We certainly need to end the exploitation of the poor by dictators in many countries around the world. But we certainly aren’t limited by space.