Yesterday I talked about the desire of some members of Congress to rewrite the First Amendment. One senator who plans to vote against the amendment took on the arguments being used by proponents.

Senator Ted Cruz calls the upcoming vote a “Democratic Assault on the First Amendment.” So far 41 Democrats have signed on to the amendment proposed by Senator Tom Udall. The amendment would regulate “the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections.”

Senator Cruz says that two canards are put forth to justify this broad authority. The first is that “money is not speech. He responds that: “Speech is more than just standing on a soap box yelling on a street corner.” Free speech includes writing and distributing pamphlets, putting up billboards, displaying yard signs, launching a website, and running ads on radio and television. These activities all require money. If you prohibit spending money, you can prohibit most forms of free speech.

The second argument used to justify the amendment is that “corporations have no free speech rights.” Proponents argue that the Supreme Court got it wrong in their Citizens United decision. But consider the fact that the major media outlets are also corporations. “The New York Times is a corporation. The television network NBC is a corporation. Book publisher Simon & Schuster is a corporation. Paramount Pictures is a corporation.” I doubt any of the amendment’s sponsors would argue that Congress could restrict these media outlets merely because they are corporations and not individual persons.

Senator Cruz also reminds us that the amendment is written in such a way that it could give Congress great power to stifle free speech. He provides examples from the arguments used by the administration against the Citizens United case.

The free speech provisions in the Constitution and particularly in the Bill of Rights have served us well for more than two centuries. We don’t need an amendment giving Congress power to regulate political speech.

Some members of Congress want to rewrite the First Amendment. Although it is unlikely that they will succeed, it is worth looking at what they propose in order to understand the mindset of some of our elected representatives.

Senators Chuck Schumer and Tom Udall along with some other members of Congress were upset with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United decision. They therefore propose that the First Amendment be changed to give the states and federal government the power to regulate the raising and spending of money in political campaigns. The goal would be “to advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all.”

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal put this attempt to rewrite the First Amendment in perspective. “A standard liberal talking point about the Tea Party is that its constitutional designs are ?extremist.’ But you will search in vain for any Tea Party proposal that is anywhere close to as radical as the current drive by mainstream Democrats to rewrite the Bill of Rights.”

The editorial also notes that the real guarantee would be to provide another political advantage for incumbents. They are the ones who will benefit from limiting contributions that could be used to educate voters about how their elected officials voted on key pieces of legislation.

It is worth noting that the proposed amendment would not have any impact on the press. The real target would be corporations. The Wall Street Journal then asks another question, “But why should Warren Buffett’s company enjoy free speech rights because he owns a handful of newspapers along with insurance companies, while Jeffrey Immelt’s is muzzled because GE makes jet turbines?”

As I said, it is unlikely that the First Amendment will be revised any time soon. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers and approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. That won’t happen. But it does illustrate the lengths some members of Congress would go to change the Constitution if they could.

In February 2013, Dr. Ben Carson gave a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. It has changed his life. He had spoken before at the National Prayer Breakfast, when Bill Clinton was president. Although his speech then created a stir, nothing could prepare him for the response from the speech he gave with President Obama sitting a few feet from him.

His new book has the title, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America’s Future. He understands the challenges of our growing debt and deteriorating morals, but is still optimistic. The subtitle of his book reminds us that each of us have a stake in America’s future and can do something to makes things better.

Before he appeared on my radio program, I asked listeners to suggest questions they would like to ask Dr. Carson. I was struck by the significant number of questions asking if he believed revival and reformation was possible or whether America’s best days were behind them. He still believes there is hope for this nation as illustrated by the action steps at the end of each chapter.

I also commended him for starting every chapter with a relevant verse from Proverbs. Not many people today (either leaders or laypeople) start with Scripture in laying out the problem or the solutions for America. However, the founders of this country and the framers of the Constitution began many of their writings with an appeal to a biblical principle.

Dr. Carson believes we are suffering from elitism and political correctness. We seem to have lost the ability to discuss important issues calmly and respectfully. He provides a good role model for this. He laments the increasing amount of division and demagoguery in our political culture today. He also sets forth a vision for the future and reminds us as a people who we are. One of his best-known visions is for a wiser health care system.

Dr. Carson rightly believes that American may once again be “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Does a solar eclipse provide evidence of intelligent design? That is what first got astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez thinking as he watched a total eclipse in India in 1995. In order to have a solar eclipse, you need to have an object come in front of the sun. Essentially you could watch a partial solar eclipse on every planet in our solar system that has a moon. But Earth is the only planet where a total solar eclipse can be seen.

As I point out in my book, A Biblical Point of View on Intelligent Design, the unique experience of a solar eclipse on planet Earth appears to be more than just coincidence. There are a number of reasons why only the Earth can have a total solar eclipse. Our moon is 1/400th the size of the sun, and the sun is 400 times farther away from Earth than the moon. Therefore, when the moon comes between the sun and the Earth, a small area of the Earth experiences a total solar eclipse in which the sun is fully blocked out by the moon.

The scientific benefit of a total solar eclipse is significant. Because the moon blocks out the sun, scientists have the ability to see and measure the sun’s corona. Normally the sun is too bright for us to see the corona, but a total solar eclipse allows scientists to measure the light spectrum of the corona. Much of what we now know about stars comes from this measurement.

The fact that our Earth experiences a total eclipse of the sun makes our planet unique in the solar system, probably unique among many other solar systems. Add to this many other factors such as the fact that our moon is the right size, shape, and orbit for human life. The moon provides the gravitational balance between the Earth and it and provides us with our tides. You could accurately say that the moon makes life here on Earth possible.

Those are just a few reasons why many scientists see intelligent design in our moon and even in a solar eclipse.

The release of one American prisoner last week spawned a number of important questions that still need definite answers before other Americans are taken by the Taliban or al Qaeda. The policy equation has one positive and many negatives.

Certainly it is admirable that we were able to bring an American soldier home. President Obama said it was a reminder “of America’s unwavering commitment to leave no man or woman behind on the battlefield.” His return, though, raises lots of questions.

First is the question of whether such a prisoner exchange will endanger other Americans, both military and civilian. The stated policy of the United States has been that the government will not negotiate with terrorists and it will not negotiate over hostages. While there are probably exceptions and possible back channel deals that are struck, the stated policy is why American soldiers and civilians aren’t frequently targeted.

We probably won’t have to wait long to see if this prisoner exchange changed the mindset of terrorists around the world. If we see an increase in soldiers taken prisoner or an increase in American tourists taken as hostages, we will have our answer.

A second question that looms large is why five Taliban killers in Guantanamo for one American paratrooper? Is this the going rate for an American held hostage or an American soldier held prisoner? If this is the going rate, terrorists can start calculating now many hostages or prisoners so they must take in order to empty the cells of Gitmo.

Finally, let’s acknowledge who these Taliban killers are. They are the worst of the worst. The Joint Task Force in Guantanamo labeled them “high security risks” for good reason. They have not only killed (directly or indirectly) Americans, but some of them are war criminals that slaughtered Shiites throughout Afghanistan.

The decision last week was a dangerous precedent. I fear we will find out how dangerous very soon.

Our world is facing many problems. Since we do not have enough money or manpower to solve every problem, it makes sense to rank the cost-benefit of these problems so we can make the greatest positive impact. Many years ago Bjorn Lomborg brought together economists and leaders to calculate those costs.

He is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. In the second book, he argues that global warming may be a concern, but the programs put forth would be prohibitively expensive. Thus, they should not be implemented. This is quite a conclusion for someone who used to be a Greenpeace activist.

He pulled together what has been called the Copenhagen Consensus. The meeting included Nobel laureate economists who evaluated the costs and benefits of different solutions to world problems.

They have found that just $60 million spent on providing Vitamin A capsules and therapeutic Zinc supplements for under-2-year-olds would reach 80 percent of the infants in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The annual economic benefits (from lower mortality and improved health) would be $1 billion. That means doing $17 worth of good for every dollar spent.

They have found other ratios that were equally promising. For example, spending $1 billion on tuberculosis would prevent one million deaths. The annual benefit would be $30 billion. This is a $30 return on every dollar.

The economists and leaders at the Copenhagen Consensus have found many places where the cost/benefit ratio is excellent. They have also found that the proposed programs to deal with climate change have a terrible negative ratio. The last time they met, the economists and leaders placed these programs at the very bottom of their list.

The conclusion is simple: let’s put money and resources towards programs that save lives immediately and have an excellent return on the dollar.

Dr. Alveda King has been a defender of life for these many years. We learn more about why in her new book, King Rules. We find out that she is alive today because of her grandfather’s pro-life convictions. She is convinced that her uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would be a leading figure in the pro-life movement simply because he grew up in the King household.

When Alveda’s mother realized she was pregnant, she panicked and began to consider getting an abortion. She had a flyer from the Birth Control League (the precursor to Planned Parenthood). It advocated “procedures for mysterious female ailments,” which actually included visits to doctor’s offices for secret D&C surgeries. Alveda’s mother told her mother she wanted an abortion. Her mother was against it, so they decided to seek counsel from Daddy King.

As soon as she told him about her intentions, he turned to her and said, “Neenie, that not a lump of flesh in your belly. That’s my granddaughter.” This was before the time of ultrasound, but he knew with absolute conviction there was a girl in her womb.

Three years earlier, Daddy King had a dream that Alveda’s mother would give birth to “a little girl with light skin and bright red hair” and that “she would be a blessing to many.” In case you are wondering about the red hair, there is Irish blood on the King side of the family.

He was certain that the vision was about to come true. When Alveda was born, she looked exactly as he has dreamed.

Alveda’s name is a combination of his first name and a variation on the word, vita, which is the Latin word for life. He gave her the middle name Celeste after his grandmother, Jenny Celeste, and also because it suggested the word celestial, and he wanted “to get Alveda as close to heaven as I can.”

The story is just one of a number of reminders in the book of why we should be pro-life. Daddy King understood that life is sacred from the moment of conception. We should proclaim that truth to the world.

Over the last few years there have been a number of attacks on our nation’s national motto: In God We Trust. Recently I had Representative Randy Forbes on my program to talk about these attacks and the victories that often we haven’t heard about on most of the mainstream media.

A few years ago, a bureaucrat at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs attempted to ban the flag folding recitations at military funerals. This phrase was considered inappropriate and unconstitutional: “May God grant you grace, mercy and peace.” A funeral home was told by government officials that it could not inform the families that they have the option of requesting prayer in the military services performed by veterans’ honor details.

The U.S. Mint attempted to remove the inscription “In God We Trust” from the front of the new Presidential dollar. The traditional inscriptions of “E Pluribus Unum” and “In God We Trust” were moved to the edge of the coins.

The Architect of the Capitol refused a teenager’s request that a certificate noting his grandfather’s love of God, country and family” accompany a souvenir flag that had been flown over the building. This seventeen-year-old Eagle Scout was told that the word “God” could not be put on the certificate because it violated a policy banning religious and political expression on the certificates.

Fortunately, in each of these cases, the policies were changed. Representative Forbes even commented that it was good that people on the radio were hearing about these victories because they are rarely reported in the media. He went on to mention another victory.

Last month, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. There have been at least three failed attempts to challenge “under God” in the Pledge. There are sure to be additional challenges, but for now phrases like: “one nation under God” and “In God We Trust” appear secure.