We all have too much stuff. I can relate to this since I just moved and had to box everything up and move to a new house. Each year we give away lots things, but I am still amazed at how many boxes I had to move.

That may be why the article by Joshua Becker caught my eye. He lists the “21 Surprising Statistics That Reveal How Much Stuff We Actually Own.” Here are just a few of the eye-opening statistics he collected from various news articles and surveys.

According to a Los Angeles Times article, the average American home has 300,000 items. In order to store all of this, the average size of the American home has nearly tripled in size over the past 50 years. And much of their stuff flows into their garages. About 25 percent of people with two-car garages don’t have room to park their cars inside them.

But homes and garages are still are not enough room for our stuff. Apparently, at least 1 out of 10 Americans also rent offsite storage. According to an article in the New York Times Magazine, this is the fastest growing segment of the commercial real estate industry over the past four decades.

Those of you with children or grandchildren know how much stuff they accumulate at a young age. British research found that the average 10-year-old owns 238 toys but plays with just 12 daily. A study at UCLA concluded that the 3.1 percent of the world’s children who live in America own 40 percent of the toys consumed globally.

He also quotes from some of the statistics listed in the book, Afluenza, which I quote from in my recent book on economics and materialism. Americans spend more on shoes, jewelry, and watches than on higher education. Shopping malls outnumber high schools.

These numbers should cause all of us to reevaluate our priorities. Joshua Becker says that it paints a “picture of excessive consumption and unnecessary accumulation.” I agree. It’s time to clear out the clutter.

When you see a particular poll mentioned in the media, it is always good to take that poll with a grain of salt. All sorts of bias can result from the way the question was asked to the way in which the poll was conducted.

A new study provides another reason to question some of the percentages that are collected in nationwide polls. It also helps explain why many polls do not match the final results in various elections. Pew Research documents the variation in responses in polls in their study, “From Telephone to the Web: The Challenge of Mode of Interview Effects in Public Opinion Polls.”

They have a chart showing the wide variation between asking a question online compared to asking the question on the telephone. This applies not only to social issues but also to the perception voters have of various candidates. Essentially what they found was that Americans adapt their answer based on the mode of questioning. And the most significant swings had to do with homosexual rights issues.

They found telephone respondents were more likely than online respondents “to say that gays and lesbians, Hispanics and blacks face a lot of discrimination.” They also found that people answering online were more like to voice a negative opinion of a political candidate.

The responses make sense in light of what experts refer to as a “social desirability bias.” In other words, respondents often give pollsters the answer they think they want to hear. They are less likely to say they support traditional marriage or a marriage amendment to their state constitution. They also less likely to say something negative about a candidate, but feel much freer to express such an opinion online.

This explains why the marriage protection amendments have done better than many pollsters predicted. It also explains why certain elections that pundits predicted would be close elections aren’t close at all.

The next time to hear or read about a poll, take into consideration the possible polling bias that might be inherent in the poll. Phone polls often have such a bias. We really can see what people believe when they have a chance to express their opinions online or at the ballot box.

Constitutional attorney John Whitehead expressed his concern about government intervention and the militarization of the police in his previous book, A Government of Wolves. He continues his investigation and expands his focus in his new book, Battlefield America.

In some ways, he believes we have come full circle. In the 18th century, the colonists were held captive by the British. Now in the 21st century, we are being held captive to the American police state. It is time, past time he says, for American citizens to call a stop to the encroachment on our liberties.

We have a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that prohibits unlawful searches and seizures. Unfortunately, he shared on my radio program that many in law enforcement do not even know what the Fourth Amendment says. He sometimes asks them when they say they are enforcing the law, what law do they think they are enforcing.

He says “the Constitution’s safeguards against police abuse means nothing when government agents can crash through your door, terrorize your children, shoot your dogs, and jail you on any number of trumped up charges, and you have little say in the matter.”

If you question his description of America as a battlefield, consider his conclusion. “If it looks like a battlefield (armored tanks on the street, militarized police in metro stations, surveillance cameras everywhere), sounds like a battlefield (SWAT team raids nightly, sound cannons to break up large assemblies of citizens), and acts like a battlefield (police shooting first and asking questions later, intimidation tactics, and involuntary detentions), it’s a battlefield.”

He believes that “We the people” have been hijacked on the highway by government agents with little or no regard for the Constitution. He believes we can turn this runaway vehicle around but we need to understand the threat and be willing to stand up to it. It’s time to get started.

The church in general, and evangelical Christians in particular, has been helping people in poverty. But you wouldn’t know that if you attended a roundtable discussion of poverty at Georgetown University. President Obama made lots of critical comments, but I wanted to focus on just one of his statements.

The president was critical of churches focusing so much time on social issues and so little time on poverty. He wanted “faith-based organizations to speak out on” the issue of poverty and stop being obsessed with what he called “reproductive issues” or same-sex marriage.

Evangelical Christians do have concerns about abortion and same-sex marriage, but that hasn’t kept them from also doing a great deal to help the poor. In fact, Christians are the most generous with their time, treasure, and talents. Also, conservative people are more generous than liberal people. In previous commentaries, I have quoted from the extensive research done by Arthur Brooks in his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.

What about the institutional church? In term of disaster relief, the Southern Baptist Convention spent more than $6 million. It was the third largest provider behind the Red Cross and Salvation Army. And that is just one Protestant denomination.

An op-ed in the Washington Post by Rob Schwarzwalder and Pat Fagan concluded that: “the evangelical relief group World Vision spent roughly $2.8 billion annually to care for the poor.” They added: “That would rank World Vision about 12th within the G-20 nations in terms of overseas development assistance.” And I might mention that World Vision is just one evangelical ministry. “Groups such as Samaritan’s Purse, Food for the Hungry, World Relief and many others provide hundreds of millions of dollars in anti-poverty programs at home and abroad.”

The church has been one of the most effective social outreach programs in history, even if the president doesn’t think so.

Today is Memorial Day. For many Americans, it is merely a day off. For others it marks the start of summer. But hopefully for many of you, it is a day to honor those who fought for our freedom and especially for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Sure we can enjoy our picnics and go for a walk or go for a swim. But we should take some time to put up a flag, make a banner, and perhaps participate in a parade honoring our military.

Certainly those in the military feel more loved than the vets who returned from the Vietnam War. But it wouldn’t hurt to thank those who have served our country and to make them feel appreciated. We will never be able to repay them enough for their service.

What else can we do? If you visit a few websites, you will find all sorts of suggestions. Here are a few to consider. Participate in a “National Moment of Remembrance” at 3 PM today. Pause, listen to taps, and reflect. I was in London’s Heathrow airport on Veterans’ Day. When time came to stop and reflect, the airport was absolutely quiet for a minute or so. I was impressed. We can learn something from the British and their reverence for their war dead.

You might encourage your friends, neighbors and family to visit cemeteries and perhaps even place flags on the graves. I have been to military cemeteries in Hawaii and the Philippines and have seen what is done there. We need to do the same back home.

Those of you who live near the nation’s capitol might visit one of the memorials for the Vietnam Veterans, the World War II veterans, or the Korean War Veterans.

I will let you consider what you might do to make this day special. The point is to make this day special. Too often we come to think about it as nothing more than a Monday holiday or the kick off for summer. It should mean so much more for us.

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.

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 inch 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 live in Wyoming or Montana, I doubt you would feel that the 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.