Andrew McCarthy is asking a good question. “Let’s say you are an authentically moderate Muslim.” You might have been born in a Muslim country or even converted to Islam. You might even be a devout Muslim who rejects the idea of jihad.

So then he asks this question. “Is there any insulting thing I could say, no matter how provocative, or any demeaning video I could show you, no matter how lurid, that would convince you to join ISIS?”

He even goes in to clarify that he is not asking if you would be offended by his statement or by a video. But he wonders if anything said by a presidential candidate, political commentator, or video would turn you into an Islamic jihadist. The answer, of course, is no. You may not like what someone said or what you saw on a video, but that would not turn you into a terrorist.

He brings this up for some very good reasons. First, you have the Democratic presidential debates where candidates like Hillary Clinton claim that rhetoric of Republicans (especially Donald Trump) is turning people to ISIS. In other words, we wouldn’t have so many radical Muslims if certain candidates did not say things to incite them.

Second, you have the president arguing that the presence of Guantanamo Bay serves as a recruitment tool for jihadists. That is the major reason why he has pledged to shut it down.

Third, you even have comments in the Republican presidential debates that suggest that these horrible dictators in the Middle East are why we have a problem with terrorism today.

The question that Andrew McCarthy asked is essentially the same one he asked a jury to consider when he prosecuted the jihadists responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center. The jihadists on trial tried to argue that it was U.S. foreign policy and anti-Muslim bias that caused them to attack America. The jury didn’t buy it then. We shouldn’t buy it now.

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal wondered out loud why the low prices at the gas pump weren’t translating into economic growth. This should make economists scratch their heads. After all, people are filling their gas tanks these days and only paying about $2 a gallon when it was often over $3.50 just a little over a year ago. Most people should be saving at least an extra $100 a month.

Economists predicted that savings would act like a giant tax cut and push up sluggish economic growth. Instead, says the article “the economy remains mired in the slow-growth trajectory that has marked the economic expansion over the past 6-1/2 years.” That last statement caught the attention of Robert Knight.

He reminds us what happened six and a half years ago. Democrats pushed through Obamacare along with the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Once Obamacare was implemented, many people saw their health care policies vanish only to be replaced with more expensive ones with less coverage. The Dodd-Frank bill seems to be one reason small banks are going out of business.

Consumer confidence is down, and the citizen’s confidence in Washington, D.C. is at an all-time low. That might be due to a Supreme Court that found a way to make the unconstitutional provisions of Obamacare constitutional while redefining marriage by making same-sex marriage constitutional. And any hope that Congress would do the right thing was dashed when leaders of both parties were able to pass a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that funds everything from sanctuary cities to Planned Parenthood.

The only way any of this will turn around is for us to elect the right leaders in this coming election. Otherwise, we can expect more of the same.

Franklin Graham made quite an announcement the other day. First he explained his exasperation with the Republican Party when members of Congress passed the $1.1 trillion, pork-laden omnibus bill that failed to defund Planned Parenthood.

He said: “Shame on [Congress] for passing such a wasteful spending bill last week. And to top it off, funding Planned Parenthood! A Huffington Post article called it ‘a big win for Planned Parenthood.’ I call it a big loss for America. After all of the appalling facts revealed this year about Planned Parenthood, our representatives in Washington had a chance to put a stop to this, but they didn’t. There’s no question—taxpayers should not be paying for abortions! Abortion is murder in God’s eyes.”

To top it off, Franklin Graham said he is leaving the Republican party. He has now declared himself an independent. But there is more. He didn’t stop there. If he had, you might think he was calling for Christians to stop getting involved in politics. Actually, he said just the opposite.

He added: “Unless more godly men and women get in this process and change this wicked system, our country is in for trouble. I want to challenge Christians, even pastors, across the country to pray about running for office where they can have an impact. We need mayors, country commissioners, city council members, school board members who will uphold biblical values.”

This is a message many others are repeating. In the last few weeks, I have had guests in studio organizing prayer and political activity. Pastor Lewis Hogan has organized UnitedCry DC16 in which 30,000 pastors from around the country will gather in front the Lincoln Memorial on April 9, 2016 to pray. Ron Kelley shared how churches can start a Cultural Impact Team in their church to educate and mobilize members of the congregation.

I’m encouraged that Christians understand how important the next elections are and are mobilizing prayer and political activity to make a difference.

Professor Mike Van Biezen begins his article on global warming with these three words: “It made sense.” He is talking about the original charts most of us saw years ago. The amount of CO2 was increasing and so was global temperature.

When I was in graduate school, I looked at those graphs and made the natural assumption that CO2 was causing the earth’s temperature to rise. The correlation seemed too obvious to ignore. Only years later did it occur to me that it might have been the other way around. In other words, as the Earth’s temperature increases, CO2 increases because the ocean waters release more CO2.

Professor Van Biezen began to rethink his assumptions when he noted that from 1940 to 1980, temperatures actually declined a bit while CO2 concentrations were dramatically increasing. It is true that the global average temperature has increased slightly since the 1980s, but not to the degree one would expect if CO2 from human activity were the primary cause.

He and other scientists have pulled together many scientific facts that question that assumption that CO2 and human activity are causing global warming. Temperature records from around the world and from satellite data do not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.

They also point to many periods prior to our recent history when we had warmer climates that could not have been caused by human activity since they preceded the industrial revolution. The Medieval warming period and the climate during Roman times are just a few examples. Parts of the Netherlands disappeared under water during such warming periods only to appear later when the climate turned colder. A city in Belgium that used to be a seaport is now ten miles away from the coastline.

All of this points to the fact that climate has indeed been changing, and human activity may not be as responsible as some environmentalists would have you believe.

Let me begin by wishing you a Happy New Year. At the start of this New Year, I wanted to pass on some advice. In previous commentaries, I have talked about the value of using this time of year to change something in your life. There is nothing magical about using January 1 as a start date, but why not use it to improve yourself?

First, I would recommend you pick just one thing to change. If you try to change too many things at once, you are probably not going to succeed. And I would also recommend that you make it a specific, concrete goal that you write down. The more specific you are, the greater likelihood you will be successful.

Second, aim low. In previous New Year’s commentaries I have quoted from Tristan Taylor who encourages people to “strive for mediocrity.” Don’t pick something that it too big to achieve. Start small. After all, you are where you are right now due to dozens of small changes or compromises you made in the past.

I realize the motivational speakers challenge us to strive for excellence. We should pick a goal that challenges us. But also pick a reasonable goal so you can see and enjoy some level of success. Short-term success can lead to greater success.

Third, expect difficulties. It seems like the moment you start a diet, people around you start inviting you to banquets and all-you-can-eat buffets. The day after you join a fitness club, your life gets busy and you cannot find time to get to the gym. The moment you decide to do a daily quiet time, your boss asks you to come in earlier for work.

Fourth, accept failure. You might find that for every two steps forward you take one step back. Sometimes you even take two steps back. This is where dedication and perseverance come into play.

Finally, plan a reward. This gives you a goal to achieve and a reward for your dedication. This is the first day of the year, so go for it.