Today is December 7 – a day that President Roosevelt said would be “a date which will live in infamy.” On that fateful morning of December 7, 1941, America was attacked without warning. More than 2,400 Americans died and 1,100 were wounded. Our country was changed forever.

This attack led us into war, and the citizens of America responded with courage and resolve. So it may be well to reflect on what took place and how we today must also rise to the occasion of an attack on America more than a decade ago.

Today is known as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. It is a day when we honor the lives lost in that attack on Pearl Harbor and also honor the veterans of World War II. But it can also be a day in which we also pay tribute to the men and woman who are currently serving in the armed forces in an effort to promote freedom and justice around the world.

If you travel to Hawaii, you need to stop at the memorial in Pearl Harbor. The USS Arizona stands a testimony to the 1,177 crew members who died as a result of the attack on December 7. I understand that more than 40 million visitors have visited that memorial and have therefore honored the heroic efforts of these sailors and marines. If you have been there, you know that it has become a sacred place as well as reminder of what can happen when others (either a nation or terrorists) attack this nation.

In 1941, the enemies of the U.S. were Japan and Germany. Today they are our friends. But we have new enemies. Terrorists who want to destroy us and to destroy our way of life. We are protected from their evil intentions by those who serve in uniform.

So today take a moment to reflect on your freedom that was bought with a price. And honor those who died for your freedoms and honor those who protect you today. December 7 is an important day, and I didn’t want it to pass without challenging you to consider its importance.

Over the years I have written about how people in high tax states have been migrating to low tax states. Unfortunately, many politicians in those states want to argue that tax rates don’t affect investment or even migration. The latest data from the IRS demonstrates once again tax migration.

Between 2012 and 2015, a net of $8.5 billion in adjusted gross income left New Jersey and $6.2 billion left Connecticut. Illinois, for example, lost $13.6 billion. However, during that same period, Florida (with no state income tax) gained $39.3 billion in adjusted gross income.

You can even see tax migration between high tax states. As an editorial in the Wall Street Journal puts it, “income flows down the tax gradient.” New York lost a net $850 million in adjusted gross income to New Jersey and Connecticut. At the same time New Jersey gave up $335 million to Pennsylvania.

It might be tempting for politicians wanting to raise taxes to write off this tax migration to merely another example of snowbird flight. After all, people have been moving from the northeast to Florida for decades. But the examples I just cited show this to be more than just migration to a warmer climate. It is a migration to low tax states.

The tax migration, especially of the affluent, has had a negative effect on state budgets. Revenues have fallen short in states like New Jersey, Illinois, and Connecticut. That has resulted in budget deficits that have forced legislatures to cut public services and funds to local government. The local governments have responded by raising property taxes thus increasing more tax migration.

All of these facts and figures are a reminder that people vote with their feet when you tax their pocketbooks.

Are single-parent families just as good for children as two-parent families? Some of the headlines recently in newspapers and newsmagazines seem to say so. But all you have to do it look back at academic studies to see that, in nearly every case, two parents are better than one.

One older family study deserves renewed attention. Dr. Patrick Fagan using data from the National Survey of Children’s Health found two important factors. Children who grow up in an intact family and attend religious services do better than children who do not.

There is a significant discrepancy between children who grew up in intact, two-parent families and those who came from broken homes. They also found a similar discrepancy between those who attend religious services weekly and those who worship less frequently. They found that children in the former groups were fives times less likely to repeat a grade, less likely to have behavior problems at home and school, and more likely to be cooperative and understanding of others’ feelings.

They also found that these differences held true even after controlling for family income and poverty as well as for the parent’s’ education level, race, and ethnicity. In essence, the study suggests that the best prescription for society is a stable family and family worship. In this environment, children thrive emotionally and achieve academically.

In a sense, this study is the flip side of studies that were published years ago about the impact of divorce on children. In my book, Christian Ethics in Plain Language, I document the three E’s of negative impact of divorce (emotional impact, educational impact, and economic impact). Whether you look at these positive studies or the earlier negative studies, you can see the importance of family and worship.

Numerous charges and revelations about sexual harassment are now bringing out people trying to affix blame. In the past, we blamed the perpetrator, unfortunately that has changed.

Charlie Rose exposed himself to women who worked for him. When he issued an apology, it ended up being more of a non-apology. The most important line was this: “All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have a profound new respect for women and their lives.” You have to roll your eyes at the phrase “all of us.” No, all of us weren’t engaging in the behavior that got you fired by CBS and PBS. Please don’t pin your behavior on the rest of us.

Another response has been virtue signaling. If you check social media you will find lots of men posting comments in order to repent on behalf of all men. Men, they say, are gross, lustful, and disgusting. But women, remember, we are on your side and abhor what our fellow males want to do to you.

The solution to the problem of sexual harassment is two-fold. First, we need to place blame where it belongs: on the perpetrators. Human sinfulness unleashed in a world without moral rules results in what we are reading about each day in newspapers and websites. That brings to the second solution: moral rules.

The leaders of the sexual revolution have thrown out nearly every moral rule for sexual behavior. Anything goes, as long as it is consensual. But what does that even mean when men and women willingly engage in all sorts of sexual behavior? Virtue, chivalry, and propriety were thrown out the window years ago. No wonder so many men believe they can do just about anything sexually and get away with it.

Before this year ends, it is worth mentioning the anniversary of a terrible Supreme Court decision that occurred 90 years ago. Eric Metaxas mentioned it in a recent Breakpoint commentary, and I wanted to add some important background to the infamous case known as Buck v. Bell. The high court upheld a Virginia law that allowed them to sterilize Carrie Buck because they felt she was “unfit” to reproduce.

To understand how we got to the court’s decision, you need to go back to Charles Darwin. Most people forget that the complete title of Darwin’s book on evolution was: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life. He believed there were favored races and less favored races. He expanded on this in his later book: The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.

This is the interesting irony. Darwin was a gentleman, a loving father, and a strong opponent of slavery. On the other hand, his writings unleashed a theory that justified racism and eugenics. It is easy to follow the path. Darwin’s half-cousin, Francis Galton formed the first “Eugenics Society.” Galton proposed the idea of instituting “breeding methods” for humans – much like those used for livestock and other animals. Darwin’s son, Leonard, succeeded Galton as head of Eugenics Society.

By the time you get to the 1927 Supreme Court decision, the ideas of eugenics and selective breeding had taken root. That is why in his majority opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that it is better if “society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” His most quotable phrase from the opinion was that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

This is one bad decision that traces its ideas back to one bad idea.