Does the 14th amendment automatically grant citizenship to anyone born in this country? That is the current policy of this government, but a number of constitutional scholars disagree. I have written about this in the past and want to focus on it again. But I also have noted that a number of conservative lawyers who have been on my radio program accept the government’s policy. If you think the policy should be changed, I would recommend you start by convincing fellow conservatives and constitutionalists.

Michael Anton (Hillsdale College lecturer) writes in the Washington Post that citizenship should not be a birthright. He says, “The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers US citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.”

The purpose of the 14th amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship of freed slaves. Essentially, it was needed to overturn the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. “Second, the amendment specifies two criteria for American citizenship: birth or naturalization (lawful immigration) and being subject to US jurisdiction.”

It is that second point that has been used to justify birthright citizenship. Government officials argued that “subject to the jurisdiction” simply means they are “subject to American law.” Therefore, you can argue that a tourist is subject to the laws of America while in the country. That appears to be a misreading of the amendment.

Michael Anton says that the problem can be fixed if Congress would clarify legislatively that children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. Although that may be true, he needs to start by convincing his fellow conservatives that such a change needs to be made.

In a recent commentary, I mentioned that many radio listeners object to the fact that Social Security is considered an entitlement. After all, they argue, they paid into Social Security and Medicare. Now they are receiving a partial refund of money they paid into the system. While that is true for some people, it is not true for many others. Let’s look at the numbers.

A credible analysis was done a few years ago by the Urban Institute. Their researchers figured out what people turning 65 in various years have already “paid into” the system and then calculated what they can expect to “take out” after they reach age 65. Of course, the actual numbers will vary based upon family income, marital status, and longevity.

In most cases, retiring Americans will receive much more from Social Security and Medicare than they put into the system. Whenever I mention this on radio, callers are shocked to hear that and often don’t believe it. Here are some numbers from the Urban Institute.

A two-earner couple receiving an average wage would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare. They could be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. In other words, they would be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

A one-income earner couple earning an average wage will pay about $361,000 into Social Security and Medicare and receive about $854,000 in benefits. That is almost two and half times more in benefits than were paid in taxes.

The conclusion is clear. In most cases, Americans who retire will actually receive more from Social Security and Medicare combined than they put into the system.

Many people in our world accept certain lies uncritically. That is the argument in one of the chapters in the book Deceivers. Dr. Gary Frazier was on Point of View radio talk show recently to talk about his chapter dealing with “Laodicean Lies.”

The church in Laodicea is mentioned in the third chapter of the book of Revelation. It was a church that was lukewarm–neither hot nor cold. In many ways, this describes our 21st century world.

The first Laodicean Lie is the belief that “you don’t need God.” The message of Laodicea was that God was irrelevant. He explains that “it is deception to think that the Church can possibly operate in the flesh as opposed to the Spirit of God.”

The second Laodicean Lie is the promotion of “unconditional love and acceptance.” Certainly, we should love sinners, but we compromise the Bible and the gospel message when we promote tolerance of every sin and perverted lifestyle. He says that “a large number of people who claim to be Christian have fallen prey to the idea that love equates with acceptance of anything and everything.”

The third Laodicean Lie is “political correctness.” He quotes a syllogism by Dr. Al Mohler about how truth died: “When that which was once celebrated is condemned. When that which was once condemned is now celebrated. When those who refuse to celebrate are condemned.” Truth is condemned, lies are celebrated, and those who refuse are condemned.

Gary Frazier says that he does not care about being politically correct. Instead, he cares about truth. In a time when the values of our culture are inverted from biblical principles, we need to come back to Paul’s teaching in the book of Romans. He wrote, “Let God be true and every human being a liar” (Romans 3:4).

A recent post on redstate.com by someone with the identifier “surgeon67” caught my attention. It provides four important critiques of the current attempt to promote a single-payer, government-run health care plan using the title “Medicare for All.” The four points are: regulations, rationing, cost, and right to healthcare.

The discussion of regulations starts with this question: Have we ever seen a government program that didn’t come with a stack of regulations that would make War and Peace seem like a birthday card rhyme? Government money comes with strings. And there isn’t any evidence that all of those rules and regulations make the delivery of healthcare better.

Rationing is certainly to be a part of a government-run program since the primary task will be to reduce costs. But if someone else is paying for it, you will be less likely to cut costs. The only way that the government can keep costs down is to institute “guidelines” that explain who can qualify for those expensive medical tests.

What about cost? One study estimates that “Medicare for All” will cost an additional $32 trillion over ten years. Here is a simple request listed in the article: Tell me one government program that cost less than or equal to projections. No take your time, I’ll wait. It is possible that even that estimate is off by perhaps a factor of two.

The fourth point is the so-called “right to healthcare.” The surgeon says, “I have personally NEVER seen anyone denied care for anything life-threatening because they weren’t covered . . . . If someone has a ruptured spleen, we don’t wait until the visa card clears before we fix it, and we don’t call Blue Cross for a precertification.”

“Medicare for All” sounds nice until you begin to look into the details and what it will mean to you and your family.

A recent Gallup poll shows that a majority of Democrats (57%) view socialism favorably compared to a new low (47%) of Democrats who view capitalism favorably. To put this in perspective, just a few years ago, a majority (56%) of Democrats viewed capitalism favorably. Meanwhile, more than seven in ten (71%) of Republicans have had a favorable view of capitalism during that same time period.

The Gallup poll was quick to acknowledge that their poll does not define socialism or capitalism. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries and even in my latest book on Christians and Economics, this might explain some of the lower percentages. The term “capitalism” has often been degraded in the popular culture.

The Gallup poll also believes that it is “possible that the drop in Democrats’ positive views of capitalism is related to Donald Trump’s presidency.” After all, Trump has been described as a free market capitalist. If you dislike Trump, then it is likely you will also dislike capitalism.

One last reason for the change can be linked to the prominence of socialists within the Democrat party. Senator Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been traveling the country speaking to crowds and endorsing candidates. Some of the proposals by Sanders that used to be on the margin of the Democrat party are now becoming mainstream.

Democratic socialists like to point to Sweden and Denmark as socialist success stories. But these countries are not technically socialist. And as I have discussed in previous commentaries, the success of these countries depended on a capitalist foundation long before the significant expansion of social programs.

The Gallup poll announced that this was the first time Democrats viewed socialism more favorably than capitalism. This will affect how they vote in these mid-term elections.

Last week I talked about the difference between the terms “liberal” and “leftist.” I wanted to revisit that discussion because I have found that it helps explain what is happening in the political scene. The other day, I had someone say that she doesn’t even think there is a Democrat Party anymore.

I think what she meant was that it doesn’t look anything like the political party she remembers when growing up. Yes, there have always been liberals in the Democrat Party, but now the Left dominates the party leadership. The 2016 party platform is radically different than it was in 2000. By contrast, the Republican Party platforms of 2000 and 2016 are very similar.

Dennis Prager mentions other examples of the difference between a liberal and a leftist. Take the subject of capitalism. He says, “Liberals have always been pro-capitalism” though they often wanted government “to play a bigger role” in the economy. Leftists oppose capitalism and are eagerly promoting socialism.

Liberals have had a love of Western civilization and taught it at most universities. They were promoters of the liberal arts and fine arts. In fact, one of the most revered liberals in American history was President Franklin Roosevelt who talked about the need to protect Western Civilization and even Christian civilization.

Today Western Civilization classes are rarely if ever taught in the university. That’s because leftists don’t believe western civilization is superior to any other civilization. Leftists label people who attempt to defend western values as racist and accuse them of promoting white supremacy. And attempts to promote religious liberty are dismissed as thinly disguised attacks on the LGBT community.

Liberals and leftists are different. It is important to understand the difference if you are to understand what is happening in our world today.

Chelsea Clinton gives legal abortion credit for boosting the American economy.

Speaking at a Planned Parenthood-sponsored rally opposing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, she attempted to help her audience of abortion activists add financial persuasion to their arsenal of arguments for abortion rights.

Ms. Clinton stated, “American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?”

Actually-the 60-plus million abortions that have taken place since the Roe v. Wade decision have constituted a huge drag on our economy.

In 1998, the late Larry Burkett, a highly regarded financial expert, argued that “it is largely because of abortion-on-demand that by the year 2030 the ratio of workers to Social Security beneficiaries will be reduced to only 2-to-1…two workers will be supporting one retiree. (When the program began in the 1930’s, 42 workers supported each retiree.)”

Dennis Howard spent 30 years as a market researcher and consultant for major corporations. He is currently President of the pro-life group, Movement for a Better America. He has researched the economic impact of abortion since 1995 using data from Planned Parenthood’s own Alan Guttmacher Institute and US government figures stating Gross Domestic Product per capita. He argues that the loss of lives due to abortion provides a cumulative drag on GDP that “will keep growing no matter what.”

“Because of the echo effect,” he writes, “61.4 million missing births in one generation automatically means 61 million fewer births in the next.” Those are workers we need right now. And tax revenues.

If Chelsea Clinton’s utilitarian economic case for abortion were correct, she would be presenting a stark moral choice between money and human lives. The reality is abortion has not only eroded our workforce, it is shrinking the voter base — mostly in blue states. Arguing for abortion makes for bad economics and bad politics.

No doubt when you were growing up, some adult admonished you to “say what you mean, and mean what you say.” That advice should be spread far and wide today when politicians, commentators, and others use words and phrases without any precision.

When the New York Times hired Sarah Jeong, critics pointed to all of her tweets and verbal attacks on “white people” and law enforcement.  J.J. McCullough in a recent commentary reminds us that one of the defenses of her horrible statements was that all of this was just done “satirically and hyperbolically.”

Well, using extreme language and hyperbole might get you hired by the New York Times but it won’t work in the real world. While taking a tour of the White House, say that you wish you could kill the president. See how that works out for you. While you are in a police station, say that you wish all the cops would die. I doubt you would get a linguistic pass for that statement.

The term “fake news” used to be applied to websites (like The Onion) that used satire to make a political point. Today the term has been so overused that it is almost meaningless. For most people today, the term “fake news” is used to describe a story or news organization they dislike.

And while we are talking about hyperbole and “fake news,” we need to mention the president’s tweets. Some of his defenders try to defend his indefensible comments by saying that we shouldn’t always take what he writes literally. No, we should always take the words and actions of a president seriously.

We have also heard the term “deep state” used indiscriminately. It used to mean a nefarious group of insiders in a foreign government. Today, it is often used to describe some federal bureaucrat you don’t like and don’t trust.

These are just a few examples of why our elders told us to “say what you mean, and mean what you say.”

Earlier this month the tech giants (Facebook, Apple, and YouTube) announced that they would ban the content of Alex Jones. At the same time, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey explained that Alex Jones had not violated Twitter’s rule and the tech platform would act “impartially regardless of political viewpoints.”

When I heard that he made that statement, I said on radio that he was about to face a huge backlash. I was right. Although he faced criticism from the outside, the most potent came from his fellow employees. A Twitter vice-president sent out an email promising to take appropriate steps to help customers feel safe concerning potential hate speech, and Alex Jones was eventually banned.

David French, in a recent commentary, reminds us that the internal mob in these tech companies is what makes a difference. There may be online outrage and a huge backlash from progressives. But the swift judgment is most effective when there are internal forces in the tech companies.

He reminds us of the decision by Google to fire James Damore. Executives did so in part because employees reacted to his memo and demanded an inclusive environment. Kevin Williamson didn’t last long at the Atlantic because of fears that he would negatively affect workplace relationships.

All of this is important to remember when the tech giants promise to be more open-minded and to defend free speech. They have essentially formed a digital cartel that is rigorously ruled by a progressive corporate culture. Students who graduate from universities that ban conservative speakers and promote identity politics populate these tech companies. They punish their own if they stray from the progressive catechism, so it is highly unlikely they will ever promote true free speech on their platform.