The term “incitement” is being thrown around in order to blame violent actions on something said by an elected official. For example, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Representative Maxine Waters for “inciting violence and assaults on the Trump Cabinet.” Lots of commentators have accused President Donald Trump of inciting violence with his harsh comments. In fact, three protesters who were roughed up at a Trump rally filed a federal suit two years ago against the president, accusing him of inciting violence.

Of course the Bible warns us to watch what we say. Proverbs 12:18 compares “rash words” to “sword thrusts.” Proverbs 15:1 warns that “a harsh word stirs up anger” and thus recommends a “soft answer” because it “turns away wrath.” The Apostle Paul encourages us to put away “bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander.” Our political class would be wise to dial back all of their harsh rhetoric.

But let’s ask an important question: Is harsh speech related to violent action? In our legal system, we have what can be called a “reasonable person standard.” Try these examples. If I hear the president say that CNN is the enemy of the people, does that mean a reasonable person would then go out and blow up CNN headquarters? I don’t see how that is an incitement to violence. You may even think it is crass and irresponsible, but it isn’t calling for an action.

However, if a member of Congress calls for people to “get out and create a crowd and push back” on “anybody from that cabinet,” that is more of a call to action. It may not be an attempt to incite violence, but it certainly qualifies as an encouragement for activists to harass cabinet members in public. Let’s pray that those interactions don’t lead to violence, but the call for action is certainly much closer to the line.

Before we head to Thanksgiving dinners, I wanted to talk about the mass shooting in California. Although the shooting and the public reactions were similar, the venue was different and worthy of a mention.

For months, pundits and candidates have talked about the need for “common sense gun control measures.” Whenever I use the term on radio, I inevitably get a caller asking me what these common sense measures might be. I explain that is mostly a term probably developed from focus groups and used so you don’t have to go into specifics.

But I think you could say that the state of California has implemented most (if not all) of the measures gun control advocates desire. Don’t take my word for it, just look at the number one rating the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives to California. It exceeds every other state in gun regulation.

Obviously, it requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer who must do a background check. It bans most so-called “assault weapons” as well as .50 caliber rifles. It restricts the sale, transfer, manufacture, and possession of large capacity ammunition magazines. It regulates gun shows. It imposes a ten-day waiting period. It gives local law enforcement discretion to deny a license to carry a concealed weapon. And it became the first jurisdiction in the nation to enact a Gun Violence Restraining order.

Actually, that’s a partial list, but you get the idea. If there was ever a state that has implemented what advocates have called “common sense” gun laws, it is the state of California. Thus, the obvious question we should ask of people advocating more restrictive gun control is: What additional laws could have prevented the shooting in the California bar? I can’t think of any. Sadly, it’s hard to prevent an evil or unbalanced person who wants to use a weapon to kill others.

Imagine a world in which everyone followed the ethic Jesus taught about sex, marriage, and relationships. Sean McDowell asked people to consider that when he was involved in a discussion about biblical sexuality. Here is what he said.

“There would be no sexually transmitted diseases. No abortions. No brokenness from divorce. Every child would have a mother and a father and experience the love and acceptance each parent uniquely offers. There would be no rape, no sex abuse, no sex trafficking, pornography, and no need for a #MeToo campaign. Think of the healing and wholeness if people simply lived Jesus’ life-giving words regarding human sexuality.”

In a recent column he went on to add so much more. Think about it. There would be no more sexually transmitted infections (like AIDS, herpes, or HPV). Of course, there would be no rape. There wouldn’t be any unwanted pregnancies.

The whole culture would be better. There would be no crude or degrading sexual humor. Critics wouldn’t be making fun of young people who decided to wait until marriage to have sexual relations.

Marriages would be better. There would probably be a significant drop in the divorce rate. You would have fewer deadbeat dads. You would probably have fewer men leaving their wives for young women.

Of course, you can make up your list of all the positive things that would happen if we followed the sex ethic of Jesus. God’s Word instructs us in behavior that will protect us from so many of the devastating sexual and social consequences of turning away from His instruction to us.

Let me suggest that you use this argument the next time you hear someone argue for sexual freedom or the next time you hear someone make fun of a young person who decided to remain a virgin until marriage. Sean McDowell has given us a powerful argument. I encourage you to use it.

Not so long ago, California was the golden state with a great future. Now, Thomas Del Beccaro says that the state government has made the state unsustainable. He is the author of the book, The Divided Era, and has served as the Chairman of the California Republican Party. Even if you don’t live in California, you can learn from some of the reasons he believes that state is at risk.

The first concern is California’s infrastructure deficit. The State Water Project was designed decades ago for a population not greater than 25 million. Today there are 40 million people within it borders. The roads in California are considered some of the poorest in the nation.

Government debt is a second concern. The published state and local government debt is $1.3 trillion. But many commentators believe that actual debt is closer to $2.3 trillion. Add to that an estimated $1 trillion more in pension liability, and you can see that the state of California has major debt liability problems.

A third issue is California’s taxes and regulations. It could easily be argued that the state is certainly the most regulated state in this country. It also has the highest income tax rates along with one of the highest sales tax rates.

This is one of the major reasons why so many people as well as businesses are leaving California. Residents fed up with high housing costs and taxes are fleeing the state. It has effectively hollowed out California’s middle class.

Finally, there is the issue of the California government itself. The state government spends more than $200 billion a year on budget and even more off budget in the form of programs paid with bonds.

The long-term trend for California is higher incomes taxes, higher sales taxes, and more regulations. That’s why California looks unsustainable.

Although America is certainly a divided nation, the divisions between the various tribes are not as great as you might be led to believe. Yes, the social and political debates are loud and intense, but the fringe, rather than the mainstream, gets most of the attention.

A study done by the group “More in Common” discovered “The Hidden Tribes of America.” The researchers discovered that a small group (8%) in the liberal wing and a smaller group (6%) in the conservative wing are the ones who consistently shout, post, and vote while the rest of America is often exhausted by all of the rhetoric.

Here is an interesting contrast. On the one hand, these two groups hate each other and disagree with each other on just about every topic. On the other hand, they are very much alike. Both groups are mostly white, educated, and politically active. They always vote and give time and money to political campaigns.

But here is the relevant fact: the two groups combined only constitute 14% of the American population. In other words, the 86% of most of us watch and listen to these two groups argue and criticize each other while ignoring the many points in common we might have.

This shouldn’t be a surprise to you if you have been listening to my commentaries for any length of time. In the past, I have talked about various points of agreement. For example, Dirk Philipsen made the argument many years ago that you could fill a room with Tea Party members, Occupy Wall Street activists, and concerned Americans and find agreement. He says you would find people concerned about concentrated power, out-of-control change, and concerns about a government that no longer represents the people.

After this divisive election season, we need to find a way to bring the American people together. But we won’t bring people together if we let the two fringe wings of the political spectrum dominate all our discussions.

The term anti-Semitism has been loosely thrown around for years, and used recently to label the president, even though he has Jewish people in his extended family. It is about time to give specificity to a real problem that has often been redefined and demeaned by misuse.

At the core of anti-Semitic thought is that Jews are the source of many social problems and thus the Jews are guilty of everything. This is what is so crazy about this false belief. Supposedly Jews are the reasons for problems in commerce and our culture. Arab countries have 40 times the population of Israel and occupy land area that is 500 times great. Yet, it is Israel that is the problem and must be pushed into the sea. And the United Nations routinely passes resolutions condemning Israel while ignoring significant human rights abuses in other countries.

The murderer who rushed into the Pittsburgh synagogue and killed 11 Jews certainly believed that Jews were the problem and needed to be killed. If you read some of his Gab posts, you would be horrified by his anti-Semitic words and images.

Dennis Prager reminds us that Jews understand this hatred. On Passover, they read from a Jewish prayer book these words: “In every generation, they arise to annihilate us.” Notice it doesn’t say “persecute us” or even “enslave us.” Anti-Semites wants to kill all Jews and eliminate them from this planet.

The level of this hatred isn’t just irrational; it’s demonic. That’s about the only explanation you can have for people possessed by a level of hatred that makes no sense. Jews number 18 million in a world population of 7.5 billion. Israel occupies a land mass no bigger than New Jersey. Yet, Jews are the problem, and Israel is the problem. This only makes sense when viewed through the lens of spiritual warfare.

Yesterday was Veteran’s Day, but we are celebrating it today. This day is even more significant because it is the 100th anniversary of Veteran’s Day.

Veteran’s Day began as Armistice Day. As “The Great War” (which we today call World War I) was winding down, there was a need to designate an official time for the end of hostilities. The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919. Fighting actually ended seven months earlier. The armistice ended on the eleventh hour of the eleventh month in 1918. The following year, President Woodrow Wilson designed November 11, 1919 as Armistice Day.

Unfortunately, World War I was not the war to end all wars. By 1954, Congress amended the previous legislation by striking out the word “Armistice” and inserting the word “Veterans.” This day is set aside to honor all American veterans of all wars.

We can learn something from how other countries honor this day. A number of years ago, I was in London’s Heathrow airport on Veterans’ Day. They announced over the loudspeakers that there would be silence at 11 AM. I was a bit skeptical about how obedient the passengers would be. I was surprised. When time came to stop and reflect, the airport was absolutely quiet for a minute or so. We can learn something from the British and their reverence for their war dead.

What can we do this day to honor those who have served us? You might want to visit a military cemetery and put flags on graves. Those of you who live near the nation’s capitol might visit one of the memorials for veterans. You might encourage your local school to participate in the “Take a Veteran to School Day.” Students need to see veterans and hear their stories of service.

Take an opportunity today to honor veterans, and thank anyone you know who has served this country.

Progressive partisans want to reform the US Senate because of its unequal representation. Frustrated after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as an Associate Justice, they point out that Democrat senators represent a much larger percentage of the American populace than Republican senators.

That is certainly true. The votes of two senators from California (with a population of 39 million) are equal to the votes of two senators from Wyoming (with a population around 590,000). But it is also worth mentioning the Democrats dominate in a number of small states (Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Hawaii).

Demographers even predict that two decades from now, half the population of the US will live in just eight states. That to me makes the case for the Senate. Otherwise we would have just a handful of states deciding everything for the rest of the nation.

As we know from our history, the bicameral Congress was a compromise that made it possible for both large states and small states to ratify the Constitution. If any other proposal were seen as too advantageous to big or small states, it would have failed. We are the beneficiaries of a compromise that forces diverse sectors of the country to work together to craft legislation fair to everyone.

I might also add that all of this talk of reforming the US Senate is just that: talk. First, you would need an amendment to the Constitution. That requires two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Second, even if you could get an amendment, it could be vetoed by one state. Article V of the Constitution also dictates that a state cannot be deprived of its equal suffrage “without its consent.” The small states would never agree to any amendment reducing their representation. Progressives can complain all they want about the US Senate, but nothing is going to change.