Alex Berenson is a journalist who tended to be a libertarian when it came to drugs. But a conversation with his wife changed his perspective. She worked as a senior psychiatrist at the institution housing people diagnosed with psychotic disorders, like schizophrenia. She mentioned in passing that “of course” a patient had been smoking pot all his life. He asked why she said “of course” only to find out that all of them smoke marijuana and that he should check it out. He did.

The medical literature is replete with links between marijuana, mental illness, and even violence. But you may never have heard that. Berenson says he has “never seen a story where the gap between insider and outsider knowledge was so great, or the stakes so high.” At a time when more states are legalizing marijuana use, medical professionals are finding greater dangers with increased marijuana use.

In his article and radio interview, he cited medical literature that challenges many of the myths perpetuated by advocates of medical marijuana and marijuana legalization. We are told that marijuana has many different medical uses. Actually, it has been shown to work in a few narrow conditions. We are told that it is very effective for pain relief. Actually, that does not appear to be the case. There is one four-year study of patients with chronic pain that showed cannabis use was associated with greater pain over time.

As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, the National Academy of Medicine found that “cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.” Berenson then explains how this can lead to more violence. Most schizophrenics are not violent, but the latest medical literature has found that a percent of them are more violent. These are scientific facts that deserve our attention, especially as other states consider drug legalization.

You have heard most of them before. They are little phrases and one-liners that Christians (and even non-Christians) say in order to encourage you. You might be going through some tough struggles, and they remind you, “God won’t give you more than you can handle.” At a funeral for a child, someone will likely explain, “God gained another angel.” And of course, there are the millions of people who believe that “God just wants you to be happy” and that you need to “Believe in yourself.”

Fortunately, Shane Pruitt has been willing to tackle these and other false one-liners in his new book, “9 Common Lies Christians Believe.” He was on the Point of View radio talk show recently to discuss his book.

Shane wrote about these common lies because of his own experience. When his wife and he adopted a disabled child from Uganda, they faced numerous surgeries for him and major emotional challenges. That is why his first chapter addresses the lie that “God won’t give me more than I can handle.” He takes on that misunderstanding both with personal examples and sound biblical interpretation.

Some of the lies we believe have been challenged in society. Common lie #5 says you must “follow your heart.” Mike Rowe is known for his work on such TV programs as “Dirty Jobs” and “Returning the Favor.” No doubt you have also seen his YouTube videos or Ted Talks about how we are doing a disservice to so many young people by telling them merely to “follow their heart.”

Shane also addresses some important theological errors. Common lie #6 is “God doesn’t really care” and common lie #8 is “I don’t think God likes me.” He hears these comments not only in this country, but even when he has travelled to Africa.

I recommend this book for a sermon series, for small groups, and for individual study. We need to reject these lies and embrace God’s truth on these issues.

Senator Ben Sasse is puzzled. He can’t understand why his colleagues in the US Senate don’t support his legislative attempt to prevent infanticide from becoming medical practice in this country. He says, “Infanticide shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Every single public servant should be able to say it’s wrong to leave newborn babies to die.”

One of the best reasons for this bill came from comments by the governor of Virginia. Ralph Northam explained that an “infant would be delivered and resuscitated, if that’s what the mother and family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” Senator Sasse admits the governor’s “frankness is rare. No euphemisms. No weasel words.”

After the national rejection of the governor’s words, you would think that the US Senate would quickly pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. That did not happen. The bill would require that doctors provide the same level of care to the child born from a botched abortion that they would offer to any other baby at the same state of development.

During the 1990s, we heard from many Democrat leaders that they wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. When candidate Bill Clinton and later President Bill Clinton would say that phrase, he would even emphasize the word “rare.” That is not the Democrat party of today. The state of New York passed legislation that would essentially allow abortion up to birth. Other states like Vermont and Rhode Island are also considering similar legislation. It appears that Democratic leaders are trying to double-down on the issue of abortion, perhaps because they fear the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade.

Senator Sasse concludes that it “should not be difficult for the members of the US Congress to affirm that a child, outside the womb, deserves the protections of our law.” Apparently for some members of Congress, that is asking too much.

Over the last few weeks, we learned why we must exercise discernment when viewing media coverage of hate crimes. Even though so many have turned out to be fake hate crimes, the pressure on media outlets to get your attention prevents them from exercising any discernment. That is why you need to exercise discernment.

There were good reasons the media should have exercised some caution. Why would a black man in a fairly liberal city like Chicago be attacked in the middle of the night because of his race or sexual orientation? How would his attackers even know who he was since he was probably bundled up because of sub-zero temperatures? You can look through the transcripts of broadcasts and read stories in newspapers and Internet sites and never see even the slightest hesitation or disclaimer.

Over the last few years of writing commentaries, I have documented lots of fake hate crime stories. Here are just a few. There was the story about a homophobic message printed on a cake from Whole Foods in Austin, Texas. It was actually written by a customer associated with the LGBT community. Three black coeds at the University of Albany said they were attacked on a city bus by white men using racial slurs. Hundreds came to a rally on campus to protest racism. But if you watch the surveillance videos, you see them actually attack a white woman on the bus. And there are many examples of Muslim women falsely claiming they were attacked and had there head coverings pulled off. Also, there is the student at Beloit College who reported anti-Muslim graffiti on his door. The police investigated and found he perpetrated the fraud himself.

These are merely a small sample of people who used fake hate crimes to call attention to themselves or their cause. This should be a reminder to be patient and wait for all the facts to come out.

For decades most people knew Bono as a musician with the group U2 and a social activist. But today many of his fans would be surprised to hear him promote some of the benefits of capitalism.

At a World Economic Forum he made this observation. “Capitalism is not immoral—it’s amoral. It requires our instruction. Capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other ism.’ But it is a wild beast and, if not tamed, it can chew up a lot of people along the way.” As you can see he isn’t a complete supporter of the free market, but is willing to give some appreciation for what capitalism has done reduce extreme poverty.

Hugh Whelchel, Executive Director of the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics, begins his essay with this quote from Bono. He then goes on to document something I have talked about with a number of economists and theologians on the Point of View radio talk show. Capitalism has been able to raise more than one billion people around the world out of extreme poverty.

On one of my radio programs I quoted a Barna survey of Americans. Three fourths of those surveyed believed that world poverty had increased. Only 7 percent thought it decreased. Scott Todd in his book, Hope Rising, reminds us that in 1981, a majority (52%) of the developing world’s population lived in extreme poverty. That percentage has been cut by more than half.

Hugh Whelchel reminds us that a recent Gallup poll shows that a majority (51%) of young people favors socialism over capitalism. The increased visibilities of members of Congress who openly describe themselves as socialist suggest that the percentage of young people embracing socialism might increase.

These young people need to pay attention to Bono and the world economic statistics that demonstrate the power of a free market to relieve poverty.

Here’s a question for you. What country is leading the world in reducing CO2 emissions? Germany? France? Japan? No, the country reducing greenhouse gas emissions more than any other country is . . . the United States of America.

Your ability or inability to provide the right answer to that question probably says quite a bit about the news sources you consume. Much of the mainstream media made a big deal out of the fact that the US withdrew from the Paris Accords. And they continuously reminded us that the US never signed the Kyoto Protocol. What they rarely (if ever) told us that the US was reducing CO2 emissions.

Here’s another question for you. What country leads the world in total CO2 emissions? If you guessed the United States, once again you would be wrong. China is the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, and India is the third largest emitter.

I bring this up because it also shows the problem of trying to curb the United States when we don’t have the ability to curb other nations. For every ton of reduced CO2 emissions in the US, China and India produce nearly 10 more tons. In other words, they cancel out any reduction by the US by ten times.

The solution being proposed in the Green New Deal would be to force the US to reduce CO2 emissions to the point that the country might be carbon neutral. That is not possible. But even if it was possible, the climate sensitivity models predict it would only affect the world temperature by about 0.137 degree Celsius by 2100. Even if all the countries adopted a similar policy, it would only cool the earth by about 0.278 degree Celsius by the end of this century.

I believe some of these important political and scientific facts deserve to be publicized while we are currently debating domestic environmental policies.

The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal asked a good question the other day. They wondered, “Who’s Afraid of Socialism?” Their argument was that the new progressive agenda looks like government control over the means of production. Isn’t that the textbook definition of socialism?

The president has been criticized for saying there are “new calls to adopt socialism in this country.” Democrats in Congress and pundits in the media have protested that the socialist label doesn’t apply to them. So the editors decided to take a look at a few of the items on the agenda.

Medicare for All is one example. Senator Bernie Sanders and 16 other senators proposed a program that would replace all private health insurance with a federally administered single-payer health-care program. The government would decide what care you would receive, what to pay doctors and hospital, and even which drugs would be on the formulary. That sounds like socialized medicine.

The Green New Deal is also on the progressive agenda. Nearly four-dozen House Democrats and several Democratic presidential candidates have endorsed the plan. As I have written about in previous commentaries, it requires the country to be carbon neutral within ten years. This will not happen, but even the attempt would require a massive government intrusion into all of our lives. That really looks like socialism.

To pay for these and other progressive agenda items, proponents call for a level of taxation never seen before. Democratic candidates are talking about everything from a new 70% tax rate on higher incomes to a “wealth tax” on assets in this country as well as assets held abroad. This confiscatory tax scheme also looks like socialism.

We all know the phrase: “if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck.” Politicians and the media can protest that the socialist label doesn’t apply. Most of us know that it does.

There is a new term in our political lexicon: ballot harvesting. It is political jargon for allowing volunteers to collect absentee ballots from voters and then drop them off at an election office or polling place. The term was coined by Republicans in California as a way to suggest that this could lead to election fraud.

Ballot harvesting is legal in states like California. Proponents argue that it will make it easier and more convenient for people to vote. But stop and think about this for a moment. We are allowing a person you don’t know to come to your house to collect your ballot. You may not have filled it out until the person arrives, so he or she can even help you fill out the ballot and then take it to the election office or polling place. What could possibly go wrong with this?

Here’s another way to look at it. We are told in many TV and radio ads not to trust strangers who come to your door and try to sell you something. They may try to convince you to put on a new roof or invest in a financial scheme. We even have warnings from government officials to be careful when someone you don’t know comes to your door. But if someone you don’t know comes to collect your absentee ballot, well, that’s perfectly fine.

In California, ballot harvesting is legal. But Republicans in that state say something doesn’t seem right when 250,000 harvested ballots turned up on election day in Orange County and allowed a number of Democrat candidates to be elected in that county. Democrats and Republicans point to electoral questions arising out of North Carolina, where ballot harvesting is illegal.

This is one more example of changes in the voting laws that have been proposed to make voting easier. But the possibility of mischief is too great and a good reason to prevent other states from making ballot harvesting legal.

The political drama in Virginia might just be a preview of a wild, contentious Democratic primary. In fact, Rich Lowry believes we might be seeing the beginning of the first “woke” primary.

To be “woke” is to be alert and sensitive to any injustice, whether real or perceived. A governor had an image of someone in “blackface” in his medical-school yearbook. That apparently was enough to call for his resignation.

Democrats in Virginia faced a growing problem. The publication of an image in “blackface” in the governor’s yearbook was followed by the admission from the attorney general that he had used “blackface” as well. All the while, accusations were swirling around the lieutenant governor who was accused of sexual assault. We have been told to “believe all women.” If so, then he would have to go as well.

The controversy in Virginia is merely a preview of a “woke” primary where any mistake or misjudgment, even in the distant past, can be disqualifying. Any misstep will be viewed through the most hostile lens from a radicalized base of Democratic voters. Rich Lowry concludes: “The Democrat nomination battle might as well be fought on the campus of Oberlin College and officiated by the director of the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.”

White male candidates don’t stand a chance. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been criticized for pretending to be a Native American and forced to apologize. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was confronted on television because a number of years ago she used the term “illegal alien.” She said she was embarrassed and forced to apologize for a term that was in common usage at the time. Even Senator Kamala Harris has been criticized because she was once a prosecutor.

This may become the most controversial primary season we have ever seen in America.