When the U.S. debt officially reached $20 trillion, some listeners asked who owns this debt. In the past, we were assured that the national debt wasn’t a big deal since “we owe it to ourselves.” I never thought that comment was very reassuring then. It is simply isn’t true now.

The U.S. borrows heavily from foreign countries, especially the Chinese. And this creates the first problem: foreign influence. One former member of Congress put it this way: “whoever pays the piper gets to call the tune. Foreign leaders aren’t inclined to whistle ‘Yankee Doodle!'”

Another problem is that these countries are not an infinite source of credit. They have their own economies to deal with and will probably want to put their investments closer to home especially as they look at the current congressional spending spree.

Are we approaching a time when America’s excessive borrowing makes us a bad credit risk? Sometimes the U.S. looks like some of its citizens who have maxed out their credit cards and have nowhere else to turn.

The amount some of these countries hold in American debt is staggering. The U.S. government owes China about $1.1 trillion. Saudi Arabia probably has about $700 billion in assets. A number of years ago they threatened to sell that much off when Barack Obama was president.

These countries that have been lending America money may not wish to invest any more in America and might even decide to withdraw their current investments. In previous commentaries I warned about the possibility that these foreign investors may simply decide to cash in their Treasury bills and invest them closer to home. If our creditors cut us off, our Treasury securities could reach junk bond status.

The lesson here is simple. Before you spend the money, you need to know where it will be coming from.

According to a new U.S. Census Bureau report, the millennial generation has been reversing some of the social trends that were true of previous generations. For example about one third of all millennials still live with their parents. They also apparently rely on them financially as well. The millennial generation is also postponing marriage, having children later, and buying homes later. Instead, they are pursuing education and various job opportunities.

Many of these reversed trends have taken place recently. In 2005, only 25 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 34 lived with their parents. Today, that number is 34 percent. To put this in perspective, more people in that age group live with their parents (22.9 million), than live with a spouse (19.9 million).

Education is one reason for this remarkable change. Young women are much more likely to attain a college degree than just a few decades ago. They are also much more likely to have a full-time job. By contrast, young men are slightly less likely to be employed than in the recent past.

Another study done by the firm, Age Wave, in partnership with Merrill Lynch uncovered how much parents were financially helping their adult children. When Mom and Dad give their adult children $100 here and $200 there, it adds up. The average amount given is $6,800 annually. Some financial counselors suggest that parents reconsider this and instead shore up their own retirement nest eggs.

Millennials are also marrying later in life. In 1976, 85 percent of women and 75 percent of men had been married by age 29. Today, only 46 percent of women and 32 percent of men say they were married before they turned 30. Instead, many more are living together. Cohabitation has grown 12-fold over the last 40 years.

These trends show how the millennial generation is changing the world around us.

So often we hear that the “vast majority of Muslims are peaceful.” While that it’s certainly true, the claims don’t go far enough. Many years ago, William Kirkpatrick wrote about “The Vast Majority Myth.” He countered this idea with three propositions.

The first proposition is that “the vast majority of people are peaceful, until they’re not.” It is easy to find examples of people who were peaceful for a long time and then quickly turned violent. The vast majority of Hutus were behaving peacefully before the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. By years end, the Hutu managed to kill about 800,000 Tutsi using clubs and machetes. The vast majority of Europeans were behaving peacefully prior to World War I. All of that changed in 1914 when the nations of the world went to war with each other.

The second proposition is the reality that the vast majority of people will go with the flow. The majority of the Hutu went with the flow. This proposition is especially true in Islam. Most Muslims (especially in this country) would just like to be left alone. They want to go about the business of earning an income and raising a family.

Kirkpatrick says that one of the built-in features of Islam is that you won’t be left alone. It forces you to be good. And the way to be good is to confirm to sharia law. This is especially true in a country that not only has sharia law but has also established a caliphate.

The third proposition is that a majority of people in any society are women and children. Although some Hutu women took part in the slaughter of Tutsi, it is true that the vast majority did not. That is little comfort to those who were slaughtered. Most jihadists and suicide bombers are men, but there are some women and children that participate. While it is true that the vast majority aren’t jihadists, that makes little difference in terms of the terrorist danger to me and you.

Will orthodox, Bible-believing Christians find it harder and harder to buy and sell in America? If you asked that question a few decades ago, people would think you lost all rationality. But that is a question Rod Dreher rightly asks in a recent editorial.

He points to the decision by Vanco Payment Solutions to cut off services to a Christian ministry because it is listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Map.” The Ruth Center is a Catholic nonprofit located in Louisiana flagged because the service company believed it promoted “hate, violence, harassment, and/or abuse.”

You can go to the ministry’s website and see that it does not even come close to promoting anything like that. People in the ministry believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality. And because they support traditional marriage and biblical sexuality, the SPLC tagged then as a hate group.

The Washington Free Beacon has been looking into the SPLC and found that it has become a fundraising powerhouse by expanding its list of domestic hate groups. It recorded more than $50 million in contributions and $328 million in net assets. The group also has “financial interests” in the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Island, and Bermuda.

An article in Politico says that you might imagine the SPLC as “a handful of scrappy lawyers in a dingy office suite somewhere. In fact, it boasts 250 staffers and offices in four states” and its main office “is the most architecturally striking structure in downtown Montgomery.”

At one time the SPLC provided a necessary function of identifying true hate groups. Today it slaps the label indiscriminately on ministries and organizations like the Ruth Center that do not deserve it. This, in turn, makes them a target and they lose vital services.

Psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter wrote an article many years ago with the simple title: “Following the Rules.” He has noticed among his clients and among Americans in general an unwillingness to follow basic rules in various arenas. As he points out, there are consequences for breaking the rules in those five areas.

“In the care of our bodies we have to obey the rules of physics, chemistry, and biology.” When we break these rules we get fat, we get sick, and we can even die. Moreover the epidemics of substance abuse and STDs also illustrate this principle of sowing and reaping.

“In marital and family relations we have to follow certain rules of fidelity, thoughtfulness, and responsibility.” When we don’t, divorce and broken families result. Children are raised without both parents and grow up with emotional deficits or scars.

“In economic transactions we have to obey the laws of supply, demand, price, and scarcity.” Failure to do so results in consumer debt and bankruptcy. At the national and international level rising debt and an economic crisis occur.

“In social behavior we have to follow rules of honesty, fairness, mutuality, and courtesy.” If we disobey those rules, we have social turmoil. The coarseness of society is seen in profanity, vulgarity, and violence.

“In political transactions we have to follow rules set out in our Constitution that protect individuals from harmful actions by governments.” Breaking those rules leads to political corruption and chaos.

If these are the rules, why do we fail to follow them? Rossiter believes it is because, “We are driven by sexual and aggressive impulses, by attachment and dependent impulses, by acquisitive and narcissistic impulses.”

These are the rules for success. Follow them, and you are likely to succeed. Break them, and you will probably fail.