Earlier this month, one of the largest youth-led demonstrations took place around the globe. Those young people in New York then convened a Youth Climate Summit on the weekend preceding the Climate Week that followed at the United Nations.

If you were paying attention, you likely heard what sounded like two different messages. But actually, each one was tailored for the appropriate audience. We used to hear that we only have a few years or a decade before doom and gloom. Now we are hearing many environmentalists talking about what will happen in 50 years or 100 years.

The problem with doom and gloom predictions is they can be tested. A few months ago I wrote a commentary that listed many of the failed predictions by Paul Ehrlich, George Wald and others. The problem with making a prediction that millions will starve to death by 1980 is you discover that millions didn’t starve to death. The Competitive Enterprise Institute recently posted dozens and dozens of failed environmental predictions that never occurred. That’s why you are hearing leaders now talking about what will happen 50 to 100 years from now. You can’t disprove that.

Why are we simultaneously hearing young people in the streets (and even in Congress) claiming that we only have 10-12 years left? That is simple. They don’t have any history of failed environmental predictions. And, it is worth adding that they don’t really know much about history. They are less likely to be as skeptical as the adults.

Some of us remember when we were told the greatest threat was global cooling because we were putting particulates in the atmosphere. Then we heard that the threat was global warming because we were putting CO2 in the atmosphere. The current threat has morphed into climate change and now a climate crisis. The policy recommendations for each are the same, even though the strategy and time line have changed.

Both The New York Times and presidential candidates seem to be singing off the same song sheet as they propose an alternative history for the United States. The newspaper has its “1619 Project” arguing that the nation didn’t begin with the Declaration in 1776 nor with the Constitution in 1787. It began in 1619 when the first slave arrived at the Jamestown settlement.

Beto O’Rourke has picked up on this theme proclaiming: “Racism in America is endemic. It is foundational. We can mark the creation of this country not at the Fourth of July, 1776, but August 20, 1619, when the first kidnapped African was brought to this country.” Both the newspaper along with progressive professors and politicians want to rewrite American history.

In a recent column, Mackubin Thomas Owens provides some background. Back in the 1930s, Antonio Gramsci (the father of cultural Marxism) proposed that socialists and communists subvert Western culture from the inside. One of my radio guests reminded us of one activist who described this project as a “long march through the institutions.”

That is exactly what has been done in the classrooms of America. Many students were required to read Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States. Owens refers to it as a “disgraceful work filled with outright falsehoods, omissions, distortions of evidence, logical fallacies, plagiarism, and dubious sources.”

We shouldn’t be surprised at what is being talked about today. The philosophy of the classroom in the last generation has become the philosophy of the media and government in this generation. Now, more than ever, we need to challenge this revisionist history being promoted in our culture.

It seems like wherever we turn, there is lots of bad news. That is one of the reasons that I focus part of my time on radio talking about stories and statistics that bring good news. Last week John Stossel wrote a column about “good news.” Much of it came from an article in Reason magazine that says we “live in world of reliable miracles.”

The author says that you can go to the Internet and see “clips of hearing-impaired people getting their cochlear implants turned on for the first time” and videos of “paraplegics walking with the help of adaptive prosthetics, infants getting their first pair of coke-bottle glasses, and more.”

John Stossel then explains why we get a steady diet of bad news. He explains that, “my profession wins clicks and ratings by hyping whatever makes us afraid. Reporters ignore gradual improvement, and sometimes, miracles.”

Of course the improvements are not only in technology. People live healthier and longer lives. Nearly all of us have access to vast troves of information on the Internet, even though hardly anyone had access to it three decades ago. And there are great improvements in our economy, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to many of our pundits and politicians.

For example, we are told that the middle class is disappearing. While that is true, it omits the most important part of that economic fact. The middle class is getting smaller because people are getting richer. We will attach a chart from Reason so you can see it for yourself. More and more Americans are moving out of the middle class to the upper class. And there are also fewer and fewer Americans in low-income households.

We don’t know the good news because the media surround us with bad news. And some of what the media presents as bad news is actually good news. That’s why I work to bring stories and statistics about good news on a regular basis.

The recent drone attack on the Saudi Arabian oil processing plant raises lots of questions that our leaders will need to answer quickly. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that it was an “act of war” by Iran. But confirming the link and deciding how to respond are just a few of the questions that need to be answered.

The drone attack temporarily cut off an estimated five percent of the world’s oil supply. President Trump authorized the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, if needed. It may not be needed since the US is much closer to energy independence than it was in the past.

Those of us who are older remember the oil shocks of the past. One of my co-hosts who was born in the 1980s only read about what it was like in the 1970s with the oil embargo and gas lines that sometimes spread for a mile. A few economists and government officials estimated that the US (and a few others) could absorb the loss of Saudi oil production. How different it is today compared to a few decades ago.

The drone attack on the oil plant also illustrated what could happen in this country to our energy grid or oil production facilities. The president did issue an executive order last March requiring federal agencies to assess and fix vulnerabilities of our electric grid. It might collapse by design (through a foreign adversary like Iran) or by accident (through naturally occurring phenomenon).

Frank Gaffney (Center for Security Policy) laments that some bureaucrats in the Deep State don’t seem very serious about studying and fixing the vulnerabilities of the US energy grid. One bureaucrat in Homeland Security argued the risk of electromagnetic pulses taking down the electric grid is “overestimated.”

Frank Gaffney has a ready response: “Want to bet? Think Saudi Arabia.” The drone attack should be a wake-up call to get moving on protecting our energy grid.

A year ago, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. When asked to design a wedding cake for a same sex couple, he declined. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission declared that he was in violation of the state’s antidiscrimination act.

Although the court ruled in his favor, a number of Christian attorneys and leaders lamented that it was a narrow ruling. The justices didn’t really address the larger issues of whether any business can refuse service on the basis of religious objection. But I have found that often Supreme Court decisions are like falling dominoes. Other judges get the message, and we can begin to see the dominoes falling in favor of religious liberty rather than against it.

Two examples illustrate this. Last month the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of two videographers in Minnesota who produce commercials, live events, and other videos. They declined to produce a wedding video for a same sex couple based on their religious beliefs.

Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of two Christian artists who design wedding invitations. They were asked to custom design material for a same-sex ceremony but declined. The court made it clear that their ruling was limited to the two artists and not a blanket exemption from the ordinance for all their other business operations.

But not every court seemed to have received the message. The Washington state Supreme Court ruled against florist Barronelle Stutzman who declined to provide a flower arrangement for a same sex ceremony. The US Supreme Court vacated the ruling and ordered the state Supreme Court to reconsider the case in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. But the state court’s judges came back with the same decision. So she now wants to US Supreme Court to reconsider her case.

I believe the justices need to take up her case and send a strong, clear message.

The US Senate has now confirmed more than 150 judicial nominees. Senator Lindsey Graham declared this was a “historic milestone.” These judges will be interpreting the Constitution according to it original intent for years to come.

Here is the breakdown. Judges confirmed to the lower federal courts exceed 105. And there are 43 circuit court nominees that have been confirmed. Add to that two Supreme Court justices, and you have a total of more than 150 confirmed judicial nominees. This number far exceeds what previous presidents have been able to do at this time in their first term.

Court flips are starting to take place. That is where a majority of liberal judges on a court have been replaced by a majority of conservative judges. The Third Circuit Court has already flipped. The Eleventh Circuit Court and the Second Circuit Court will probably flip soon.

One of the most dramatic changes is taking place in the Ninth Circuit Court (that covers the Western states). It has traditionally been a consistently liberal court, but recently handed the president a victory on his proposed asylum policy.

Here is an interesting set of statistics from a Washington Times article about judges. Most (53 of the 54) judges appointed by Democratic presidents ruled against the Trump administration’s various immigration policies. By contrast, half (15 out of 28) of Republican-appointed judges backed the administration and half (13 out of 28) did not. The report also found the most (90%) of the Democratic-appointed judges backed the Affordable Care Act, while most (80%) of the Republican-nominated judges found fault with the 2010 law.

I believe that a major campaign issue for 2020 will be who will appoint federal judges. Both sides of the political aisle can see what this president has done in the last few years.

Voters need to trust in the integrity of the ballot box. That is why we should enact common sense protections. But in our age of political division, even common sense provisions are sometimes attacked as an attempt at voter suppression and voter intimidation.

Fortunately, a new poll found that most Americans (at least in Texas) agree with attempts to ensure the integrity of the vote. The Dallas Morning News provided a summary of the Texas Lyceum poll and found that Republicans and Democrats alike expressed greater than 70 percent support for four key ideas.

First, require electronic voting machines to print a paper backup of the ballot. Both Republicans (82%) and Democrats (84%) supported this provision.

Second, automatically remove inaccurate and duplicate registrations from voter lists. In this case 86 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats agreed with this provision.

Third, require voters to show a government–issued photo identification to vote. This is where there was the biggest split. Nearly all (90%) Republicans approved of this measure, while only 72 percent of Democrats agreed. Fourth, there should be automatic updating of voter registrations when people move.

To its credit, the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News approved of each of these provisions. They understand that having a printed backup of voting machines makes sense. They also agree that we should be cleaning out bad registration information.

And they acknowledge that requiring a voter ID has been controversial. But they add that, “nearly everything in our lives requires an ID, from renting a home to cashing a paycheck to getting medical care.” All of us can add many other activities that require an ID. This should not be seen as a major burden.

This recent poll reminds us that most Americans endorse common sense provisions in order to have voter integrity.

A major campaign issue is health care. Americans are upset with the high cost of health care. Although many candidates are promoting the idea of “Medicare for All,” it won’t bring down costs and has little chance of passing anyway.

So we should be asking if are there any ways to bring down the cost of health care. Fortunately, we have some companies and states that have been able to do so with relatively minor changes. Sean Flynn describes two of these changes.

The first solution is price tags. As I have discussed in previous commentaries, it is nearly impossible for people with health insurance to find out what a procedure will cost and how much will be covered by insurance. When patients have been able to comparison shop (LASIK eye surgery is a good example), competition has brought the cost down.

A second solution is deductible security. This pairs an insurance policy that has an annual deductible with a health saving account (HSA) that is funded with an amount equal to the annual deductible. The sponsor could either be a private employer (like Whole Foods) or a government (like the state of Indiana).

Since the amount is equal to the annual deductible, participants have money to pay for out-of-pocket expenses. This not only provides them with cash to spend on medical expenses, but it also makes them participants. They get to keep unspent HSA balances. That causes them to be more conscious of costs and comparison shop.

The state of Indiana tracked health care spending and discovered that these behavioral changes resulted in 35 percent lower spending compared to traditional health insurance. And they also found that employees were still going in for mammograms, annual check ups, and other forms of preventative medicine at the same rate.

If we want to lower health care costs, here are two time-tested solutions that will achieve that.