No doubt you have heard the phrase: “campaign promises are like pie crust: they are made to be broken.” The first time something like that was uttered was back in the seventeen century. That shows you how skeptical people have been when a candidate makes a promise.

The Democratic presidential candidates are making some extreme promises. Jim Geraghty put together a short list from candidates he refers to as “charlatans.”

Bernie Sanders promises no one will ever have to pay for public colleges or universities every again. Elizabeth Warren promises that no American parents will pay more than seven percent of their income on childcare. Kamala Harris promises the average teacher will receive a $13,500-per-year raise. Peter Buttigieg will cut the number of incarcerated Americans by half without an increase in crime. Andrew Yang promises that every adult citizen will receive $1,000 per month from the government, forever. And don’t forget Joe Biden who promises that the government will cure cancer once he is elected.

Certainly these candidates must know they can’t deliver on these promises. There is the obvious question of cost. At a time when the federal government is $22 trillion in debt, where do they think we would get the money to pay for all of these outrageous promises?

But a more important question is: Where do these candidates get the confidence that the government could even deliver on some of these promises? All you need to do is look at the last few presidential administrations that have had scandals and ineffective responses to everything from terrorist attacks to the Great Recession. We have so-called “shovel-ready projects” that turned out not to be so shovel-ready. We have had veterans waiting for care because of incompetence at the VA. The Affordable Care Act certainly hasn’t made health care more affordable.

These candidates are making promises they can’t keep, and I suspect the voters know that.

Recently the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution that declares the National Rifle Association to be a domestic terrorist organization. I wasn’t too surprised since I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and often read about similar kinds of resolutions passed by the Berkeley City Council. But this resolution is worth a brief evaluation because it points to a dangerous trend.

First, the supervisors attempt to redefine terms according to their Leftist lexicon. Even people who strongly disagree with the NRA would have trouble calling it a domestic terrorist organization. Moreover, terrorism is not a viewpoint. It is a terrorist action. Jim Geraghty put it this way: “Being a member of Occupy Wall Street does not make you a terrorist. Being a member of Occupy Wall Street and planning to blow up a bridge makes you a terrorist.”

Second, the supervisors order city employees to “take every reasonable step to limit” business interactions with the NRA and its supporters. Does that apply to someone who has a contract with the city who is on the membership roll of the NRA? Jim Geraghty wonders if the city would cancel a contract with a company that provides orange traffic cones because someone in the company supported the NRA.

Third, the supervisors also urge “other cities to follow their example.” If they are successful in getting other cities to join them, the NRA might have difficulty scheduling conventions, workshops, or even gun safety seminars in various cities.

For those of you who hate the NRA and approve of these actions, let me ask you a question. How would you feel if a conservative city council or board of supervisors labeled the ACLU, CAIR, or a number of other groups this way? I think that illustrates what is wrong with this rash decision by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Earlier this month NFL Quarterback Drew Brees appeared in a short video to promote “Bring Your Bible to School Day.” It wouldn’t even be worth a mention in most years, but a number of critics slammed him for producing the video since it was a promo video for Focus on the Family.

Again, this wouldn’t be controversial even a few years ago. But the culture is different now. Social media lit up with claims that Focus on the Family is a “religious extremist group” and that this organization is “anti-LGBTQ.”

One even argued that it’s not right that Drew Brees (who he called a crazed fool) has an NFL job while Colin Kaepernick does not. Fortunately, another commentator suggested, “Brees has a job in the NFL because he’s one of the five best QBs to ever play the game and will own nearly every major record by the time he retires.”

As for the character of Drew Brees former NFL running back and former teammate Reggie Bush posted this response. “Anybody who doubts @drewbrees character or believes bogus headlines about this man does not know him period! He is a great father, husband, leader, and most of all true man of god!”

The drummed up “controversy” over the Drew Brees video is merely a minor scuffle in the larger culture war. But it once again reminds us that associating with any organization, including one of the status and positive reputation of Focus on the Family, will invite criticism.

Not so long ago, when a celebrity (either an actor, athlete, or civic leader) endorsed an event like “See You At the Pole” or “Bring Your Bible to School Day,” the positive publicity enhanced his or her reputation. This latest skirmish will certainly cause many to reconsider whether they want to promote an event that used to be widely praised.

While reading yet another article about gun violence and mass shootings, I came to the conclusion that most of us aren’t sure what is true and what is false. For the next few months, we will be talking about and debating policies. It’s worth getting the right facts on the table.

First, violent crime has been decreasing for decades. Although I read this in many places and even say it on radio with some regularity, many people wonder if it is true. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the homicide rate is about half what it was twenty years ago, and the gun-related death rate is also half.

Second, a large percentage of gun deaths in America are due to suicide. In previous commentaries, I have cited statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. Look at any year, and you will find that gun suicides outnumber gun homicides often by as much as two to one.

Third, you are unlikely to be a victim of a gun-related homicide unless you live in a dangerous area or are engaged in dangerous activity. John Malcolm describes four factors correlated with gun homicides. First is location. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, over half of all murders occur in 2 percent of the nation’s 3,142 counties. Second, those murders are often associated with gang activity and drug activity. Third, most of these victims are males between the ages of 15 and 34. And a fourth factor is a dangerous partner. One law journal found that people recently or currently involved with abusive partners were more likely to be victims of gun-related homicides.

These statistics, along with these four factors, remind us that gun violence is not uniform throughout the country nor is it likely to surface in safer neighborhoods or around safe, law-abiding people. That is why any solution to gun violence needs to focus on those areas and people who are indeed dangerous.

Two weeks ago, the largest study of the genetic basis of sexuality was published in Science. Based on the genomes of nearly 500,000 people, the research concluded that there was no “gay gene.” But you wouldn’t know that from some of the headlines.

Associated Press proclaimed that, “New Genetic Links to Same-Sex Sexuality Found in Huge Study.” The Washington Post was a little less spectacular: “There’s No One Gay Gene, but Genetics Are Linked to Same-Sex Behavior.” Fortunately, you had some headlines like NPR that offered a better perspective: “Search for Gay Genes Comes Up Short in Large New Study.”

The range of headlines illustrates how political and politically correct any discussion of same-sex attraction and homosexuality has become. Researchers and gay activists have been looking for this elusive “gay gene” for decades in order to affirm the cliché that homosexuals were “born that way.”

What the researchers found is that a few genes might have some influence on same-sex sexual behavior. To put that is perspective, consider that about 60 percent of height is influenced genetically, while the rest is due to environment. The research concludes that genetic influence of same-sex behavior is less than a third of that.

I also found it interesting that the researchers actually consulted with LGBTQ groups before publication in order to “clarify wording and highlight caveats.” I doubt that has ever been done for too many other scientific research studies.

Whenever I have spoken on the subject of homosexuality, I admit their may or may not be some biological predisposition but each of us as human beings are still responsible for our actions. The huge study appears to show just that.

Yesterday I talked about judicial rulings that could affect the outcome of the Electoral College vote in 2020. While those cases make their way through the courts, the attack on the Electoral College continues in the media. Perhaps you have seen the video produced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that shows lots of empty farmland. Her voice over proclaims with sarcasm: “Many votes here, you can see.”

She also argues that the Electoral College is racist and provides an advantage to white people. It is worth mentioning that many black leaders actually believe the Electoral College composition gives them a significant vote. Civil rights leader Vernon Jordan argued that if you take away the Electoral College, then the “importance of that black vote melts away. Blacks, instead of being crucial to victory in major states, simply become ten percent of the total electorate, with reduced impact.”

Tara Ross in her book, The Indispensible Electoral College: How the Founders’ Plan Saves Out Country from Mob Rule, provides lots of similar examples. The founders provided a system that today provides representation for groups as diverse as farmers, minorities, and small states.

Chris Hayes (MSNBC) used a different tactic. He imagined a city that is 60 percent black and 40 percent white. Then the city was divided into four voting districts that put the entire black population in one district. “A majority black city is run by a majority white government,” he concluded.

Let’s leave aside the fact that it is virtually impossible to find a city like that. The big problem with his argument is that is has nothing to do with the Electoral College. It does illustrate the problem of gerrymandering that is too often used by both parties to increase their representation in government.

None of these arguments against the Electoral College are going to change the reality that, for now, it is here to stay.

Some court cases can be complex and convoluted. This isn’t one of them. The Kentucky Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case of Blaine Adamson. He is the print shop owner who declined to print shirts with a message promoting the gay pride festival but offered to connect the local group to another printer.

Before you jump to the conclusion that his decision is merely another religious liberty versus LGBTQ issues, consider other shirts he declined to print or decided to print. For example, he declined to print a picture of Jesus on a bucket of chicken (even though it was requested by a local church). On the other hand, he has printed materials for a lesbian singer who has performed at a pride festival.

He has, so far, won at the trial court and the court of appeals. I hope the judges at the Kentucky Supreme Court agree with the other judges in the case that artists have the right (even the responsibility) to use their artistic talents that are in keeping with their viewpoint.

Someone else who understands the importance of this case is Kathy Trautvetter. She runs her own print shop in New Jersey. She is also a lesbian. Though she may agree with the LGBTQ message, she emphatically disagrees with forcing people to print a message against her conscience. She also believes we have the constitutional right to free speech. She doesn’t want to be put into a position of having to print a message on her shirts that she does not like.

I wish more people on either side of our cultural divide would think through the implications of forcing a person to create a message that violates their conscience. If government can force Blaine to violate his beliefs, it can force you to violate yours.

It is bad enough when a government agency, silences your speech. It is even worse when that government agency compels speech.

Michael Youssef warns us that we face both external threats and internal threats in his new book, The Hidden Enemy.

We face an external threat from radical, political Islam. That does not mean that all Muslims are an enemy. He has great concern and passion for Muslims having been born in Egypt. His broadcasts go into the Muslim countries to proclaim the gospel. But he is well away that radical Muslims want to sweep away Western civilization and impose a global caliphate.

The internal threat we face is from a coalition of secular humanists, atheists, and leftists. They want to erase America’s Judeo-Christian values and replace them with relativism, sexual liberation, and hedonism. He calls this the great American delusion. Humanists and atheists have been successful in transforming much of America through the media, the courts, the education system, and popular culture.

He also recognizes that these two groups could not be more opposed to each other in theory. But there is a surprising alliance that sometimes has developed between Muslims and humanists. His book provides some interesting details and examples of how this has happened in the past.

Near the end of the book he also talks about another enemy inside the church. He reminds us that some believers in the past opened the door to the false religion of Muhammad. He sees a similar accommodation today where church leaders in certain denominations are preaching a false gospel. It is another warning that we should stay true to the gospel and reject those who want to try to make the Bible relevant to society by making the church and the Bible conform to society.

This book will help you understand the threats we face and encourage you to take a bold stand for the gospel.