With polls coming out nearly every day on nearly every topic, it is time to revisit the topic of national polling. The first issue is statistical accuracy. A typical three-day poll of 1000 people if proportioned among the 3000 counties can accurately represent American adults 19 out of 20 times within three percentage points.

The real question about the polls isn’t whether they are statistically accurate but whether they are polling the right people and whether the people being polled are giving honest answers. We should assume that reputable polling firms do conduct polls that accurately mirror race, sex, age, geography, and educational makeup.

This presents a problem in trying to determine if the right people in the right percentages have been polled. Too often, one party or group ends up being over sampled. And if the poll is about likely voters, there is the problem of accurately determining if someone being polled will actually be voting in the election.

But the biggest problem is that people being polled don’t always give honest answers. Two researchers at the University of Arkansas found that people with unpopular opinions feel “the need to conceal their true voting intentions.”

In the past, this was called the “Bradley effect.” Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was an African-American who lost in 1982 despite being ahead in the polls. Some voters told pollsters they were undecided or going to vote for Bradley because they didn’t want to say they weren’t voting for the black candidate.

But this has become an even bigger problem when you are polling people about Donald Trump. They have seen videos of what happens to person wearing a MAGA hat. They have heard about people being fired, abused, and doxed if they say they voted for or will vote for Trump.

This means that the polls may be even less reliable because voters are even less willing to reveal how they feel and how they will vote.

Two weeks ago the slaughter of Mormon women and children was a shocking reminder of the danger at our border and the terror so many Mexican citizens experience on a daily basis. Drug cartels control huge swatches of the Mexican countryside because government officials and law enforcement are out spent and out gunned.

The attack was originally attributed to a case of mistaken identity. But the reality is that it was probably a warning sent to Mexican officials that the drug gangs are in charge and will kill anyone at any time. Last year homicides reached a high of 36,000. Murders average 90 a day in Mexico.

Senator Ben Sasse summed it up best. “The hard truth is that Mexico is dangerously close to a failed state.” Although President Trump offered to help the Mexican president, we will see what can be done or will be done.

I was encouraged to see that the Wall Street Journal editors did place part of the blame on our country’s drug habit. Make no mistake; the drug cartels are the ones to blame. However, Americans who consume lots of illegal drugs provide the financial resources and the power to these cartels. We spend more than $150 billion on cocaine heroine, methamphetamine, and marijuana.

Most of these drugs come across the Mexican border. The money from those drug sales line the pockets of the drug cartels and are used to bribe law enforcement on both sides of the border.

Some of us remember when there was a war on drugs and remember the campaign to “just say no” to drugs. Today, that is a distant memory as more and more states try the failed experiment of legalizing drugs. Meanwhile, actors and other entertainers use drugs and promote the false message that drug use is a victim-less crime. Tell that to the Mormon family grieving the loss of their loved ones.

Common Core is the latest iteration of the failed idea that the federal government should control education.

Implementation of Common Core was begun under the Obama Administration. It was supposed to increase American students’ “college and career readiness.”

The results are in on Common Core and they’re pretty discouraging. Common Core was fully phased in three years ago and, for three years, scores on the nation’s broadest and most respected test have been dropping.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called the Nation’s Report Card, is given every other year to fourth and eighth graders in reading and math. This year, only one third of students in these two grades reached proficiency in math and reading.

The Federalist’s Joy Pullman points out that “on the same day the NAEP results were released, the college testing organization ACT released a report showing that
college preparedness in English and math is at seniors’ lowest levels in 15 years.”

The class of 2019, the first to have experienced all four years of high school under Common Core, is the worst prepared for college in 15 years.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy De Voss called the results “devastating.” “The country,” she says “is in a student achievement crisis, and …it has continued to worsen, especially for our most vulnerable students.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Lindsay Burke points out that taxpayers have poured nearly two trillion dollars into an effort to narrow “achievement gaps between children from low-income families and their more affluent peers.” The disparity in learning is about four years, a gap that hasn’t changed in nearly fifty years.

In misguided efforts to meet Common Core goals and diminish this achievement disparity, school systems across the country are abolishing honors classes, teaching how math has been used to oppress people, and admitting truant students into gifted schools.

When federal programs like Common Core seek to equalize educational achievement, they pull good districts down.

One of the many themes being debated during this campaign season is income inequality. It is often the justification used for raising taxes and redistributing income.

We can certainly have a moral debate about what we should do (if anything) about the differences in income, but first we need to have accurate numbers. Former Senator Phil Gramm and former commissioner John Early took the time of provide “The Truth About Income Inequality.”

Census Bureau data fails to account for two very important facts. First, the richest people in America pay almost two-thirds of federal, state, and local taxes. They conclude that “ignoring the earned income lost to taxes substantially overstates inequality.”

Second, the Census Bureau data also “fails to count $1.9 trillion in annual public transfer payments to American households.” That includes transfer payments from 95 federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. They conclude that by leaving out taxes and transfer payments it overstates inequality in America by more than 300 percent. “More than 80% of all taxes are paid by the top two quintiles, and more than 70% of all government transfer payment go to the bottom two quintiles.

They also conclude that the average bottom-quintile household receives $45,389 in government transfers and an additional $3,313 in private transfers from charitable and family sources. The means the average household in the bottom quintile has $50,901 in available resources.

This recent article is a reminder that before we have a debate about a topic like income inequality, we need to get the right economic facts on the table.

Strong families are the foundation of a strong nation. That is the obvious conclusion stated by everyone from Michael Novak to Senator Ben Sasse. In a short commentary on America, Senator Marco Rubio joins the discussion.

He laments that for many Americans, marriage now resembles a luxury good, which he says keeps stable families from forming in the first place. “An economic gap has emerged in which working-class Americans are marrying less and less frequently.” Charles Murray documented in his book, Coming Apart, the percentage of children living with both biological parents is changing (85 percent of affluent and just 30 percent of working-class families). Unfortunately, an unstable home often leads to worse outcomes later in life.

Childhood itself also changed. He reminds us of the decline of “cornerstone institutions” that once nurtured parents and children. This denied “a generation of children the opportunity to experience relationships built through strong community bonds.” The void has been filled with social media which “spawns online bullying, widespread mental health issues, and countless hours formerly spent socializing, now spent alone.”

Senator Rubio realizes that only a small part of the solution is political. He has worked to expand the federal per-child tax credit and proposed other policy changes. But he understands that these may only treat the symptoms, not the cure. He understands that “no law can force someone to be a better parent or spouse.”

The ultimate solutions to family decline will take place in the social, culture, and religious realm. That is why all of us must work to promote a pro-life, pro-family agenda and explain to those in our sphere of influence the importance of family.

In a normal world, it would be newsworthy when the Attorney General of the United States gives an impassioned speech about religious liberty. But we don’t live in that world, so the speech by William Barr has been either ignored or ridiculed.

When he spoke at Notre Dame, he reminded the audience that the founders of this country had a “supreme test as a free society.” That test was “whether the citizens in such a free society [could] maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.”

He explained that failing that test would lead to one of two tyrannies. The citizens would either embark on an “unbridled pursuit of personal appetites at the expensive of the common good” or else coercive government would step in “to impose restraints.”

He then asked what is the source of virtue and moral discipline that is necessary for self-government. That he answered is religion. “Religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to what is good.” This comes in various forms from formal religious training to informal rules (customs, traditions).

That is the problem. Religion is not popular in our secular culture. In fact, it is very unpopular. Those who defy the secular creed of our day, “risk a figurative burning at the stake—social, educational and professional ostracism and exclusion waged through lawsuits and savage media campaigns.”

Each week on my radio program we provide an ever-growing list of examples of hostility to religion, religious values, and religious people. Bakers, florists, printers, videographers, photographers, teachers, and students experience criticism and persecution.

Now more than ever we need to make the case for the positive value of religion in general and Christianity in particular in our society.

Should the federal government start pulling the tax-exempt status of religious organizations? Most Americans reject the idea, even though it was floated by a former presidential candidate who argued that “no reward, no benefit, no tax break” should be given to certain religious institutions. Unfortunately, you can find a significant number of other Americans who agree with his sentiment.

That is why I think it is time to have discussion about the tax-exemption given to churches and other non-profit organizations. Most Americans do not have any idea of why the government grants tax-exemption nor do they have much appreciation for the benefits these organizations provide for society.

For example, there are approximately 350,000 religious congregations in this country. The vast majority of them provide various community services for people in need in their communities. One survey estimated that the economic impact of faith is America is around $1.2 trillion. Another study concluded that religious organizations save government $2.67 trillion in social services.

A few years ago, I quoted an author who suggested that all Christian institutions go on strike. It was more of a thought experiment, but it once again illustrates the benefit society receives from Christian influence. Imagine if Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist hospitals closed down. Imagine the additional load on the public schools if all the Christian schools weren’t in operation. Imagine the strain on government if the soup kitchens and outreaches to the poor no longer existed. The list goes on and on.

The secular mindset these days is that religious institutions are getting a free ride because of tax-exemption. Actually, government and public funding are the ones benefiting from all the services provided by these institutions. That is why I think a discussion would be educational for our country.

David Limbaugh was on my radio program last week to talk about his new book, Guilty by Reason of Insanity. He devotes a significant portion of the book and a recent column to socialism. He is as concerned as I have been about the trend in young people to prefer socialism to capitalism.

A 2015 YouGov poll found that 43 percent of Americans between 18 and 29 years of age had a favorable opinion of socialism and preferred it to capitalism. A Pew poll that same year discovered that 69 percent of American youth under the age of 30 would be willing to vote for a socialist for president.

Meanwhile, a declining percentage of young people appreciate the benefits of the free market. A Gallup poll revealed that only 45 percent of Americans age 18 to 29 have a positive view of capitalism compared with 51 percent that have a positive view of socialism.

Essentially these young people are reflecting what they are taught in school. Some of the textbooks in high school offer nothing but a critical view of this country and of the free market system. The professors in college teach an even more critical view. David Limbaugh reminds us that one study found that 40 percent of colleges have no professors who are registered Republican. In the remaining 60 percent the ratio is still “absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation.”

If the facts could be fairly presented, these percentages would likely change. Socialism is responsible for so much death and economic destruction. By contrast, the free market has been able to lift more than a billion people around the world from extreme poverty and enhanced the lives of so many others in countries that allow economic freedom.

One of the reasons I have written books and booklets on this subject is to provide an alternative to what is taught in our classrooms and promoted in the media. We need to get accurate information to this generation.

The Little Sisters of the Poor, a religious order that serves the elderly and impoverished, were again in court recently asking for protection from the ObamaCare mandate that tells them they must include contraceptive coverage in their employee health plan.

In 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services plus the Labor and Treasury Departments adopted rules which allowed exceptions to ObamaCare’s mandate that employers provide birth control to their employees as part of their health coverage. Many Christian organizations need this religious exemption including the Little Sisters because they are — well — nuns.

A panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 against this exemption, with Judge J. Clifford Wallace writing for the majority that it “contradicts congressional intent.” Congressional intent — that nuns get free contraception?

Senior Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld pointed out in his dissent that “no affidavits have been submitted from any woman establishing any question in this case about whether they will be deprived of reproductive services or harmed in any way by the modification of the regulation.”

The Little Sisters have been to the Supreme Court about this before.

In 2016 the High Court granted the Little Sisters a religious exemption from ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate. One year later President Trump issued his executive order requiring that HHS exempt the Little Sisters and other religious ministries. Several states challenged this. The California attorney general argued that the exemption allows employers to use religious beliefs to discriminate against employees.

The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan wrote of the good religious charities like the Little Sisters do for the poor in society. She expressed her hope that this time the Supreme Court “will, please God, affirm, with clarity and force, the constitutional rights without which they cannot exist.”

“Oh Progressives,” she wrote, “if you only had the wisdom to back off, to see your demands as…the opposite of live and let live.”

When the Apostle Paul made it to Athens, he was able to present the Gospel to the Greek philosophers is a place known as the Areopagus. The Romans referred to it as “Mars Hill.” It was a place where various perspectives and ideas could be expressed. Today we call it the marketplace of ideas.

When I was in Athens, I was struck by the fact that you could see the Parthenon from this adjacent hill where Paul spoke to these philosophers about “the unknown God.” In fact, there is a plaque affixed to the hill that actually contains Paul’s message in Greek for all to read and consider.

Centuries later John Milton gave a famous speech known as the Areopagitica in which he defended the right of freedom of speech and expression. Those principles formed the basis for the modern justifications for free speech and marketplace where various views and ideas can be expressed. The name of his speech was derived from the place where the Apostle Paul preached as recorded in Acts 17.

Following Milton were philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill who expressed the idea of a marketplace of ideas. They understood that truth could only be discovered if all views and opinions were considered. They rejected the idea of censoring viewpoints and banning topics and perspectives from an open, robust discussion.

Why the brief history lesson? I do so to remind us of the long and valuable tradition of a marketplace of ideas. That is not what you find on very many college campuses today. That is not what you find in some the social media platforms. The academic elite and the media elite are quick to censor divergent views (especially Christian views). I think it is time for them to go back and learn the history of providing a marketplace of ideas.